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

[chikenwing]

I hate to throw a spanner in the works of this particular party, but when was the last time the U.S. Navy fought another navy in a surface engagement? It was probably 70-odd years ago, and the times have changed a lot since then.

In all probabilty it won't progress beyond very loud sabre rattling, and if the two did engage the U.S. would emerge victorious. But what the patriotic chest-thumping is distracting the more enthusiastic drum-beaters from is that this isn't a developing nation we're talking about, which is what the majority of America's enemies since WWII have consisted of. True, the Russians can only field comparative antiques, but they could still inflict serious and lasting damage. And a lot of it.

It would be no contest. The space-based satellites would see a ship over the horizon that doesn't even know it's being painted and a few seconds later, it's destoryed by a missile fired from a ship that it never saw, never heard, never even knew it was there.

What is it with the fear of the Russians all of the sudden? If DS1 taught us anything, their technology was 3 generations behind us. Do you think somehow their navy was 3 generations ahead of their mobile coffins... errr... I mean their tanks they gave Saddam?

I doubt it will go there but there is no contest in this case.

What you think the Russian's don't have the same capabilities??they do and are much more capable of pulling the trigger than we are,they don't live by PC bull shit.

 

[Borillar]

A large naval battle between the US and Russia in the Med is highly unlikely. If it did happen, it would probably quickly escalate to a full scale nuclear exchange. In a hypothetical conventional Navy vs Navy battle, the US would clean up. In reality though, Russia and its allies would add air and ground forces against the US, NATO, and regional allies like Israel. When the smoke clears, who knows what would be left standing? One thing for sure, new Russian and US Navy ships would have to be fitted with glass bottoms so they could look at all the old Russian and US Navy ships.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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

 

[Hum Dinger]

This whole discussion may be entertaining, but the reality is that U.S. naval forces out class Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean by far. There would be no contest.

The Russian 'Naval base' in Syria is not a base, it's a maintenance facility - it would not be a factor in any conflict

Finally, Russian air power would have to fly over Turkey and/or Greece, both NATO members, and are well armed to shoot down any Russian military aircraft that violated their air space.

The Russians are boxed in and they know it.

The REAL question is whether the Russian would strike at us in some other theater....like in Europe....

I doubt it....

 

[candycorn]

I hate to throw a spanner in the works of this particular party, but when was the last time the U.S. Navy fought another navy in a surface engagement? It was probably 70-odd years ago, and the times have changed a lot since then.

In all probabilty it won't progress beyond very loud sabre rattling, and if the two did engage the U.S. would emerge victorious. But what the patriotic chest-thumping is distracting the more enthusiastic drum-beaters from is that this isn't a developing nation we're talking about, which is what the majority of America's enemies since WWII have consisted of. True, the Russians can only field comparative antiques, but they could still inflict serious and lasting damage. And a lot of it.

It would be no contest. The space-based satellites would see a ship over the horizon that doesn't even know it's being painted and a few seconds later, it's destoryed by a missile fired from a ship that it never saw, never heard, never even knew it was there.

What is it with the fear of the Russians all of the sudden? If DS1 taught us anything, their technology was 3 generations behind us. Do you think somehow their navy was 3 generations ahead of their mobile coffins... errr... I mean their tanks they gave Saddam?

I doubt it will go there but there is no contest in this case.

What you think the Russian's don't have the same capabilities??they do and are much more capable of pulling the trigger than we are,they don't live by PC bull shit.

I doubt they could field anything close to what we could.

But having great reach doesn't always mean you have great grasp. Still another reason that we should walk away from this madness. Not because of what might happen to us but because of what we might have to do.

Again, there is no "win" for us but there isn't a "loss" for us in the region either in the macro. All of this silliness about the rooskies being able to wipe entire fleets of our ships off the ocean is hogwash.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

This whole discussion may be entertaining, but the reality is that U.S. naval forces out class Russian naval forces in the Mediterranean by far. There would be no contest.

The Russian 'Naval base' in Syria is not a base, it's a maintenance facility - it would not be a factor in any conflict

Finally, Russian air power would have to fly over Turkey and/or Greece, both NATO members, and are well armed to shoot down any Russian military aircraft that violated their air space.

The Russians are boxed in and they know it.

The REAL question is whether the Russian would strike at us in some other theater....like in Europe....

I doubt it....

They could easily retake every last one of their former satellites, once there is a single battle with Russia and claim a strategic need. They won't be boxed in then.

Edit: Except East Germany, of course.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

I am assuming that this is a hypothetical situation. And therefore, I am going to treat it like a hypothetical situation.

There would be several very important factors that would work into the situation:
1. Time allowed BEFORE the hostilities.
2. Location of the hostilities.
3. Whether allied navies were involved in the hostilities.
4. Length of the hostilities.
5. Limitations on the confrontation (nuclear, conventional only)

Time is important because although we have NINE carriers at the moment (soon to be ten - USS Gerald Ford is being finished - USS Enterprise retired), two of them are out of commission being refitted and refueled (usually several years in dry dock), three of them are in port (their crews on shore leave), which only leave four of them on active duty in different parts of the world. Two in the area of the Persian Gulf, one in the Med and one in the Pacific. The simple fact is that each carrier does NOT have its own full compliment of crew also limits the number in the field. Because of personnel cuts, when one carrier comes into port, personnel will be 'shared' with other carriers leaving. Additionally, air wings assigned to different carriers can 'share' aircraft assets based upon which carrier is on active duty or not.

If the hostilities were within 500 miles of the Russian coast, then we would be at an extreme disadvantage. Although severly depleted since the end of the cold war, the Russians have and are trying to rebuild their strategic bomber capabilities. Backfires, Bears and others are similar to our B-52's and B-1's. They are very effective aircraft, although they do NOT have the in-flight refueling capability that we do, so the range from their bases is very important. Additionally, the Russians do have access to a number of very highly advanced and accurate anti-ship missles that are launced by these aircraft. The tactics developed by the Russians in the cold war were to 'flood' the skies with missles. Some would be shot down, but some would find their mark. Even with our Aegis cruisers assigned to Carrier battle groups (which the Democrats have done everything to scrap) it is assured that a number would get through to be engaged by the CIWS (close in weapons system - gattling guns). We WOULD lose at least one carrier. Guaranteed.

As for submarines, those who discount the Russians are completely misinformed at best, but probably completely ignorant. We have excellent assets in our Los Angeles, SeaWolf and Virginia class attack submarines. Also, our anti-submarine warfare techniques are second to none. But again, we are not perfect. Picket frigates and destroyers, which have been retired at an alarming rate (thanks to Barry and his Democrat cronies), give vulnerability to the capital ships, carriers and cruisers. The SeaWolf would have assured supremecy, but again thanks to the Democrats, they killed the program in favor of a smaller, less capable Virginia class.

If allied navies were not involved in the engagement, we would be at a disadvantage again. The British and French navies are included in MOST engagement scenarios. Both have excellent frigates, destroyers and missle cruisers which would NOT be available for additional battle group coverage.

If the action goes nuclear, then no one really wins. In a conventional fight, then the first four variables take on even higher importance. Winner? Given a longer fight in the middle of the pacific or closer to the US, we do. A short skirmish close to the Russian coast, I would bet on the Russians.

P.S. I read where someone said the Russian tanks were obviously of less quality due to how they performed in the middle east against our M1-A2's. This meant that Russian weapons were crap. Can anyone be so STUPID? The premier Russian tank is the T-92 which is on par with our M1-A2's. We fought T-72's given to Saddam, which was 70's technology.

Really, if you're going to comment, then have a small amount of intelligence regarding the subject. Quit listening to party propaganda.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Why aren't tactical nuclear strikes be included? Once they start, they become a fact of life and just another thing to survive amongst the devastation of a world war.

 

[Edgetho]

I think you meant the T-95.

And Saddam had an awful lot of T54/55s that were outdated shortly after they were developed.

Good post. Nice to see somebody in here has a clue

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

we have the best sub fleet in the world. russian subs are things we followed around for weeks w/o being detected.

The Super Carriers get all the props, but the tonnage would be dominated by the subs

 

[Two Thumbs]

If a battle between Russian and US Naval Forces were to break out in the area, Russia could sink our entire fleet, Carriers and all, in a matter of minutes if they were prepared for it.

I present to you, the Tupolev Tu-22 Backfire Bomber --

Which can travel at around 1,200 MPH at altitude. Ain't gonna hit it until it's too late.

Russia has somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 of them.

Each one can carry 3 of these --

Called the "Kitchen" missile. And it can take a Super Carrier like Grant took Richmond. Almost 13,000lbs of Hell. It can be launched from 300 Miles away and travels at Mach 4.6 -- Virtually incapable of being stopped.

The Backfire can also carry (separately) six of these --

Called the 'Kickback' it climbs to an altitude of 40,000 feet and dives on its target at speeds exceeding Mach five. The fastest air-launcehd missile in the world.

The Backfire can also carry the Moskit, aka; Sunburn Missile. Which causes Naval Commanders everywhere to shit their pants.

Look it up.

It would take the monumental stupidity of a stupid motherfucker like the Stuttering Clusterfuck to piss the Russians off so close to their own backyard.

If he goes over there running his stupid fucking mouth and pushing the Russians around, we really could see WWIII.

If you're gonna take on the Russians, you hit them HARD and you do NOT play with them. Otherwise........ Bad news.

Only an idiot of inestimable magnitude would underestimate Russian Military Power and their willingness to use it.

They would wipe our Military presence from the face of the Earth in that area -- Quick. If they're in the mood.

russia also has 20 times the subs we have.

Take 1/2 of what we have, that's how many of theirs function. 1/2 that number and that's how many can be crewed

 

[Jarlaxle]

I hate to throw a spanner in the works of this particular party, but when was the last time the U.S. Navy fought another navy in a surface engagement? It was probably 70-odd years ago, and the times have changed a lot since then.

In all probabilty it won't progress beyond very loud sabre rattling, and if the two did engage the U.S. would emerge victorious. But what the patriotic chest-thumping is distracting the more enthusiastic drum-beaters from is that this isn't a developing nation we're talking about, which is what the majority of America's enemies since WWII have consisted of. True, the Russians can only field comparative antiques, but they could still inflict serious and lasting damage. And a lot of it.

It would be no contest. The space-based satellites would see a ship over the horizon that doesn't even know it's being painted and a few seconds later, it's destoryed by a missile fired from a ship that it never saw, never heard, never even knew it was there.

What is it with the fear of the Russians all of the sudden? If DS1 taught us anything, their technology was 3 generations behind us. Do you think somehow their navy was 3 generations ahead of their mobile coffins... errr... I mean their tanks they gave Saddam?

I doubt it will go there but there is no contest in this case.

Not to mention: the AS-4 (Kh-22) is OLD! It's a mid-60's design. Oh, yeah: it has not been in service with the Russian military since 2007! The Backfire is a 70's design.

Also note: each carrier group includes two Ticonderoga or Bunker Hill-class AEGIS ships (each carrying 100+ Standard-II SAM's), the carrier itself carries SAM's, the entire screen is made up of guided missile destroyers...and that's not even mentioning the CVBG's formidable ECM systems!

 

[Rozman]

As long as we have Maverick and Goose being launched off our carriers I am good to go.
I just wonder how our Navy will perform now that gays are out there in full force.
I feel this needs to be considered.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rozman, I imagine our folks will be hip and thigh as they smite the heathen.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

If a battle between Russian and US Naval Forces were to break out in the area, Russia could sink our entire fleet, Carriers and all, in a matter of minutes if they were prepared for it.

I present to you, the Tupolev Tu-22 Backfire Bomber --

Which can travel at around 1,200 MPH at altitude. Ain't gonna hit it until it's too late.

Russia has somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 of them.

Each one can carry 3 of these --

Called the "Kitchen" missile. And it can take a Super Carrier like Grant took Richmond. Almost 13,000lbs of Hell. It can be launched from 300 Miles away and travels at Mach 4.6 -- Virtually incapable of being stopped.

The Backfire can also carry (separately) six of these --

Called the 'Kickback' it climbs to an altitude of 40,000 feet and dives on its target at speeds exceeding Mach five. The fastest air-launcehd missile in the world.

The Backfire can also carry the Moskit, aka; Sunburn Missile. Which causes Naval Commanders everywhere to shit their pants.

Look it up.

It would take the monumental stupidity of a stupid motherfucker like the Stuttering Clusterfuck to piss the Russians off so close to their own backyard.

If he goes over there running his stupid fucking mouth and pushing the Russians around, we really could see WWIII.

If you're gonna take on the Russians, you hit them HARD and you do NOT play with them. Otherwise........ Bad news.

Only an idiot of inestimable magnitude would underestimate Russian Military Power and their willingness to use it.

They would wipe our Military presence from the face of the Earth in that area -- Quick. If they're in the mood.

russia also has 20 times the subs we have.

Take 1/2 of what we have, that's how many of theirs function. 1/2 that number and that's how many can be crewed

The only thing I would say about the Russian missles is that first of all, look at their size. The Kitchen looks like a small interceptor aircraft and I can tell you from experience, when they shoot one of them off they look like a boxcar on a radar screen. Do NOT under estimate their effectiveness though. The rolling frame missle block was developed specifically for the Kitchen and Kickback and a couple other of their air-launched cruise missles. Look up the rolling frame and especially look at how fast they can be launched in succession. When the Russian missles were developed (80's), it scared the admirals so much that they would have married Raytheon to get them to develop something to knock them out. The Lincoln, Nimitz, Bush and now the Gerald Ford are being outfitted with them. Aegis already has them.

The F-14 Tomcat was the first attempt at dealing with the backfires. It's Phoenix missle had a range of 100 miles and could help the aircraft engage 7 targets at once. The idea was to engage the backfires BEFORE they could launch. Now the F-14 is retired, nothing else shoots the Phoenix and the range of the SM-2 has been increased to hopefully help.

If we went to war with the Russians, it would be mostly 70's and early 80's technology on their side against 70's and 80's technology on our side. Our B-52's are 50's, the B-1 is 70's, the Aegis is 70/80 and on and on. The only late technology (F-22, F-35, Gerald Ford Class, LCS Class, DX-1, etc) are all being cancelled or severly cut back.

I believe that the Russians would NEVER directly attack American assets. It would start as a by-product of something else. A mistaken identification, an errant missle going off track, or something else. Remember that the closest we came to going to war occurred in 1982 during a simple command exercise that the Russians thought was the real thing.