Russian Navy vs Japanese Navy

In the "Russo-Japanese War" Russia was far superior to Japan, but it lost because of failed tactics.

The imperial Russian forces were not superior at all.

The real discussion is not the Kurile Islands!!! Real discussion is about saving russian interest in overseas. And you can't save your interests only with corvettes, for that Gorshkov class is needed. And additional Super Gorshkov is a must have! Lider class is not that important now. It should be no problem to build Super Gorshkov, if there are able to build Gorshkov-class.

Gorshkov class are still only Frigates that would lack the endurance to operate far from Russia for very long.

The thing is that a Frigate is just a bigger better armed longer endurance Corvette with bigger and better sensors and more weapons and the capacity to have everything... ie good sonar, good air defence, good attack missile capacity. A corvette on the other hand might not be able to carry a decent sonar and everything else and its smaller size means fewer weapons and shorter time on station.

A Destroyer is not just a scaled up Frigate... a Destroyer is something that has bigger sensors and more weapons but also has endurance and a helicopter and drones and rather better capacity all round than any frigate or corvette... it is not just a case of scaling up a frigate... it needs to be designed for the job.

In many ways a Cruiser is a scaled up Destroyer... more air defence capacity and both destroyers but more so Cruisers have the ability to defend the ships operating around them in addition to defending themselves... a bit like a Corvette is a Verba team... or Pine or even Kornet-EM unit with HE missiles and an anti drone role while a Frigate is a Panstir or TOR or OSA battery, while a Destroyer is S-350 and S-400 so it can start protecting other things as well as itself... yet when operating with a few TOR systems the improvement in defence is mutual, and the Cruiser is S-350, S-400, and S-500.

A good Navy has all those classes... the cold war Russian navy didn't have that many Frigates and had mostly corvettes and destroyers, but the new Frigates are like short range destroyers that are much more powerful than the old Krivaks.

Destroying airfields applies to both sides in a conflict. Wink An attacker would try to destroy russian airfields, using saturation attacks with CM and tactical missiles. So all problems for the opponent are your own problems. The real situation would be far more complex.

And yes, the F-35 is shit and lacks a few abilities! ;D

But the ability of Russia to hit Japanese or HATO airfields is enhanced by their pathetic lack of IADS, while the ability of Japan or HATO to hit Russian airfields or vehicle based anti ship missile batteries dotted around the coasts will be hampered by that rather capable IADS network they are operating under... enhanced by the air force aircraft also supporting and defending the Russian forces on Russian territory.

Azi wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The 4 Kirovs r already built & only 2 will be modernized & kept, as it'll cost more $ & time to build their replacements &/ smaller ships.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russian-navy-dismantling-two-massive-nuclear-battlecruisers-heres-why-53827

Those 2 will be enough for another 20+ years, no need for Leaders.

Only 2 cruisers for 3 fleets?

The thing is that those cruisers will be the centres of surface action groups... they would normally include air craft carriers, but that is confused by the fact that US carrier groups are carrier groups.... groups of ships there to support and protect the aircraft carriers... the aircraft carriers carry out the attacks and defend from enemy forces with air power. For the Russians the aircraft carrier is to protect the ships using their air power, so while a surface action group might be sent to a particular area it does not need to include an aircraft carrier though it should have a cruiser.

The Russians may upgrade two of their Kirov class cruisers, but they also have 3 or 4 Slava class cruisers they can upgrade too if they wish to have more cruisers. There is no rule on how many cruisers you can take if you need them...

Imagine a situation where a critical Russian agent... Putins best man is in trouble... black helos all around and men with three letters on their back all around his house in body armour holding sub machine guns... sending two Kirovs and two Slavas as well as the Kuznetsov and 3-4 Sovremmenies and 4-5 Udaloys would be the least they would do to rescue me.... ummm.. the agent...

What are you smocking ? They were far worse than Nazi back in the time. And today Abe is following the same path as the ones in charge in 1940. He is pushing towards a powerfull Japan and is changing the strategy from defence to attack.

He is more militaristic, but the Japanese really are not interested in a new war any time soon... they are like the Russians... their experience of war tells them it is not a great way to sort things out... brutal and destructive and not always conclusive.

Kurils are very important for the japanese. That's a huge ressource of food and they hve a self pride that will always push them to try to get the islands back.

The people in the north would certainly like to return to those fishing grounds I expect, but none of them will want to step in to the cage with the bear to get it back.

The 1990s would have been the best time... either by paying for it or taking by force... they did neither.

I wouldn't be surprise if they still think the lands of the former empire are still theirs.

Their textbooks still tell the children of Japan that they were the victims of WWII...

The article is not very good! They are writting about small ships able to strike targets with Tsirkon as far as 1000 km. That's true for sure. But the enemy will maybe have the option to strike at longer range. How? For example the combat radius of an F-35B or C onboard a carrier, part of a carrier battle group, is fully equipped with missiles and bombs less than 1000 km. But with refueling the range increase significant. So it's able to start F-35 from a carrier, refuel them in the air (via drones) and to launch an attack without being in the AD zone of a corvette. Only from a frigate on you can threaten the attacker to become the target himself. This what I mean with an umbrrella bigger ships span for smaller ships. So you can't compare navalized S-500 with Pantsir.

Tsirkon is a great weapon with nearly no defense against it...but you have to come within combat range. So it is the ultimate weapon for subs and can convert any destroyer or cruiser in a ultimate killer, able to destroy a whole carrier group. But a small ship with such a powerful weapon must have luck.

To defend Russian waters and to patrol Russian waters corvette with Zircon is ideal in terms of performance and cost and effectiveness.

They don't need a lot of power projection right now, but for the moment they have 4-5 cruisers and also other cold war types that can fill the role while they perfect Corvettes and Frigates and then start on Destroyers and Cruisers.

I'm not a fan of the Slavas! Back in time they were nice and they try to refurbish them now, but I doubt they would be so good in future. But yes, you are right...I forgot them. They are officially cruisers.

With angled launchers for UKSK launcher bins they should be reasonably useful...

Bombing with dumb bombs makes you go over air defence and an airspace full of enemy fighters. Cruise missiles suck at destroying a runway because they make a single hole. Only french have a dedicated cruise missile to destroy runways and it comes with submunitions. Iskander could come with submunition but doesn't have the range to do so.

Most Russian cruise missiles have cluster bomb options and cratering munitions are standard...

Kh-22 and 32 would be ideal as its warhead is 1,000kg.

I think the Kh-32s warhead is about 750 kg or 800 kg, but diving down at mach 5+ would make a hell of a mark on the ground either way...

Essentially it all boils down to...

IF Japan decided to take the Kurile islands by force they would need to mount a fairly large operation to take them.

This would involve lots of planning and preparation and of course require a significant number of soldiers and ships... so to hide this activity they would have to stage an exercise... and to be an effective disguise it would have to be an exercise landing.

The only place they could convincingly hold such an exercise might be along a beach on the northern island of Japan near Nemuro which is about 15 nautical miles from all the Kurill islands... but such an exercise will be monitored closely by the Russians including by military forces on the islands... and don't you think the military forces on those islands are armed and prepared to repel a landing force... wouldn't that just be an obvious equipment selection decision?

The defence force on the islands are not there to stop the invasion.... they are the trip flare that releases the hounds and when the radar is taken out and the radios stop working they will know it is an attack and they will be fully aware of the exercise force nearby and put two and two together... they don't need to invade Japan, what they need to do is fight off the invasion... sinking two or three ships should do the trick... fighter jets from the mainland would be overhead in 10-20 minutes and naval spetsnaz would probably be landed first from An-2s or Il-76s... or by sub... how much blood is Japan prepared to lose for these four rocks?

Just looking at the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia I don't think Tokyo would be attacked, but Japanese ships in port and aircraft on airfields would be fair game...

jhelb wrote:

Isos wrote:
They are not connected to Russian systems. The best they could do is use the radio. Networkcentric warfare is systems exchanging in real time btw themselves so that if your plane sees something then your ships see that too. In the best case they can use that for missike targeting.

How well evolved is the French Navy as far as network centric warfare is concerned?

French companies like THALES continue to buy data from U.S. For instance, in Scorpene submarines the  THALES-provided track table is interfaced to the US Naval Research Laboratory-developed display and analysis tool set, called SIMDIS.

With datalink a rafale can provide targeting data for aster missiles with the pilot doing nothing. Thales is the most evolved company in its field.

Most Russian cruise missiles have cluster bomb options and cratering munitions are standard...

Kh-22 and 32 would be ideal as its warhead is 1,000kg.


I think the Kh-32s warhead is about 750 kg or 800 kg, but diving down at mach 5+ would make a hell of a mark on the ground either way...

Unless you want to use ten of them to destroy a runway such missiles are not suited for destroying runways.

They make a big crater but compared to the lenght of runways it won't stop the jets taking off. Even if it makes a 50m hole in the ground. You have a video of a iskabder cruise missile hiting ground and the hole looks to be less than 50m in diameter.

Best missile for that is the french Apache that has anti runway submunitions designed to pentrate inside the ground and explode without needed 800kg of explosives.

Well with its tupolevs, Russia would have enough cruise missiles to destroy japanese airfields but a war with Japan wouldn't be as easy as some here expect it to be and they are a big threat for Russia.

You are right. The strikes can be conducted via subs. They can sneak silently near Japans cost and unleash a shitload of Kalibr strikes. Russia has a formidable fleet of subs, better than any peer in the region.

But they can't unleash endless Kalibrs....they must refill the launcher cells somewhere and fast. It would be nice to know if there is some calculation about this in the internet, about strike capabilities and chain of logistics of Russia in the far east region?! scratch

The answer is 0. They have no sub equiped with kalibr in the pacific. Japan has 20 subs, 11 of which of the newest class they designed with AIP which would fair much better in the costal area btw japan and russia than nuclear subs.

Japan has also almost 20 awacs.

I get it. But THALES continues to buy data for Scorpene class subs like track table interface from US.

Why hasn't France designed these systems themselves instead of relying on the U.S?

Because sometimes buying something that is not really important to have a production line for is better as you don't spend money on r&d and a factory for it. Modern stuff are expensive.

US buy lot of stuff from thales, their sonars for exemple.

Good move George... was thinking the same thing myself... thanks.

The russian military doctrine says that there will be NO NUCLEAR FIRST strike! NEVER! Nuclear Forces are only for retaliation, defending the homeland is task of conventional forcess. Conventional forces should be able to repel all attacks.

A country trying to seize Russian territory that amasses an enormous overwhelming force might warrant the threat of a (tactical) nuclear response.

I don't understand your wet dreams about the nuclear holocaust for a bit dirt, a few rocks and trees? All the bullshit about the aggressive russians who use nukes if you only watch them too long is propaganda bullshit and only to demonize Russia!!!

I agree, but I also think they are prepared to defend their territory and if they let Japan take the Kuriles... what is next... letting the Ukraine take back territory it claims to own... letting Finland take back land it thinks it should control... letting Georgia have another go at seizing South Ossetia... maybe Germany or Poland want Kaliningrad back...

If the conventional forces are not able to defend it, they lose it.

Then they really don't need tactical nuclear weapons then do they?

You are right if Wladiwostok or large parts of Siberia are threatend, but this will never ever happen! And be realistic please!

If they seriously want to take the Kurile islands then they will have to include attacks upon Vladivostok and airfields in the area...

That would justify freeing up tactical nukes as an option...

Poseidon would be an effective weapon to use against the East coast of Japan...

Unless you want to use ten of them to destroy a runway such missiles are not suited for destroying runways.

They would likely take out aircraft shelters and the tower and a couple of hits on the runway... without inflight refuelling tankers being able to take off and AWACS planes their ability to fight will be seriously reduced... ARM versions will take out major civilian and military radar...

Best missile for that is the french Apache that has anti runway submunitions designed to pentrate inside the ground and explode without needed 800kg of explosives.

Iskander can use a cluster munition warhead and that includes anti personel submunitions, anti armour submunitions and anti runway and cratering munitions or a mix... they can also load the same on their conventional cruise missiles like Kh-555 and Kh-101.

Well with its tupolevs, Russia would have enough cruise missiles to destroy japanese airfields but a war with Japan wouldn't be as easy as some here expect it to be and they are a big threat for Russia.

There would be serious losses on both sides and neither side would come out a "winner". The cost to Japan far outweighs any benefit they could possibly get from regaining control of those four islands...

Complete correct!!! In Germany we have a saying..."Better the sparrow in hand than the pigeon on the roof".

Our saying is a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush... meaning something you have is worth more than the promise of something better...

Gorshkov is a proven design and far more capable, than smaller corvettes.

True, but Russia needs two or three dozen Corvettes and probably two dozen Frigates.... while they are making those minor upgrades to cold war destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carrier can keep them working while those corvettes and frigates are built and some helicopter carriers and landing ships are laid down and built and of course a whole range of stores and support and supply ships that they will be needing can also be ordered and built... so by 2025 they can start laying down a destroyer for testing... there is no great rush and it is important to get this right.

They should build more of them and go for the next step, the Super Gorshkov. Super Gorshkov is in the role of a destroyer and most powerful navies of the world have destroyers and don't go for cruisers, that's complete okay. Only 2 countries of the world really operates cruisers, USA and Russia. That would mean a balanced navy. But they postponed not only Lider, they even postponed Super Gorshkov and that's abig mistake from my point of view. It is better not to discuss carriers, that is another construction site! ;D

If they are going to build destroyers now then upgrades on cold war destroyers and cruisers don't make sense... they have clearly realised that a scaled up frigate... which is what the super gorshkov is essentially, might not be the best from scratch design for a destroyer and I agree with that...

Personally I would like to see a proper destroyer designed and built in the 12-14K ton weight range with nuclear propulsion so if it needs to get some where it can go at full speed all the way. Eventually a scaled up version in the 18-20K ton weight range could be their new Cruiser... which would basically be a destroyer but with bigger sensors and lots more weapons... their cruiser does not need to be a 25K ton... Kirov copy... that would be like demanding planes of WWII be biplanes...

IADS of USA, NATO and Japan is weak for sure! They focused on defense against ICBM and a few other variants of strategic missiles, but forgot nearly everything else in their doctrine. Don't ask me why!

They expect to be the attackers, and they expect their air power to dominate... WWIII was only ever going to be fought with long range US bombers and long range missiles...

Western countries are still a formidable threat, because of their gigantic arsenal of conventional weapons. Saturation attacks are a real threat. They could not overwhelm a complete line of defense, but could cut big holes in it using for their advantage. Nobody is invincible and you should always be prepared and on guard.

Well, when everyone is motivated to join in they can be formidable, but as seen during Desert Storm there is a variety of quality there too... in terms of an arsenal of conventional weapons.... everyone has fighter planes, but few have JSTARS or AWACS or even just decent transport capacity... when HATO calls a party it is important to check who will be there... if there are no French or American forces there expect a BYO with shit finger food you can't quite identify and a guy with a banjo for entertainment... I mean after firing 103 cruise missiles at Syria they were running low... and they were aimed at about four targets... what does that indicate would be needed for an attack on the Russian Pacific Fleet and nearby air bases and anti ship batteries?

But they can't unleash endless Kalibrs....they must refill the launcher cells somewhere and fast. It would be nice to know if there is some calculation about this in the internet, about strike capabilities and chain of logistics of Russia in the far east region?

Sub tender ships can reload missiles at sea...

That frigates are "glorified" corvettes does not make an argument about not putting all the eggs into one basket. Endurance
at Sea is another obscure aspect since the fleet has support ships and we are not talking about nuclear submarines.

Frigates are more potent better endurance longer ranged Corvettes, that cost more to buy and operate but offer capabilities that make them worth it.

Playing chess you are only allowed 16 pieces... do you think you would be better off if you could trade your non pawn pieces for 1.5 pawns each... so give up 7 pieces for 11 extra pawns... so you get 20 pieces... a King and 19 pawns... would certainly make defence simpler because any pawns you send out will be cleaned up pretty quick... and of course a pawn with a machine gun and a rocket launcher is going to make a bit of a difference considering Russian pawns are better than most western corvettes in terms of armament and systems...

Two small nuclear powered "liders" is better than one big one. WWII showed that all the big ships aside from carriers were
sitting ducks that could be taken out by aviation. In the missile era it is even worse. So focus on ship groups and
anti-missile measures makes more sense than oversized tubs.

That is the problem I have with the Super Gorshkov.... it wont be big enough at 8K ton to require a nuke power plant, so while it is better armed and equipped than the standard Gorshkov, I don't think it is a good design for an actual destroyer for Russia.

I am not suggesting their new destroyers need to be Kirovs and their new cruisers need to be 40k ton battleships, but I think developing a powerful but small and efficient NPP for destroyers and cruisers and aircraft carriers... including helicopter carriers would make Russian surface groups more mobile and independent.

I do not fine the argument about size being super-important for sensors to be credible. Networking sensors from multiple
ships is actually better than one set of slightly bigger sensors on a single super-ship.

They will be doing that too, but most of the time every ship in the fleet wont be broadcasting their position by continuously scanning with radar...

I get it. But THALES continues to buy data for Scorpene class subs like track table interface from US.

Why hasn't France designed these systems themselves instead of relying on the U.S?

Clearly cheaper to do they way they are doing. Just like the expensive and complex titanium bits in their jet engines they get made in the US... they probably don't need enough to justify the cost of doing it themselves.

Of course a few sanctions from the US could easily change that. Remember recently they asked Russia to replace that US company in making their bits to try to convince them to not drop their engines and start making their own. If they had two Mistrals in service right now that could have been a good option for Russia, but...

The answer is 0. They have no sub equiped with kalibr in the pacific. Japan has 20 subs, 11 of which of the newest class they designed with AIP which would fair much better in the costal area btw japan and russia than nuclear subs.

Russia has sea bed located sonar arrays and some pretty good anti sub capability, but to sink landing ships and other ships supporting a landing means subs wont play an enormous role... at least to start with.

Japan has also almost 20 awacs.

Lots of MiG-31s based in that area too...

Isos wrote:

What pray tell, will Japan do exactly about all their bases, naval ports, airfields, HQs being in range of thousands of Russian cruise missiles?
And how many Russian equivalents will be in range or in danger from anything Japan has?

Where would those thousands missiles come from ? They have no UKSK in the pacific fleet. The only thing they could use is the long range bombers and kh101 but they don't have thousabds of them and their destroyers have very good AD systems.

Well the Pacific Fleet has 3 Oscar II's in active service. Of these two are modernized to carry x72 Onyxs and Kalibrs each instead of the x24 Granit missiles; with the remaining one stuck with Granits; although it can potentially launch Kalibrs through its torpedo tubes.
x24 Granits can still give an enemy naval force hell though if the Oscar II gets to within range. The Onyx missiles can be used against sea or land targets, while for the Kalibrs it depends on their modification.
They're all based near Petropavlovsk-Kamchatkskiy, so quite far away from Japanese range, and the 2 modernized ones would be able to hit many targets from the north Pacific, and then reload at port unless the Japs take the port out.
The same pretty much goes for the single Akula class in service and based at the same location. It can be loaded up with up to x28 Kalibr missiles per outing.

The naval base is about 1500-1600km from Hokkaido; so if the F-35's range is 1000km and the JSM's max-range is about 550km; there's no guarantee that the Japanese F-35s can even target it. They could if they use fuel drop tanks, but that would compromise it's stealth.
I know they've ordered JASSM-ERs, so a safer bet would be to use F-2s and F-15Js to attack the base with that missile, or from the sea. The Japs really don't have 100 F-35s in service as of yet; less than 2 dozen in fact.
In any case there's a S-400 regiment there, Pantsir-S1s and MiG-31s.

Then there's the diesel-sub regiment in Vladivostok; 6 Kilos and 1 Improved Kilo. They should all be capable of launching Kalibrs from their torpedo tubes, they'll probably have up to 4 each. They'll be busy of course with intercepting the Japanese Navy.
Near Vladivostok in Ussuriysk you have an Iskander regiment; again capable of targetting Japan. The Primorye region is heavily defended; a couple S-400 regiments, Pantsir-S1s/S2s, Su-35s/MiG-31s/Su-30s/Su-27s plus Bastion-Ps and Bals.

The Kuril islands themselves are defended by various Bastion-Ps, Bals and other older anti-ship launchers, as well as Tor-M2Us and Su-35s. I should mention of course that the Bastion-Ps based on both the Kuriles and in Vladivostok are capable of attacking land targets in Japan as well.

Then there are a lot of Su-34s in the Khabarovsk region as well, they have a tactical bomber regiment there. They can launch Kh-55s at Japan and also Kh-59s if they come close enough.

You also have an Iskander regiment in Birobidzhan equipped with the R-500; again it should be capable of reaching Japan. If the Iskander regiment in Chita is also equipped with the R-500, then it can reach as well.

So quite a lot actually just in the Pacific, without getting into strategic and theatre aviation; which can launch, rearm and launch again at will, or without figuring in the Northern Fleet that can also redeploy assets.

F35 has 1000+km combat range and AMRAAM with 100+km range against straight flying bombers. Kh-22 has a range of less than 1000km.

Do the maths.

I am doing the maths. The Tu-22M3s are more likely to be armed with Kh-32s by now, and perhaps Kinzhals. That's still a range of about 1000km. But the F-35s would have to penetrate pretty far into Russian airspace to intercept them, and that's just not very likely without first attaining air superiority and disabling all the air-defenses, fighters and interceptors - even more unlikely.

Well that's different. Turkey is in range of western/southern military district that are in range to invade them if they touch Hmeimim. The base in Syria can be overwhelmed easily by Turkey and they have the support of NATO.

Russia clearly said it will use nuks against an overwhelming force.

And Japan is right next to Russia as well. There is no chance of Russia effectively invading Japan, but at least that was a plausibility back in the Cold War. These days the calculation has suddenly swung enough around for Japan to invade Russia, even a small part of it?
No, it doesn't have the forces to do so and avoid getting pummeled and forced to withdraw, and this without nukes (which yes they might use in a strategy of nuclear de-escelation if they decide to just spare themselves the trouble of doing it conventionally).

The Japanese military is geared pretty much to defence. Their amphibious capabilities are for landings on their own islands. Their airpower is for defense of their own airspace. They have a lot of destroyers, but these are mostly geared for air-defence and anti-submarine warfare; again protecting and dominating their own waters.
They can invade the Kuriles successfully; they just won't be able to hold it against a country like Russia because they have little offensive capabilities against it, and Russia has tons of offensive capability against Japan.

That would be easy to develop for them while they develop the nuclear warheads.

Easy how?

They don't have any experience with nuclear submarines, or strategic bombers, or ballistic missiles at all.
It takes decades to build up these capabilities from scratch. And their existing technological base can't much shorten it. Even for Mozart it took 10 years of practicing and learning music to become a master of it. His genius only ensured that he could start earlier in life (6-7 years old), but it didn't shorten the time taken to reach his potential.

What they can do is develop nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, but those will have range limitations and the platforms on which they're based (multirole fighters) are not as survivable. It would also ensure that they'll get nuked just to be sure.

Isos wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Russian aircraft can and have been proven to take off and land on unprepared airfields, something American jets cant.  F-2 which is Japans F-16 is a hog and a problem in itself.  It wouldn't survive taking off or landing on destroyed airfields.  Japanese airfields are very limited and in close proximity due to geography.  Russian airfields are far more spread out and can survive heavy bombardment as proven in Syria where Syrian airfields built during soviet times survived as well from heavy CM strikes.

What do you mean by destroyed ? Runways are generally 2km or more long and 50m or more wide. A f-16 needs 600-700m to take off and just 7 or so meters wide space. The debris can be cleaned fast if it gets bombed and holes can be repaired quickly too.

Bombing with dumb bombs makes you go over air defence and an airspace full of enemy fighters. Cruise missiles suck at destroying a runway because they make a single hole. Only french have a dedicated cruise missile to destroy runways and it comes with submunitions. Iskander could come with submunition but doesn't have the range to do so.

Russia doesn't have that much bases either in the east:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Soviet_Air_Force_bases

Who says Russia will waste its time churning up concrete?

There are plenty more valuable things to hit on an airbase. Such as pilot barracks, air control towers, fuel/missile storage and of course the planes themselves.

Does anyone throw cruise missiles at roads? Or do they target bridges, supply bases and the actual trucks that use them?

miketheterrible wrote:Well, if only the Japanese honeys would come my way then.

Hey, I don't like cheating. I will tell your wife about that .