The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's two fewer boomer subs for the US.

You have to be joking... the Chinese submarine fleet is horrible. Their nuclear submarines are a joke. They are louder, less safe, and less battle ready than 1960's vintage Soviet designs sitting and rusting in Russian ports this very day!!!!

One of our nuclear boats could destroy an entire armada of Chinese Romeos and Foxtrots, not to mention their clang-machines they call the Xia and Han.

And in reality, we only need park the boats in Pearl Harbor and launch from there to hit any point in China, whereas Chinese missiles can only hit the very western edge of the U.S.

[Urban Ranger]

IIRC, SLBMs are only mid-range missiles so I don't see how they can have the range. You're talking about ICBMs for missiles to reach anywhere in China from Pearl Harbour.

As for subs, do you know why the US fleet decided not to pass through the Taiwan Strait last time, in 1997 IIRC?

[DaShi]

Who says they didn't?

[David Floyd]

As for subs, do you know why the US fleet decided not to pass through the Taiwan Strait last time, in 1997 IIRC?

You mean when the entire 7th Fleet, with two carriers, was sent into the Taiwan Straits?

Everyone knows that China's naval forces, including submarines, are hopelessly obsolete and would stand less of a chance than Russia's navy.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IIRC, SLBMs are only mid-range missiles so I don't see how they can have the range. You're talking about ICBMs for missiles to reach anywhere in China from Pearl Harbour.

Trident II's can hit targets in Russia from US Territorial waters.

[DarthVeda]

If we were to sail a pair of Seawolf submarines and six Los Angeles into the Taiwanese straight with the goal of sinking the entire Chinese Navy, given enough time, they could do it with minimal losses to themselves.

[Serb]

Long story part I.

Originally posted by David Floyd
OK, Serb, I think we need to have a little talk...

Anytime mr.Floyd, anytime....

I'm taking out allies to give Russia an advantage. If we put in allies and let the US use air and naval bases in places such as Japan, Germany, England, etc., it's just too easy.

Now you see- you are nothing without allies.
Do you really think that f.e. Germany or Japan will let you use their territory for attacks against Russia? I doubt that they decide to commite such suicide. The war vs. Yuogoslavia it's one case, war with Russia is absolutely different case. More likely that they simly tell you to get the **** out and don't involve them in your showdowns.

What, all 1 one of them?

Yes, one all of them.

"Disposals/Reserve: The first two units of the class are in reserve: Admiral Ushakov (ex-Kirov) inactive but nominally in commission in the Northern Fleet since suffering a nuclear accident in 1990. She entered a shipyard for overhaul in 1999, but funds are lacking; it is very unlikely that she will return to service. Admiral Lazarev (ex-Frunze) has been inoperable in the Pacific Fleet since the early 1990's; the Navy is reportedly asking for donations to fund her repair, but she is unlikely to see further service."

Put this source into place where the sun is never shine. The data on this site is greatly exaggerated in USA favor. It is said there that we have only one "Typhoon" class submarine. It's Bullsh*t.We have 7 Typhoons. Few weeks ago 7th sub was build.

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/941.htm

As for "Kirov" class. We have 4 of them. Two currently in repair. In case of war they will repaired very quickly.

This means that Russia is left with one more in overhaul status, the Admiral Nakhimov, and one that is active, the Petr Velikiy. I will admit that these are nice ships, but so what? One Kirov isn't going to be able to defeat the US Navy, and almost certainly not even one US carrier group.

It was designed exactly for this purpose- to sink US carrier groups. I don't think that you know more about naval warfare then people who created the largest and most powerfull surface ship ever. So, when creators of Kirov sayng that this ship is capable to fight efficientlu vs. US carrier group I preffer to beleive them then to arm chair general like you.

Even assuming 1 Kirov vs. 1 Nimitz, ignoring escorts and submarines, the Nimitz-class carrier comes out way ahead. Right now, there are over 70 aircraft stationed on it, although there are room for around 100 that could be stationed on one in a pinch. But I'll just assume the minimum of 70. This air wing would be able to put up enough airborne radar to create a bubble around the carrier, where if anything entered the bubble the carrier would know immediately. The Kirov has no such abilities, so it is very clear that the US carrier would be able to locate the Russian Kirov long before the Kirov located it. If you throw satellites into the mix, the US ship would be located a bit sooner, but so would the Kirov. This means that the carrier can maneuver in such a way as to attack the Kirov at whatever time it wants to - probably around 3 am.

First of all this ship not only able to deffend itself against massive air attack, but it also could protect nearby ships from air attack. It could fight efficently against up to 90 aircrafts simulateously. Second, how your fighters could protect your carrier from massive missile attack? 20 "Granit" type cruise missiles with uniqe guidence system is more then enough to bring rightful justice upon heads of unliky invaders I wonder if you will able to intercept single missile.
So, when Kirov will be within fire range, no more, no less the fire range is 550km. He just launch its missiles, that's all- say 'orevuar' to your carrier and its escort. Even if some fighters will be able to take of from carrier before the missiles will hit, the pilots of those fighters will be more concerned where the f*ck they should land their plane, then about attack on "Kirov". I can guaranty a nice panic among them, but even if somebody still decide to attack, it will de destroyed by SAM defences of Kirov.

And let's not forget that the Russian radar systems are not as good as the American AEGIS system. This means that they are not able to track as many targets at once, or detect aircraft from as long of ranges, to my knowledge.

And let's not forget this says an American armchair general.
Tell me please, does the abbreviate "S-300" tell's you about something? If not, then I could tell you that this is SAM battery with fire and forget principle. It can simultaneously track 9 targets and independently fire at 6 targets, one or two SAMs to each. It can hit targets flying at speeds of up to 10000 km/h at altitudes from 25 to 30000 meters and has a range of 3-150 km. Missile speed 2100m/sec (7M)
As long as your fighters will aproach to Kirov closer then 150 km...Surprise, surprise... BANG.... bandit is down. If any of your fighters is able to carry air to surface missiles with range greater then 150km please let me know. Until it happen forget that your planes could aproach to Kirov closer then 150Km.
And 12 S-300F launchers installed on "Kirov" it's just a first, longe-range stage of defence. It have also medium range and close raqnge defense systems like: OSA and Kashtan air-defence missile/gun system. Which provides defence against a range of precision weapons including anti-ship and anti-radar missiles and air bombs, aircraft, and small naval ships.
And btw, your AEGIS system will not save you from our "Mosqito" (NATO "Sunburn").
The Navy carrier task force has increasingly been criticized as being too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The Aegis defense system now mounted on twenty-seven Aegis-class cruisers was designed to protect carriers from precision-guided missiles. However, the Sunburn , produced by Russia cruises at 1,700 miles per hour out to a maximum range of 55 miles. It travels at an altitude of sixty feet and then attacks the ship at twenty feet, having reached its target in under two minutes from launch. The U. S . Navy considered the Sunburn so effective, it tried to buy one in 1995.
"Mosqito" is one of the main weapons of our fleet. So forget about "peice a cake campaign" and prepare your ass for buttkicking.

Now, if you want to throw in escorts, I don't know what a Russian battle group is generally composed of, so I can't really comment on that until someone is kind enough to tell me what is in one. I think it's clear, though, that on their own merits, a US Nimitz-class carrier, even with a minimal number of aircraft, is certainly superior to the Russian Kirov.

Kepp dreaming. Your only chance against Kirov is numbers. Single US Nimitz-class carrier has no chances vs single Kirov class ship. Nash monster porvet vash carrier za hui sobachii, kak Tuzik grelku.

And remember, the US has 12 carriers, compared to only 1 Russian Kirov.

First of all 2 Fully operational and 2 in repair, second on Pacific you have only 6 carriers vs. 1 "Kirov". 6 vs. 1 is much better chances then 12 vs. 1. But considering that Pacific Ocean is pretty big, I wounder that it will be more then 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3. Which is much better chances.
BUT, Kirov is just one, big, butt-kicking monster. In accordance with our doctrine your carrier gruops should be destroyed by our submarines f.e. like Oscar II class. When your scientists will invent something equal to our "Shkval" torpedo (which your spy Edmond Pope tried to steal recently (btw, on Russian "Pope" means ass)) then let me know.
The missile has no on-board targeting systems, but due to its high speed (370kmph) and stealth its intended target has no way of detecting and evading the missile in short time of the missile's underwater "flight." Naturally, the missile is 100% jam-proof and there are no defenses against this type of weapon in any navy in the world (including Russian).

When did I say we would invade? I said the most ground fighting that would take place would be probably in the Russian Far East, or other fringe areas where US special forces could make hit and run strikes, and possibly a limited invasion of the Russian Far East in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island, with US Marines, as a propaganda boost, and as a way to base US fighters in range of Soviet Pacific naval bases. I can also see the US going after the Trans-Siberian railway with special forces - Russia can't protect the entire coastline, nor can they protect the entire Trans-Siberian railway, and if the US cuts it in a few places, that makes it all the more easy to strike at the Russian Far East, and isolate ground and naval forces in the area.

Hit and run tactic? Yes, I must admit that your special forces during last operation in Afghanistan showed that they are pretty good with this tactic. At least partitialy. They are very good in "run" component of this tactic, furthermore I guess it could be called "run with tail between their legs" tactic. As for "hit" component Hmmm...they didn't showed this component actully.
What type of forces you gone use to isolate our ground and naval forces in the area? With special forces?
Don't make me laugh. Propaganda boost?
Trans Siberian Railway?
As a man who have a diplom of Railroad engineer and who worked for this Transiberian Railroad few years ago, I could assure you, that Transiberian railroad is one of our most important strategic objects. In case of war it will be in top five most guarded strategic objects.
If you will not invade who do you suggest you could win this war? You are forget that we are not Iraq (sure it's peice a cake to strike tanks from skies in desert) and not Yugoslavia who didn't have serious air defences.
You will not invade, because you don't have balls for this (You hasn't balls for ground camaign vs. Yugoslavia and we are far not the Yufoslavia). If you will not invade you will not win. And you will not invade, because your society will never accept huge human casualities. I can guaranty, that your casualities will be HUGE, MUCH more huge then you ever faced in your history. So, you will never invade Russia and you will never win. Case is closed.

[Serb]

Long story part II.

A single carrier battle group has the combat power of many small nations. This isn't exactly a minor thing - US carrier can project themselves anywhere around the globe, and any Russian naval forces foolish enough to sortie would inevitably be destroyed. They'd be tracked from the ports by US satellites, nibbled at by submarines, hit by US strategic bombers, and annihilated by US aircraft carriers.

We are not "small nation", you constanyly forget about this. You could save your tricks, you briliant air compaign for countries who don't have air forces or ground air defences, because it wouldn't work with us. If you want to crush us prepare for ground war, prepare for blood bath, for millions casualties.

However, this from Hazegray, again:
"Due to continued political, economic and societal chaos in Russia, the Fleet is in a badly deteriorated state. Even those ships that remain in commission and theoretically operational are generally unable to deploy, due to lack of trained crews and lack of funds to buy fuel and stores. In general maintenance is minimal or nonexistent, and there are no funds to conduct much-needed overhauls, even for major fleet units. Many ships have been abandoned when repairs or refits came due.
This list identifies those units believed to remain operational, but most of these units are unable to deploy for the reasons cited above. Ships in refit are listed only when there is a reasonable chance of them returning to service. Ships laid up pending refit generally are listed, as they could return to service if funding became available."

What a nightmare Apocalypce today The devil is among us I guess know his name. How did you said the name of this guy? Hazegay ? It's him.
Yes, we have slight problems with maintenance of our fleet. Yes, we lost many ships due lack of funds. But remaining forces is still able to give a serios butt-kicking. If we talk about numbers of surface ships in Pacific theater (Pacific fleet is the weakest of our fleets) then situation there is 1-2.5, in your favor. As for subs I guess situation for us there is better then with our surface ships, but I guess you still have advantage in numbers. So, what? If you think that it will be easy walk for your navy you are mistaken. Prepare for heavy casualities. 1:3 It is not a small, but is not a huge advantage.

We won't look at ballistic missile submarines, because we are assuming no nukes (not that no nukes exist, just that none will be used, hence SSBNs still exist, and while the US might try to deploy a few as fast attack boats, Russia certainly would not).

Or perhaps, because you piss in your pants seeing another Russian monster- the largest and most powerfull submarine ever created by humans? I'm talking about Typhoon class of course.:
The Typhoons, code-named Akula (shark) by the Soviets, were by far the largest subs ever built, with a submerged displacement now given (by the Russians) as 48,000 tons.
Is any of your subs have a sauna, a waterfall or an aviary? Is any of your subs have an endurance of 120 days? I guess not.
This sub is swimming butt-kicking rock, our Doom Star.

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/941.htm

http://www.milparade.ru/security/130.html

Your best surface attack boats (SSGNs) are the Krasnodar (Oscar-II) class, of which Russia has 8, 5 of which are part of Pacific Fleet, and 3 of which belong to the Northern Fleet. These are intended for strikes against US aircraft carriers.

Wrong data. 9 Subs, 5 belong to Northern Fleet and 4 belong to Pacific Fleet (Hazegay sucks again)

However, US aircraft carriers are strongly protected by at least 2 US attack submarines (Los Angeles class or better), as well as ASW frigates and destroyers, as well as S-3 Viking ASW aircraft operating from the carrier, and various ASW helicopters operating from the carrier and escorts. A US carrier group is a very tough target for even a group of these SSGNs, and almost impossible for a single one to hit. This doesn't even bring into the picture US anti-missile capabilities - the CIWS alone is highly capable, even assuming the carriers escorts don't get a chance to go after the missiles.

Who told you that your carriers will be attacked by single submarine?

But, the real point here is that these 8 SSGNs are unsuited for anti-submarine operations, which is very important.

Who told you that they can't attack other subs?

Russia's most modern attack submarine is the Akula/Akula-II class, of which they possess 11, divided fairly evenly among the Pacific and Northern fleets.

14 Subs of "Akula" class, 14 not 11(Hazegay sucks again)

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/akula/index.html

Other modern SSNs include 3 Sierra-I/IIs, and 8 Victor-IIIs.

At least 6 Sierra-I/II

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/945.htm,

I'm too lazy to check but, What about "Oskar", "Charlie "Kilo", "Tango", "Juliett", "Romeo", "Foxtrot", "Whiskey", "Zulu" and other classes?
(Hazegay sucks again) and your 22 vs. 52 is total BullSH*T

The Seawolf class is regarded as the best attack submarine in the world, according to Hazegray, and really has no equal in the Russian navy. The Los Angeles-class is also excellent, and while some of the older boats are not as good as the Akula or Akula-II, most of these submarines have been extensively improved and overhauled over the years, bringing most of them above the standard of Russian submarines.

Blah...Blah...Blah.....
You still didn't realized that Hazegay suck's? The most silent subs in the world are "Severodvinsk" class, 3 currently under construction.

Assuming that the US divides it's submarine forces evenly across the Atlantic and Pacific, and Russia concentrates every SSN it has in, say, the Pacific, the US would still outnumber the Russians in the Pacific by a ratio of 22 to 26 - this would be a fairly even fight, and both sides would take casualties, although in the end I think the US would win this, due primarily to the presence of a Seawolf and the superiority of US training, maintenance, and, in many cases, equipment and SONAR.

Because you operate with ****ty Hazengay's data your calculations below are wrong too.

Further, in order to deploy into the Atlantic at all, most Russian submarines will have to pass the GIUK SOSUS line, as well as face large SOSUS networks in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The US would know the approximate locations of many of the Russian submarines, and could maneuver with a 2 to 1 superiority over each Russian sub, even assuming the US retained two submarines for each of the 12 aircraft carriers for defense (ignoring the fact that not all 12 carriers can be deployed at once in one area, indeed, not more than 2-4 per ocean could be deployed at one time).

Keep dreaming. With the same success you could detect black cat in dark room.

So, I think every important factor one can look at shows that the US has a huge superiority in submarines. If Russia tries to make up the difference by introducing it's SSBNs into the mix as attack subs, the US will respond in kind, and the US outnumbers Russia in terms of SSBNs by a ratio of 18 to 12, as well as having, in most cases, far more advanced SSBNs, with the exception of the single Russian Typhoon, which is probably about the equal of an Ohio.

Wrong again, 7 "Delta" + 6 "Typhoon"= 13 SSBN vs. your 14 "Ohio" which you should have in accordance with START 2.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/delta/index.html

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/typhoon/index.html

But, as long as you are out ABM treaty, forget thet we'll scrap a single "Typhoon"- "which is probably about the equal of an Ohio", my ass. Ohio suck's in compare with Typhoon. That why you always demanded that we should start scraping them. Huya lysogo, ne dozhdetesa.

Further, the US would be able to time it's attacks against Russian surface forces - various US submarines could launch missile attacks against Russian surface ships at random times, followed up by strikes by US aircraft.

We could do exactly the same.

In addition, immediately upon the outbreak of hostilities, US heavy bombers (B-52Hs, B-1Bs, and B-2As) would be able to launch a single coordinated strike against Russian bomber bases on the Kola Peninsula. Because of the fact that Russia would need carrier locations before it could send its bombers after US carrier groups, it is possible that a large number of Backfire bombers could be caught on the ground. But in any case, US bomber attacks (launching standoff cruise missiles in the case of the B-52s and B-1s, with other attacks carried out by B-2s) combined with very likely submarine attacks, these airbases would be very heavily damaged. Russia has no capability to do a similar thing to US bases, which are located deep within the United States, in places such as Louisiana, New Mexico, and Wyoming.

Oh really?
Our long rang aviation can reach any city on US territory easily. Perhaps you forget which plane is the largest and most magnifisient supersonic strategic bomber ever created? Welcome to magic world of Tu-160 "Blackjack" a plane with 44 World's records:

http://globalaircraft.org/planes/tu-160_blackjack.htm

Just don't start whinning that we lost most off them. We have a lot of them and not long ago took some more from Ukraine. So within few hours of war greet a waterfall of cruise missiles launched from our Tu-95 and Tu-160 deep within your territory.

But let's assume that Russia launches an immediate massive bomber attack on a US carrier. Their maximum possible net gain for this battle is one US carrier, with moderate losses to their own aircraft. It is unlikely in the extreme they would be able to launch concentrated attacks against two or three US carriers, simply because these carriers would most likely not be in range upon the outbreak of war, and Russia would be lucky to have an immediate location on even one US carrier in range.

I told you we are not Japanese. In accordance with our doctrine your carriers we'll be destroyed by subs and missile cruisers.

So, I think it's clear that the US would win the naval war, which I maintain is the only part that would be significant. There would not be massive air battles, simply because without allies, the US has no forward bases, at least nothing closer than Okinawa. Further, large ground combat is also unlikely, except, as I said, isolated Special Forces strikes (which Russia could POSSIBLY do as well, although I doubt it), and possible US ground forces seizing Russian territory in the Kamchatka area.

So, without invasion how do you suggest to wipe floor with us? If you'll invade we'll throw you back to ocean.
So' forget your silly claims about wipe of floor and try to be less arrogant next time.

[Sava]

Silly David, how are you going to conquer a country with isolated Special Forces Strikes?

So, without invasion how do you suggest to wipe floor with us? If you'll invade we'll throw you back to ocean.
So' forget your silly claims about wipe of floor and try to be less arrogant next time.

Exactly, Serb!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DaShi
The US always had the military advantage over Russia. It wasn't until after the fall the of the Soviet Union that it released how far. Probably a good thing though.

Actually, the Pentagon always knew. It has been revealed after every so called "gap" that the Soviets didn't have anywhere near the forces that the Pentagon was claiming and that the Pentagon knew it.

Retired military generals and colonels tend to get jobs as consultants for corporations that do business with the military. There's a lot of corruption involved in our procurement. Lockheed needs more money, gosh, theres a fighter gap! Honeywell investors demand more profit, a missile gap!



As to the original question, the US would problem have naval and air superiority (although the Russians have the air superiority planes, we have better pilots and missiles). However, until the US can put troops on the ground, it can't win, and the Russian people would be as one to stop the Americans. Russia isn't so easy to conquer, as everyone who has tried has learned (with the notable exception of the Mongols).

You'd also have the problem of all the US allies refusing to support us, and very possibly doing what they could to stop our aggression.

[David Floyd]

Everyone: Let me start by saying that nowhere do I say I think the US could invade Russia in an amphibious assault. Yes, I think if we included allies for both sides in the mix, and we had the use of European bases, we could invade European Russia successfully, but I by no means think the US on its own could invade Russia. I've never said this.

Serb: Let me ask you one simple question. Do you believe that the Russian Navy would defeat the US Navy, or is it your opinion that the US Navy would win, but the point you're making is that it would take higher losses than I expect? Just to be clear, you understand - one position is reasonable and arguable, the other is not. I'll let you work it out

As to a detailed response, people at work are throwing me a going away party, so I'll respond later tonight, or, if I'm too drunk, tomorrow sometime.

[Serb]

David,
Do you ever fought vs. 3 equaly strong as you are fighters at the same time?
As I said in Pacific theater for surface ships of I and II classes you have superiority in numbers 1:3 in your favor. (but our ships a bit bigger then yours). So, chances of our Pacific fleet is small, but it's still able to give you a pretty good butt-kicking. And your claims like- "not single carrier lost and only a few subs lost" is bs. You will receive much larger casualties, much larger.
As for allies, it was you who offered the rules of this scenario- no nukes, no allies.

but I by no means think the US on its own could invade Russia. I've never said this.

Assuming all allies stay out of it, and assuming the war stays conventional, who wins in a war between the US and Russia?

Personally, I see no reason to think anything other than that the US would wipe the floor with Russia.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Pekka
So f**k you all, we hate you, welcome to the frozen hell!

ps. we kiss you

Nice post.


P.S. Do you really think that frozen hell could scare someone from Siberia?

[David Floyd]

Now you see- you are nothing without allies.

No, what I said is that without allies, it becomes more even because the US is unable to bring ground or air forces into the picture in significant numbers.

Do you really think that f.e. Germany or Japan will let you use their territory for attacks against Russia?

No, but I also doubt the US and Russia will go to war. It's a hypothetical.

I doubt that they decide to commite such suicide.

Regardless of how could you think the Russian military is, surely you don't think that in its present state it could take on Europe and Japan, with US backing, and hope to win, right?

The war vs. Yuogoslavia it's one case, war with Russia is absolutely different case. More likely that they simly tell you to get the **** out and don't involve them in your showdowns.

And more than likely the US will never fight Russia. So what?

Put this source into place where the sun is never shine. The data on this site is greatly exaggerated in USA favor. It is said there that we have only one "Typhoon" class submarine. It's Bullsh*t.We have 7 Typhoons.

The source you cited has not been updated for 5 years.
"© Copyright Bellona // Reproduction recommended if sources stated
CD-version, updated 1997-09-28"
Most likely Hazegray is referring to vessels in active service.

This is supported by the following quote:
"Disposals/Reserve: TK-202 and TK-12 (2nd and 3rd units) discarded by 1996 due to need for repairs/refit; TK-208 (class leader) in overhaul since 1992 and was intended to receive the newer SS-NX-28 Grom SLBM, but will not return to service. TK-13 out of service but could be repaired. TK-17 is also out of service."

Few weeks ago 7th sub was build.

A possibility, but why would Russia be building SSBNs in this day and age, and why do you think it would be useful before trials, etc.?

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - Hazegray was last updated in March, so I'll grant that you could have 2 Typhoons.

As for "Kirov" class. We have 4 of them. Two currently in repair. In case of war they will repaired very quickly.

Sorry, even according to YOUR site you are wrong. According to YOUR site:
The Admiral Ushakov is "Inactive since 1990 when there was an accident in the ship's machinery"

The Admiral Lasarev "The ship is based at Severomorsk, but has been laid up over the last few years. It is expected that the vessel will be decommissioned

Admiral Nakhimov
(until 1992 known as Kalinin.) Keel laid down on May 17, 1983. Launched on April 25, 1986, and commissioned on December 30, 1988.

Pyotr Veliky
(until 1992 known as Yury Andropov). Keel laid down on April 25, 1986. Launched on April 25, 1989, and first sea trial completed in autumn 1995. The battle cruiser is scheduled to be transferred to the Pacific Fleet over the course of 1996.[264]

So according to your source you have a maximum of 2 in service, which you state, but it says nothing about the other two undergoing repairs - it says that one was inactive since 1990 and the other has been laid up for years.

However, again, your site is over 5 years out of date, as opposed to Hazegray: "This site last updated 25 March 2002."

According to the much more recent Hazegray site, the Admiral Nakhimov is in overhaul. It's very possible it was active in 1997, when your site was last updated, and has entered overhaul since.

Further, Hazegray further specifies the status of the Ushakov and Lazarev - the Ushakov suffered a nuclear accident in 1990 and is considered very unlikely to return to service, and the Lazarev has been inactive since the early 1990s and the Russian navy is seeking donations for its repair.

Thus, you have one Kirov.

It was designed exactly for this purpose- to sink US carrier groups.

So what? The V1 and V2 were designed to end World War 2 - but they didn't. Just because a weapon is designed for a purpose doesn't mean it will necessarily be successful. Surely you will admit that much.

I don't think that you know more about naval warfare then people who created the largest and most powerfull surface ship ever.

I tend to trust US naval doctrine more than Russian naval doctrine, given that Russia's last major sea battles occured in the Russo-Japanese War. I won't remind you how that one turned out.

So, when creators of Kirov sayng that this ship is capable to fight efficientlu vs. US carrier group I preffer to beleive them then to arm chair general like you.

Yes, the designers of the Kirov certainly have more expertise than I do, but I prefer to rely on the doctrine of the US Navy, which is a historically proven force, unlike the Russian navy, which isn't.

First of all this ship not only able to deffend itself against massive air attack, but it also could protect nearby ships from air attack.

Of course, where have I said otherwise? The Kirov is, at least on paper, a very capable ship. My question relies more upon its crew and maintenance than upon its technical abilities. Also, remember that only one US aircraft has to get through to sink or put out of action your ONLY Kirov in service, and I think that's very doable.

It could fight efficently against up to 90 aircrafts simulateously.

In theory and according to you, unless you can provide a (non-outdated) source.

Second, how your fighters could protect your carrier from massive missile attack? 20 "Granit" type cruise missiles with uniqe guidence system is more then enough to bring rightful justice upon heads of unliky invaders

The whole point of a carrier is that, using its radar aircraft, it can create a bubble around it where other ships cannot enter without being seen. Thus, with adequate tanker support, E-2C Hawkeyes could set up a bubble big enough such that your ONLY Kirov could not come within firing range of the carrier, and the carrier could maneuver in such a manner to keep it that way.

Tell me please, does the abbreviate "S-300" tell's you about something? If not, then I could tell you that this is SAM battery with fire and forget principle. It can simultaneously track 9 targets and independently fire at 6 targets, one or two SAMs to each. It can hit targets flying at speeds of up to 10000 km/h at altitudes from 25 to 30000 meters and has a range of 3-150 km. Missile speed 2100m/sec (7M)

Actually I was unaware the Kirov was equipped with the S-300. So point to you. Remember, though, that only one US aircraft has to get through the SAM cloud, and regardless of how well the S-300 did against the rest of the air wing, the Kirov could still be on the bottom.

Back to the real world, though, and you would know that the US would use combined arms tactics to take on a Kirov. It would use both submarines and aircraft, probably from more than one carrier, as well as possibly even bombers firing standoff cruise missiles. I realize that in a real naval engagement the Kirov would be escorted, but then it comes down to a US battlegroup vs. a Russian battlegroup. I've established already in a previous post that the US should easily gain submarine superiority based upon number, technical abilities, maintenance factors, and crew, and a Russian battlegroup could not adequately defend against the triple threat of US submarines, bombers, and naval aviation.

Your entire navy, according to Hazegray, consists of one Kuznetsov (a light carrier by US standards), 1 Kirov, 2 Slavas, and 19 destroyers and 13 frigates of all types. This is split among four main fleet commands (Northern, Pacific, Baltic, and Black) in 2 oceans and 2 seas (Black and Baltic). The warships in the Black and Baltic seas, which include the Moskva (a Slava), two Sovremmennys, one Kerch, one Neustrashimyy, one Kegkiy, two Bessmennyys, and three Bditel'nyy, which comprise a sizable portion of your fleet, would be much less able to concentrate and enter the conflict, particularly the Black Sea forces, which probably would not be allowed to transit the Bosporous.

This means the only naval forces readily available for service against the US Navy are as follows (and remember these are spread throughout two oceans, and even adding in the Baltic Fleet warships would only add a few frigates to the total):
1 Kuznetsov
1 Kirov
1 Slava
17 destroyers of all types
5 frigates of all types

Against this, the US has the following surface assets that are not in extended overhaul status:
7 Nimitz class carriers (with the Eisenhower in extended overhaul)
1 JFK class carrier
1 Enterprise class carrier
2 Kitty Hawk class carrier
27 Ticonderoga class cruisers (VLS and non VLS groups)
33 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (Flights I and II)
20 Spruance class destroyers
35 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates (Long and Short Hull groups)

Do you really think the Russian surface fleet would be THAT dangerous to concentrated US naval forces? I think not.

And btw, your AEGIS system will not save you from our "Mosqito" (NATO "Sunburn").
The Navy carrier task force has increasingly been criticized as being too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. The Aegis defense system now mounted on twenty-seven Aegis-class cruisers was designed to protect carriers from precision-guided missiles. However, the Sunburn , produced by Russia cruises at 1,700 miles per hour out to a maximum range of 55 miles. It travels at an altitude of sixty feet and then attacks the ship at twenty feet, having reached its target in under two minutes from launch. The U. S . Navy considered the Sunburn so effective, it tried to buy one in 1995.

Yes, the Sunburn is very nice - assuming you can get into range to launch it, which I highly doubt.

First of all 2 Fully operational and 2 in repair, second on Pacific you have only 6 carriers vs. 1 "Kirov". 6 vs. 1 is much better chances then 12 vs. 1. But considering that Pacific Ocean is pretty big, I wounder that it will be more then 1 vs. 2 or 1 vs. 3. Which is much better chances.

I already refuted that. It's really 11 to 1, and the further in the future this conflict is, the greater advantage the US gains.

BUT, Kirov is just one, big, butt-kicking monster. In accordance with our doctrine your carrier gruops should be destroyed by our submarines f.e. like Oscar II class. When your scientists will invent something equal to our "Shkval" torpedo (which your spy Edmond Pope tried to steal recently (btw, on Russian "Pope" means ass)) then let me know.

Yes, those torpedos are the biggest problem to the US Navy. However, with the US retaining such a large advantage in submarines, and with the US advantage in SONAR and the SOSUS lines and arrays, I think that your Oscar-IIs would be mostly intercepted and destroyed early in the war, before they became a problem. In any case, in order to hit a carrier, you have to get within range of a carrier, and a US carrier battle group (CVBG) is very formidable - and in case of a war with Russia, very likely to strongly beef up its ASW capabilities by adding more ASW frigates and destroyers into the formation.

As a man who have a diplom of Railroad engineer and who worked for this Transiberian Railroad few years ago, I could assure you, that Transiberian railroad is one of our most important strategic objects. In case of war it will be in top five most guarded strategic objects.

Really? You'll guard every mile of the railroad?

If you will not invade who do you suggest you could win this war? You are forget that we are not Iraq (sure it's peice a cake to strike tanks from skies in desert) and not Yugoslavia who didn't have serious air defences.
You will not invade, because you don't have balls for this (You hasn't balls for ground camaign vs. Yugoslavia and we are far not the Yufoslavia). If you will not invade you will not win.

Winning a war has nothing to do with conquering the other country, it has everything to do with accomplishing the goals of the war. The US goals would logically be to destroy the conventional power projection assets of Russia - namely their large naval forces, submarine arm, and strategic bombers. This can and would be accomplished early on, and if Russia wished to extend the war rather than just giving up, that would play to the massive US advantages in shipbuilding - what exactly will Russia do, swim a 10 million man army to New York? No, they would have to build a fleet capable of defeating the US Navy, and this would take years, even if the size of the current US Navy remained static. If the US Navy increased proportionally, which is very possible given the greater shipbuilding potential of the United States, Russia could never hope to defeat the US Navy.

Yes, we have slight problems with maintenance of our fleet.

Slight problems, eh? I'd say they're more than slight. In any case, the US has NO problems maintaining its navy.

Yes, we lost many ships due lack of funds.

I'd say so, given that you are asking for donations just to repair a Kirov.

If we talk about numbers of surface ships in Pacific theater (Pacific fleet is the weakest of our fleets) then situation there is 1-2.5, in your favor.

Actually the Baltic Fleet is your weakest, but in any case, the ratio is much better than 2.5-1 in the Pacific. I suggest you refer to the numbers I posted above.

As for subs I guess situation for us there is better then with our surface ships, but I guess you still have advantage in numbers.

I already told you it is over 2 to 1. Even if you concentrated all your subs against half of ours, the US would still have a numerical advantage.

1:3 It is not a small, but is not a huge advantage.

You don't think 3:1 is a huge advantage? What would YOU consider huge? Oh, I get it - a huge advantage would be the ratio of US to Russian SURFACE warships

This sub is swimming butt-kicking rock, our Doom Star.

Sure, as long as we're talking about nuclear war, but what's the point of that?

Wrong data. 9 Subs, 5 belong to Northern Fleet and 4 belong to Pacific Fleet (Hazegay sucks again)

My source is far more up to date than yours, by about 5 years, so we'll just go with mine.
That ninth Krasnodar/Oscar-II was the Kursk, just FYI.

Who told you that they can't attack other subs?

But I thought they would be going after US carriers? And in any case, they are not dedicated attack submarines, and would definitely lose to even an early Los Angeles.

14 Subs of "Akula" class, 14 not 11(Hazegay sucks again)

Sorry. According to Hazegray, which is up to date, both the K-284 and K-322 are laid up and unlikely to return to service. That still leaves one submarine, which is likely the K-267, which has not even been commissioned yet, or else it refers to a boat that was decommissioned years ago.

At least 6 Sierra-I/II

Wrong again. The third planned Sierra-II was cancelled prior to commissioning, leaving two of those in service. Of the Sierra-Is, the K-239 will probably not return to service, with the only other one being the K-276. Thus, you have 3 Sierra-I/IIs.

I'm too lazy to check but

Obviously.

"Oskar", "Charlie "Kilo", "Tango", "Juliett", "Romeo", "Foxtrot", "Whiskey", "Zulu" and other classes?

"Discarded Classes: All 'Delta-II' class out of service by the end of 1996; all 'Delta-I' stricken by 1998, all 'Yankee' discarded or converted by the end of 1993; last 'Hotel' decommissioned 1991, last 'Golf' decommissioned 1990."

"Reserve Classes: The two 'Oscar-I' class SSGNs were stricken in 1997.
Discarded Classes: The three 'Yankee Notch' SSGNs (converted SSBNs) were laid up by the end of 1997. The single 'Papa' was discarded in 1991; all 'Charlie-II' class were discarded by 1996 (one retained in reserve commission for possible trials use); last 'Charlie-I' class discarded 1992-1994; the last 'Echo-II' class were discarded 1993-1995. The last 'Juliett' class SSGs were discarded in 1993."

"Discarded Classes: Single 'Mike' class sunk 1989; all 'Victor-II' and 'Victor-I' discarded by 1996; all 'Alfa' class withdrawn from service 1990-1991 but one retained through 1995 for experimental purposes."

"Discarded Classes: All previous submarine classes discarded; a few 'Whiskey' and 'Romeo' class hulks remain as immobile training facilities. The last 'Whiskey' was stricken in 1998, and all surviving 'Tango' class are in reserve, unservicable."

That answer your question about those submarines?

"The most silent subs in the world are "Severodvinsk" class, 3 currently under construction."

Actually only 1 is under construction, but if you want to count submarines under construction then you'd better take note of the four Virginia class boats under construction (Virginia, Texas, Hawaii, North Carolina), as well as the 26 others planned.

Because you operate with ****ty Hazengay's data your calculations below are wrong too.

***** all you want, but your date is five years old according to the its "Site Last Updated" listing.

We could do exactly the same.

How? The US has a more than two to one submarine advantage, and we have 11 heavy carriers to your 1 "heavy aviation CRUISER".

Our long rang aviation can reach any city on US territory easily. Perhaps you forget which plane is the largest and most magnifisient supersonic strategic bomber ever created? Welcome to magic world of Tu-160 "Blackjack" a plane with 44 World's records:

None of those records include anything having to do with stealth, my friend. They would have to overfly Canada, where they would be detected by US NORAD stations and intercepted - even if they successfully bombed any US target, they would be ravaged by US air superiority fighters. If we really felt like it, we could use the anywhere between 4-8 experimental F-22A Raptor stealth fighters we have in our arsenal. Or you could fly across the Atlantic, where you would still be detected and intercepted by US fighters.

I told you we are not Japanese. In accordance with our doctrine your carriers we'll be destroyed by subs and missile cruisers.

But I'm telling you, those missile cruisers and submarines will not exist, and even if some did still exist, they would be EXTREMELY outnumbered by US naval forces.

If you'll invade we'll throw you back to ocean.

Most likely, if we attempt a massive invasion, which is why I don't support such a move. I support limited ground insertions in Kamchatka using Marines, light infantry, and airborne forces, in order to take out the submarine base at Petropavlovsk and secure Alaska from possible attack. Good luck reinforcing Kamchatka, by the way, with anything significant, considering the fact that it is 6000 miles away from European Russia, and the only large transportation asset is the Trans-Siberian railroad, which consists of basically a double track. If you want to play the buildup game, the US will win, if for no other reason than logistics.

One more point, regarding your air force. After operations against Chechnya, your fighters and tactical aircraft were almost out of spare parts, and the stockpiles still have not been rebuilt.
Think what would happen in air battles against the US, who has no such supply problems.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Pekka
No no no no you got it all wrong, gentlemen.
In that scenario Russia would attack Finland ASAP, to secure strategically very important area for that kind of war. No question about it. They might even ask if we would let them come to here and secure areas, but we would say no way jose, and it would be war between us.

Then you americans would come flag waving with hotdogs in your mouths and say we need to use your country to attack, and if not, russians are gonna do it anyway, let us defend you. We would say no, that's sure ticket to war with the russians, and we don't want it, keep your nose out of our business and go destroy some other countries, please. Well.. the russians would attack anyway, because they'd gain sea access and nice things, and secure st. petersburg etc more.

So it comes to the point where the US and Russia wants our ass, even if we're not in the mood of putting out any. And no offence, you would be both seen as bad and evil threat then. For americans to force us to go war when we don't want to, and russians because they are russians .

So f**k you all, we hate you, welcome to the frozen hell!

ps. we kiss you

The US doesnt need you. We have Alaska, which would probably be our most strategic position. If Russia wants to waste their time with you, great! Let them take what little resources they need from their eastern front so we can invade.

Kman