VMF vs. USN scenarios

[quote="Singular_Transform"]

KiloGolf wrote:


One Buk was enough to bring it down on the spot.

Typical statistical fallacy.

If Jon win the lottery with one ticket then anyone needs to buy one ticket to win the lottery?

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:



You assume that the Backfire can "see" them. It won't, not always anyway and not all of them.

Basic law of radar & radar detection: radar sensitivity decrease by the fourth power of distance, radar detection capability decrease by the square of distance.

If the aircraft can't see the ship, then the sip can't see the aircraft.

In an environment with fused AEW&C assets, UAVs and so on the gospel doctrine you've described is unnecessary and not practiced.
But the fact remains, Ticos and ABs can shoot down incoming Backfires before they can launch their Kitchens. Going around that is RuN's problem.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

I'm not saying the TU-22M3 will be flying across the ocean it was just an example. The Russian navy in event of war would enjoy the defensive role under the protection of land and air assets. If the USAF doesn't wreck Russian defenses the US navy wont be posing much of a threat in most scenarios, especially a black sea scenario.

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

I'm not saying the TU-22M3 will be flying across the ocean it was just an example. The Russian navy in event of war would enjoy the defensive role under the protection of land and air assets. If the USAF doesn't wreck Russian defenses the US navy wont be posing much of a threat in most scenarios, especially a black sea scenario.

The US can control much of Black Sea airspace by simply parking their Ticos and ABs in the North Aegean sea or Alexandretta bay. I don't think they'll bother sailing in there, in the same sense the Russians have no business in the Gulf of Mexico but they have no assets to project power there.

KiloGolf wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:



You assume that the Backfire can "see" them. It won't, not always anyway and not all of them.

Basic law of radar & radar detection: radar sensitivity decrease by the fourth power of distance, radar detection capability decrease by the square of distance.

If the aircraft can't see the ship, then the sip can't see the aircraft.

In an environment with fused AEW&C assets, UAVs and so on the gospel doctrine you've described is unnecessary and not practiced.
But the fact remains, Ticos and ABs can shoot down incoming Backfires before they can launch their Kitchens. Going around that is RuN's problem.

They can fly low while aproching and lunch the missiles like it was done by argentina air force. Their Exocet were lunched at 40-50 km. Aegis radar has a radar detection of 50-70 km for low flying missiles or Aircraft. You just need a Elect warefar Aircraft to found ship.

If Aegis radar can found a target at 600 km it means that the signal can be detected at 1200 km. A Tu-22 won't go all the way with it's radar turned on. It will tun it on for some minutes and if the tico detect the signal and then not because it's turned off, it will need to turn their radar on because they would think that the Tu-22 jas detected them and jas lunched missiles. So the Tico will be spoted 1200 km away by a Tu-142 or Il-38 and the formation of Tu-22 will go for it.
Ships are slow moving target and it's easier for an Attack Aircraft to be in attack position because it can play on it's altitude and the detection range of the ship's radar against him while it knows everything about the ship: the position which won't change a lot during the battle once detected so it's not a problem for the radar of a modern anti ship which can detect ships at 50 km, the missiles carried by the ship, it's radars ...

The range of anti air missiles is not the same when attacking an up coming target and a target going away from you, specialy a mach 2 Tu-22.

Isos wrote:[The range of anti air missiles is not the same when attacking an up coming target and a target going away from you, specialy a mach 2 Tu-22.

A Tu-22M3 that has already spent its fuel to carry those AS-4(s) (low level flight is even worse) cannot afford to fly much at Mach 2.0 all that while evading incoming too.

Concerning Tu-142 and Il-38s, well there's only a dozen of the former and maybe less than two dozens of the later. Their low numbers are hardly a threat to a large naval force. Operationally speaking these planes can't cover much surface on-patrol and will have their hands tied with detecting multiple NATO SSNs.

KiloGolf wrote:

Isos wrote:[The range of anti air missiles is not the same when attacking an up coming target and a target going away from you, specialy a mach 2 Tu-22.

A Tu-22M3 that has already spent its fuel to carry those AS-4(s) (low level flight is even worse) cannot afford to fly much at Mach 2.0 all that while evading incoming too.

Concerning Tu-142 and Il-38s, well there's only a dozen of the former and maybe less than two dozens of the later. Their low numbers are hardly a threat to a large naval force. Operationally speaking these planes can't cover much surface on-patrol and will have their hands tied with detecting multiple NATO SSNs.

Well, they won't send their Tu-22 in the middle of the atlantic. They will wait for the carrier group to come close. The small combat radius of the F-18 and F-35 is a limitation for the us navy's deployment. So the fuel issue is not an issue. The battle group will be a at maximum 700 km from the shore. So the Tu-22 will be assisted by the Su-34 and Su-24 equiped with Kh-35 and kh-31 and probably air lunched klub and brahmos NG (?). All this would be covered by Su-35 and pak fa + decoys. Plus don't forget Improved Kilo and future Kalina subs which can destroy an entire navy if used corectly.
Intercepting a formation like this is just impossible. They could lunch some Aircraft from their carrier but it's not a problem as they would probably try to stop the missiles so the formation could easily go to its bases, refuel and do it again.

The more they let them come close, the less they need Tu-142 and Il-28 and A-50/100 to patrol for them because the aera to cover is smaller. So the small number of patrol Aircraft is not a big issue neither.

Russia has less equipement than USSR had but they improved them in the way that the quality solves the issue of the quantity.

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

VladimirSahin wrote:TU-22 squadrons have standoff range with AS-4s.

But Tu-22M3 with such load-out has loiter time of potato and no in-flight refueling capability.
SM-3 and SM-6 can blast it out of the sky before it can deploy that glorified, obsolete silver bullet of a missile.

I'm not saying the TU-22M3 will be flying across the ocean it was just an example. The Russian navy in event of war would enjoy the defensive role under the protection of land and air assets. If the USAF doesn't wreck Russian defenses the US navy wont be posing much of a threat in most scenarios, especially a black sea scenario.

The US can control much of Black Sea airspace by simply parking their Ticos and ABs in the North Aegean sea or Alexandretta bay. I don't think they'll bother sailing in there, in the same sense the Russians have no business in the Gulf of Mexico but they have no assets to project power there.

Actually true, the SM-3 has like a 700 kilometer range. But that's a defensive operation, in event of war they need to destroy Russian forces. Parking in the North Aegean doesn't cut it. The USAF could launch stealth bombers and fighter jets through Bulgaria and Romania of course, but I doubt they wouldn't be found by the layered AD network.

Some people is dreaming here too much about big conventional battles.

For sure Russia will use some nuclear weapon to deal with US Aircraft Carrier fleets in war environment.

Russia sees those jets from very far. When they can fix their spaced based radar coverage for ocean going ships, they will see then afar too. But currently, more so for fighter jets than ships. Those air forces bases stationing American jets are targeted by both conventional and nuclear systems currently and would be trashed pretty hard one way or the other.

But I'm not going to lie, the AB are potent so there is a reason why Russia is designing new ASM.

eehnie wrote:Some people is dreaming here too much about big conventional battles.

For sure Russia will use some nuclear weapon to deal with US Aircraft Carrier fleets in war environment.

If conventional was out of fashion, the world's great powers wouldn't make an effort to develop such weapons anymore.

Maybe, but don't forget one of the prime reasons for all this new gear, profit.

Things would go nuclear quite quickly anyway. So yes, majority is profit and keeping people working/jobs.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

eehnie wrote:Some people is dreaming here too much about big conventional battles.

For sure Russia will use some nuclear weapon to deal with US Aircraft Carrier fleets in war environment.

If conventional was out of fashion, the world's great powers wouldn't make an effort to develop such weapons anymore.

In near peer confrontations they are definitely out of fashion, at least after first 10 minutes. After that comes the real thing.

Conventional stuff is there so the other guy doesn't start getting ideas.

But their real purpose is the good old colonial warfare. Let's not kid ourselves, there are colonial powers and those who want to become colonial powers.

Right.

miketheterrible wrote:Russia sees those jets from very far. When they can fix their spaced based radar coverage for ocean going ships, they will see then afar too. But currently, more so for fighter jets than ships. Those air forces bases stationing American jets are targeted by both conventional and nuclear systems currently and would be trashed pretty hard one way or the other.

But I'm not going to lie, the AB are potent so there is a reason why Russia is designing new ASM.

Not really.

Say you need 40 subsonic rocket to kill a 10k ship with advanced air defence, 16 supersonic or 3 hypersonic.


Means that for subsonic you need a 10k ship, for supersonic a 4k, and for hypersonic a 2k.

PapaDragon wrote:But their real purpose is the good old colonial warfare. Let's not kid ourselves, there are colonial powers and those who want to become colonial powers.

Russia is one of them too. Concerning the rest, it's just an opinion things will go nuclear fast. Just like any non-strategic engagement will stay conventional. Nuclear weapons were hardly game changers since Vietnam, they're solely a deterrent in the hands of the major powers and Israel.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:But their real purpose is the good old colonial warfare. Let's not kid ourselves, there are colonial powers and those who want to become colonial powers.

Russia is one of them too. Concerning the rest, it's just an opinion things will go nuclear fast. Just like any non-strategic engagement will stay conventional. Nuclear weapons were hardly game changers since Vietnam, they're solely a deterrent in the hands of the major powers and Israel.

Of course Russia is one of them, that's what I tried to say.

And deterrent ensures that major powers and Israel will never have conventional war between themselves.

I could see a conventional confrontation in the Baltics not going nuclear.

PapaDragon wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:........

I could see a conventional confrontation in the Baltics not going nuclear.

It's not impossible but only because politicians would want to put a stop on conventional war real fast so it would not go nuclear.

Till then half Latvia or Estonia could turn rather polite.

KiloGolf wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:But their real purpose is the good old colonial warfare. Let's not kid ourselves, there are colonial powers and those who want to become colonial powers.

Russia is one of them too. Concerning the rest, it's just an opinion things will go nuclear fast. Just like any non-strategic engagement will stay conventional. Nuclear weapons were hardly game changers since Vietnam, they're solely a deterrent in the hands of the major powers and Israel.

Russia now is like the US was around 1900.

Big with a lot of resoures, desn't need anything aboroad .

US now is like Britai was arouind the same time around 1900.

All important supply line spawn throught the planet, vulerable to anyone who command better weapons than a basket of tropical fruits.

SM-3 and SM-6 are more modern and sophisticated missiles, hardly a few are needed to bring down an entire flight of slow-movers like the Tu-22M3s

In what universe is a Mach 1.8 bomber a slow-mover?
SM-3 is a dedicated exo-atmospheric ABM missile so it would miss a Tu-22 by at least 100km (vertically!)  
SM-6 has a range about 450km vs Kh-22 500km range, sounds a lot like the Tu-22 can launch from safe range to me

Edit: more precisely: SM-6 460km, Kh-22 480km, its closer but still in favour of the Tu-22 with its 1976 missile.

The US wont even fly F-22s in airspace with S-400s I don't see this confrontational US you keep talking about that can whip Russias ass with just SAMs.

Where were they when Georgia was getting dumped on?

Why aren't they driving the Russian Carriers out of the Med to protect their head hunting terrorist buddies in Syria?

And if it wasn't going to go nuclear why were a quarter of all large missiles on Soviet ships armed with nuclear warheads... that is anti ship, anti sub, and anti aircraft missiles BTW...

SM-6 has a range about 450km vs Kh-22 500km range, sounds a lot like the Tu-22 can launch from safe range to me

Just as importantly the upgrades to the Tu-22M3M should make it rather more competitive including new models of missile like the Kh-32 (faster and longer range) and the improved models of Kh-15, and of course the near future introduction of the hypersonic Zircon...