How would a naval battle look like between the US and Russia?

[ScienceRocks]

How would a naval battle look like between the US and Russia?

Second question would this be the biggest naval battle since world war II??? and thirdly could it happen?

 

[Billo_Really]

How would a naval battle look like between the US and Russia?

Second question would this be the biggest naval battle since world war II??? and thirdly could it happen?

Do you realize Russia has the nuclear capability to barbacue this country in less than a half hour?

 

[ScienceRocks]

How would a naval battle look like between the US and Russia?

Second question would this be the biggest naval battle since world war II??? and thirdly could it happen?

Do you realize Russia has the nuclear capability to barbacue this country in less than a half hour?

Yes,

I'm asking about a possible conventional naval battle....Would it be the biggest since wwII?

 

[squeeze berry]

Do you realize Russia has the nuclear capability to barbacue this country in less than a half hour?

if the french bring wine and some egg and cheese dish and the Brits bring some ale with some fish and chips......

 

[Two Thumbs]

The subs would be the edge in a big way.

Each can take out 4 ships w/o being touched.

well, maybe not the English sub

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7jR4PGoOOY]WAR STRATEGY: Real Life WW2 Battle Tactics of Midway - Axis vs. Allies - YouTube[/ame]

 

[aaronleland]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

 

[Meathead]

The Nimitz would make it a very short affair. Air cover for the Russian fleet would be a very difficult proposition.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

Russia won't let U.S. rule the sea. They'll probably use underwater nuclear blasts if necessary.

 

[squeeze berry]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

don't the Russians have an air base on the Black Sea?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If Putin makes Obama angry. Obama might sink his navy.

Putin would shit.

 

[Meathead]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

don't the Russians have an air base on the Black Sea?

Sure, but how much air cover can it possibly provide.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

If those new navy lasers can really fry drones, missiles and other improperly armored aircraft, we'll see a returned of heavily armored surface gunboats for the 21st century, all spread out so that they can't be destroyed simultaneously by an WMD.

 

[Old Rocks]

And after that, what?

 

[Gracie]

I hope this is never put to the test.

 

[aaronleland]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

don't the Russians have an air base on the Black Sea?

It wouldn't matter. A supercarrier is an air base on it's own. Each one can carry over 70 aircraft. Send two to the area, and we have twice the air superiority of Russia.

 

[squeeze berry]

You can safely judge a naval battle by a country's use of "supercarriers". The US currently has ten in use. If I remember correctly, Russia only has one. A naval battle with any country would mean nothing to the US.

don't the Russians have an air base on the Black Sea?

It wouldn't matter. A supercarrier is an air base on it's own. Each one can carry over 70 aircraft. Send two to the area, and we have twice the air superiority of Russia.

what if the carriers are sunk by subs?

you can't sink an air base

 

[aaronleland]

don't the Russians have an air base on the Black Sea?

It wouldn't matter. A supercarrier is an air base on it's own. Each one can carry over 70 aircraft. Send two to the area, and we have twice the air superiority of Russia.

what if the carriers are sunk by subs?

you can't sink an air base

You underestimate the power of the US Navy. There is a reason we have been the leading military superpower for the past few decades. Supercarriers are one of the reasons. Not to mention we do still have submarines of our own.

 

[squeeze berry]

It wouldn't matter. A supercarrier is an air base on it's own. Each one can carry over 70 aircraft. Send two to the area, and we have twice the air superiority of Russia.

what if the carriers are sunk by subs?

you can't sink an air base

You underestimate the power of the US Navy. There is a reason we have been the leading military superpower for the past few decades. Supercarriers are one of the reasons. Not to mention we do still have submarines of our own.

carriers are mobile but are limited in some respects.

The Russian air bases can have unlimited aircraft capability. Missile bases near Crimea too.

The US navy can bottle up the Bosporus, but the Russian navy is already out of the bottle.

I don't see superpowers going to war over this BTW

 

[orogenicman]

It's a non-sequitur, since neither the Russians nor the Americans are going to engage in said naval battle over anything we do in Syria. It ain't going to happen. End of story.