The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I concur with Kramerman. You can't just air drop some troops into hostile territory and hope to win the day. If you do so, then either they serve as part of a large scale invasion, or there are locals who sympathetical to us.

Joseph makes a good point about perhaps paradroping in a remote spot in Siberia or something to create a forward base of opperations. Alaska could be used for close air support for that region, and then once a foot hold is gained, armor, artillery, gunships, fighter-bombers, and ground troops could be flown in to the airbase (or airbases) in a short mount of time to continue the push westward toward the industrial and population centers of European Russia. At this time cheychens would probably rise up, taking advantage of the attack, as well as the communist party hoping to gain power again and stuff like that. The US on the other hand is quite stable, the only risk it would take is that of terrorist attacks while it is busy with invading russia.
EDIT: but we would have enough of resources to deal with them, as far as the FBI and CIA and stuff.

Kman

[nationalist]

Russia, if the war involves any kind of infantry invasion. I don't think that the U.S. has the balls to fight a long war by itself. New England and the West coast would drop out almost immediately. Here in the U.S., we have lost national vision. WE don't believe in anything except chasing the almighty dollar. There is no nationalism or toughness in our culture.

Serb, while I don't think that there is a people in the world that could match us southern rednecks in a one one one level, I'd have to say that a nation with a sense of National pride, such as Russia or Germany, would wipe the U.S. out in a long, one on one, converntional war.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by nationalist
Russia, if the war involves any kind of infantry invasion. I don't think that the U.S. has the balls to fight a long war by itself. New England and the West coast would drop out almost immediately. Here in the U.S., we have lost national vision. WE don't believe in anything except chasing the almighty dollar. There is no nationalism or toughness in our culture.

Well, the American people can fight and have the will to fight, given that there is a cause. You are way underestimating our abilities. I would go as far as to say that Americans are the most patriotic people on this planet. Trust me, I have lived in China and Europe for a very very long time, and have not observed similar level of patriotism.

In a war between Russia and the US, it all depends on what they are fighting for and what the stakes are. It also depends on who initiates the conflict.

As for chasing Dollars, the whole world is doing it. Russians are probably holding dollars in higher esteem than we are. Communist countries pursued decades long destruction of religion and other belief systems. Now the Communism is dead, too, and people are living without an established belief system. In such societies, power and wealth are the only two things left worth worshipping for.

[Kramerman]

In such societies, power and wealth are the only two things left worth worshipping for.

Power and money is what makes certain religions work though. Some probably came into exsistance because its founder wanted power and money - and very likely go it. Starting even minor religions, like a cult or something, could still be very lucrative. hmmm... that gives me an idea...

Kman

P.S. Dont forget that the persuit of power and especially wealth is what makes the US so prosperous. If it werent for Human kinds' inherent greed and materialism (which isnt neccessarily bad unless it gets to a point of harming someone physically, emotionally, financialy, etc. But that is what the law is for.), capitolism wouldnt work, or at least not nearly as well as it does.

[Lord Merciless]

It people pursue power and wealth, and follow their own greedy instinct to an extreme, the society would become a cut-throat, backstabbing, and brutal place. Not a fun place to live in my opinion. On the other hand, if people only pursue spiritual values with a total disregard for material means, the society would just become a hypocritical place where everyone justifies their dirty deeds by invoking "God".

I would say in today's world, Russia and China represent the former, while Iran and Taliban represent the latter.

[joseph1944]

Serb;
In terms of money, I belive it would be hard for Russia to keep up with us.
In 94/95 we spent $100,000,000 (One Hundred Million) to overhaul one ship in the US Navy. Today the price is about 150 million to overhaul one ship. The Navy spends alot of money to keep our ships in top condition at all times.
According to Janes and Warships from 1860 to the Present you only have two Kirov.
The Admiral Nakhimov is in the shipyard for overhaul but no money to do it.
Pyotr Velikhiy in service but leave port rarely.
Armement;
SSM
SS-N--19 20ea. Range 10.8 to 243 N. miles. Speed 1.6 mach, about 1,072 mph at sea level. Not bad.

SAM
SA-N-6, 12 v. launcher, 8 reload, 96 missile total. Range 54 miles out and altitude 90,000 ft. Not bad.

2 SA-N-4, 40 missile total. Range 8 n. miles, alt. 30 to 10,000 ft at 2.5 mach about 1675 mph. Not bad either.

2 SA-N-9, 128 missiles total. Range 6.5 n. miles, alt. 10 to 40,000 ft. Speed Mach 2 about 1340 mph.

6 CADS-N-1 30 mm guns,

A/S
SS-N-15 40 total. Range 24.3 n miles

Guns 2 130mm

Torp.
10 21inch torp.

A/S Motars
1 RBU 12,000
2 RBU 1000
Question; why so much stuff. One or two missile type to handle all.
In the old computer game Red Storm Rising do you know how many times I sunk the Kirov? Lots

Ticonderoga Class 27 ships
SLCM
GDC Tomahawk, range 1300 km (700 n. miles) for TLAM-C/D, 1853 km (1000 n. miles) TLAM-C block III. Speed about 500 mph.

SSM
8 Harpoon. Range 130 km (70 nm). Speed About 600 mph.

SAM
122 SM-2-MR. Range out to 73 km (40 nm). Speed Mach 2

A/S ASROC. Range 16.6 km (9nm)

Gun 2 5 inch (127mm) New barrel in 2002 will be installed to give range of 149km (75.6miles)

2 20mm Phalanx

2 25mm

4 12.7mm mgs

Torp.
6 Mark 46 mod 5

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Kramerman


My father was in for 24 years and retired in 94 (he left the army after 'Nam for a couple of years before reenlistng). he retired a E8 master seargent. His father was in for 26 year before him (WWII and Korea) and was a E8 1st seargent. My father was quite thrilled when I told him I wanted to go to a service academy (I am in the middle of seeking a congressional appointment), that I would be the first commissioned officer in the family if I am accepted (and not discharged before graduation, of course) - and my conselour is pretty sure I will be because of my schoolastic and extracurricular achievments.

Work hard and one day, your G.Father, Father and I will call you SIR.

[David Floyd]

Serb,

Then what about your brilliant power projection? I’m saying once again to you without allies you are nothing. Your power projection no more then a myth without allies.

The United States, primarily using 11 active aircraft carriers, can project far more power anywhere on the globe than Russia can.

You started this bs thread, as you said- “for your own amusement”. Now, when you see how many people here saying that your claims that “USA could easily wipe the floor with Russia” no more then arrogant bs, I would like to know- how your amusement is going? Having fun?

Pretty much.

The present state of our military is MUCH better then it was 3-5 ears ago. Your problem is that your opinion based on low grade Hollywood movies, which have nothing common with reality. You believe that we are decoying, while in reality we are moving out of crisis. The nightmares of Yelt sin’s rule are over now. With every year we spent more and more on defense.

Your military may be much better than 5 years ago, but is it much better than it was at the height of the Soviet Empire? I think not. It's a shadow of the old Red Army.

Now back to original question. I said that in case conventional war between USA and Russia, your allies in Europe will refuse your requests for “right of passage”.

Most likely, although it certainly depends on the circumstances. If Russia were to invade, say, Poland, that would not be their response.

Sure this cite didn’t have exact picture too and data there exaggerated in USA favor too (because it’s an American cite and it’s normal they advertising their own goods, while trying to blame their competitors.

Why would a non-US government site care about skewing numbers in America's favor? People put that much work into websites so that their websites can be used as accurate databases. If you want to see a flag-waving site, search through Geocities.

Arm’s trade it’s a business after all, and a pretty dirty business, no fair play here) BUT even considering that this site is not totally objective, it doesn’t have such silly, bullsh*t claims as 1 Typhoon and 1 Kirov as Kaizer-gay’s cite have.
Kaizergay took his data out of his ass. Until you stop to use him as the only source of information I see no reasons to continue this talk.

And I'll say one more time that the site you provided is 5 years out of date, and the information you provided is easily refuted by Hazegray, which documents the status of ships it says are not in commission - I believe I cited that documentation to you.

If you think that it’s piece a cake to construct such sub as Typhoon you are mistaken. It was under construction for years.

Fair enough, you have 2 Typhoons.

SEVEN, boy, SEVEN.

Refer to my previous post and you will see I cited 5 Typhoons that were taken out of service by name.

Pyotr Velikii is a flagship of Northern fleet, Nakhimov of Pacific fleet, third is under repair in docks of Severodvinsk now. Don’t remember which one Ushakov or Lazarev. Fourth could be already repaired or still under repair. But TWO Kirov’s we have for sure- one in Northern fleet, another in Pacific fleet. As for remaining two give me some time and I’ll provide you with link.

Of course you have 2 Kirovs. But one of them is in overhaul status and thus unavailable at the moment. The other two are nowhere near seaworthy and are not expected to re-enter service.

It is you who think that V1 and V2 were designed to stop WW2, personally I think that those missiles were designed to deliver explosive warheads to enemy territory.

Well, personally I think you need to read books about Hitler's attitude towards his "Superweapons" such as rockets.

Remind me. I’m 100% sure you know NOTHING about Russo-Japanese war of 1905, except that Japanese won.

Yawn.

The naval aspect of the Russo-Japanese War, which is all that is relevant here, was a smashing Japanese victory kicked off by a surprise attack on your Pacific Fleet. The rest of the Russian Fleet transisted to the Pacific (attacking English fishing boats along the way), and had its ass handed to it again.

Your bad, because in case if you known something about those battles you more likely never said that you could destroy Russian fleet within hours with price of few subs.

Well, OK, if you didn't sortie your navy it would harder to get to, I'll grant you that

And btw, who told you that we don’t have naval battles since 1905? I guess you believe that we didn’t have fleet during WW2?

Of course you had a fleet. It didn't really affect the war in any significant way, though - the German Navy was more influential.

In 1941 we have 171 ship of main classes in 1942 already 192 and numbers was constantly growing. Kerch, Sevstopol, Odessa, Leningrad, Northern convoys WTF was that if not naval battles. Boy, in compare what type of work our Navy done during WW2 your “great battles” in Pacific are childish games.

Speaking of flag-waving
I suggest you read a book. Not any book in particular, just ANY book about WW2. Read 10 books about WW2. I guarantee none of those books will support your apparent thesis that the Russian Navy was more important than the US Navy

Of course I might be mistaken and you know your history better then I, but is my suggestion that those generals were in deep shi*t using such historically proven doctrines is wrong?

In certain cases historically proven doctrines are wrong. In the civil war, the rifle made some Napoleonic tactics obsolete. That does not refute my real point, which had to do with historical experience at naval warfare.

I doubt that one hit could destroy such ship as Kirov, certainly you would need much more then one hit.

Unless it was a lucky hit, yes - but one or two hits could certainly put it out of action or SERIOUSLY reduce its combat effectiveness.

Look on naval-techologis.com or Jane battleships or whatever Western source. But simple calculations could lead you to this number. It has 12 batteries of S-300F, everyone could track 9 targets simultaneously and fire at 6 targets simultaneously. 12*6=72 targets. As long as missile is launched, it reloaded automatically, it took a few seconds and battery could fire again. Total number of S-300F missiles a Kirov class ship carrying is 96 missiles. So, at one single moment it could fire at 72 targets, but within few seconds needed for reloading it could launch remaining 24 missiles. So, the maximum is 96 for long rang combat. But Kirov also has 80 medium ranged missiles and excellent close range missile/artillery defensive complex Kashtan which especially good against precision weapons, missiles, bomb, smart bombs etc. So, as for me it is more then capable to fight against 90 planes at one time.

Of course it could engage 90 planes at a time, on paper, but I question whether in practice the ships are well enough maintained and the crews well enough trained to be able to fight 90 planes in a combat situation.

Sure we could analyze when Nimitz has an escort and Kirov has an escort, but it is much complicated and I guess it doesn’t change much, because our battle group would consist of smaller then Kirov missile cruisers, destroyers and subs for ATTACK on your carrier with missiles.

Well, first of all, it could include no more than 1 Kirov and 1 Slava, but this is a side issue.

but considering that our ships have outstanding air DEFENSE your fighters don’t scare them much.

So what you are basically telling me is that your navy is basically unbeatable because it has 100% effective offense and 100% effective defense. ****, I'm not even saying that about the US Navy

But we can have this discussion if you like, no problem.

First of all, the primary anti-ship weapon the US would use against the Kirov would be the AGM-84 Harpoon. The Harpoon has a range of greater than 60 miles, and is also a sea-skimming weapon that is somewhat difficult to detect on radar, similar to the Granat in that respect.
Your primary long-range defensive SAM, the SA-N-6, has a range of 54 miles. This means that Harpoons can be fired before your SAMs can track the aircraft firing them.
Let's assume that a flight of 24 F/A-18 C/D Hornets each fire 2 Harpoons at maximum range against the Kirov. That's a total of 48 Harpoons, coming in at sea level.
Even in the best case scenario, where you shoot down all of them, you expend most of your long-range SAMs, based on simple logic. You have 96 SA-N-6s on the Kirov class, and you're not going to fire only 48 missiles against 48 targets, because no SAM is 100% accurate.

No, you will fire more than the mathematical minimum, because if even 1 Harpoon gets through, you could be in trouble. However, in this best case scenario, you shoot down no US aircraft, because they launched outside your range. Even if you were able to get a shot off at the aircraft at maximum range, it wouldn't matter because the aircraft would have launched their missiles and turned around before the SAMs got to them, leaving even less SAMs to track the Harpoons.

What this means is that those F/A-18s can fly back to the carrier, rearm, and launch a second strike. In fact, in a war situation, the carrier air wing would probably be beefed up anyway, to include a third and possibly even fourth squadron of F/A-18s, so a second strike could already be in the air. The difference, though, would be that since the Kirov already expended most of its long-range missiles, the aircraft could launch from much closer to the carrier this time, maybe around 10-12 miles away.

Obviously, if we included battlegroups, you would have significantly more SAMs. The thing is, though, that the US Tomahawk missile has a range of 600 miles - almost double that of the Granit. So, if we include the battlegroups around each ship, it would be logical to say that the US battlegroup would include Spruance class strike destroyers - each of which can carry 60 Tomahawks. So if only 4 or 5 Spruances are with the US battlegroup, then there would be a maximum of 240-300 Tomahawks going at the Russian battlegroup. Yes, these are subsonic missiles that are much easier to shoot down than the Granit, but that does not negate the fact that they must be shot down, and SAMs must be expended on them. It's also a fact that, again, SAMs are not 100% effective against Tomahawks.

According to ww.fas.org, the SA-N-6 is between 80% and 98% effective against Tomahawks. Let's split the difference and say that it is 90% effective. Against 300 Tomahawks, that would mean that out of 300 SAMs fired against them, 30 would miss - that's a lot of cruise missiles.

But let's also not forget the fact that this Tomahawk attack would be coordinated with naval aircraft Harpoon attacks, which would likely be coming in from a somewhat different angle. This would add to the already large clutter on Russian radar screens, and as the missiles would be coming in from different altitudes, they would be harder to hit.

Some would have to get through, and this becomes even more true when you add in submarine attacks. Two Los Angeles class submarines, the customary submarine escort force for a CVBG, have 12 vertical-launch Tomahawks between them, that, again, have ranges of 600 miles. So, assuming only two submarines, we're looking at, at minimum, 24 more Tomahawks in the mix, coming in from virtually any range and direction.

Even if you stopped every single Tomahawk and Harpoon launched at you in this strike, your long-range SAMs would be virtually gone, and there would be no chance of the US CVBG allowing your battlegroup to sail within the 250-350 mile maximum range (depending on who's source you use) of the Granit - it would simply sail away at the same speed the Russian group is approaching while it launches more aircraft.

Still feeling confident that your battlegroup can stop a US naval attack on it?

Not single country of the world has such missiles as we have. What do you have against group of “Granits” flying on your carrier? A group which undetectable for your radars, because this group is flew on extremely low attitudes with only one single- leader missile which flew on ballistic trajectory and which leads entire (undetectable group of missiles) to its target? And if it’s shot down it replaced by another missile from main group. Not single country has analogs of guidance system of our “Granit” missiles. Considering its high speed, sneakiness and huge devastating effect (why do you think your generals used word “Shipwreck” for this missile in NATO classification?) I guess your carrier is doomed. You have no DEFENSE against main weapon of our battle group.

First of all, once these missiles are detected, they can be engaged by the RIM-67 SM-2 Block III and above, not to mention the CIWS system, which is incredibly capable against missiles.
So, detecting them is really the issue. While I highly doubt that the US has developed no defense for the Granit, no detection ability, even if it didn't have a defense I still have two answers (note that top-end US radar and detection abilities are likely to be very classified).
First of all, the SPY1D(V) radar upgrade will be available in a few months, well under a year, and this system is much more able to detect, or rather filter, low-flying targets such as the Granit. While it's true that this system is not available now, it will be very soon, and if war broke out tomorrow, the process could be expedited.
The other answer is that, again, your battlegroup simply would not be able to approach within the necessary 350 miles of the US CVBG in order to launch the missiles for reasons I have explained above. To clarify a bit more, each US carrier has 4 E-2C Hawkeyes, only one of which needs to be aloft at a time in order to detect any warships for hundreds of miles.

Summary: We have defense against your battle group, you haven’t defense against our battle group.

Tell me, could your fighters create a bubble with radius of 550km?

What, do you think I mean we create a wall of fighters at a range of 550km? No, by "bubble", I simply mean a detection area, and such an area would actually exceed 550km by quite a bit, using the E-2C Hawkeye. Given the fact that the top speed of the Nimitz and the Kirov classes are roughly equal, as are the top speeds of their escorts, it seems clear to me that the US CVBG would be able to maneuver in such a way that a missile-firing Russian warship never approached closer than 550km - simple logic, right? I mean, what can you do, corner a ship in the ocean? Come on

You know, planes should be refueled time after time.

Good thing we have 4 E-2Cs, each with a maximum "on station" time of over 6 hours, plus aerial refueling options, which means the US has airborne coverage 24 hours a day if necessary.

Sure, in modern warfare it’s hard to imagine that two large battle groups could remain unnoticed by satellites, so more likely both of battle groups will know where to find each other.

How will that help you? You have to penetrate to within 550km, the US CVBG has to keep you that far away, and the speeds of both fleets are roughly equal. Assuming the two forces start at least that far apart - duh - then simple math will tell you the answer to this problem.

First of all there is no way that your carrier could launch all its fighters at the same time. Every tack off took amount of time and I guess launch of say 80 fighters will took a pretty big amount of time.

You need to get your aviation terminology straight. Not every aircraft on a carrier is a fighter - and yes, this is important

And I guess take off preparations require larger period of time.

Good thing we have such a procedure known as +5 and +15 Alert

Notice, that planes which took off among the first already an hour in air when last fighters took off.

That's why tankers are in the air to refuel aircraft when necessary - the US has been doing carrier aviation for pushing 80 years. We aren't stupid.

But even if so (again hypothetically) you are launched all fighters. So what? Fighter is not the same as strategic bomber it has much shorter operational range. Sure all depends of fighter’s type, but I wonder if its operational range is MUCH greater then 550 km (fire range of our missiles).

Actually, depending on the presence of extra fuel pods, the operational range of the F/A-18 C/D is over 500 miles (800+ km), which can be further extended by the presence of tanker aircraft.

That’s what I was saying you long ago. Your only chance against Kirov is numbers.

I wouldn't say our only chance, but I will say that the US would use combined arms to minimize potential losses.

So, we have a bunch of ships which currently in reserve. With proper funds they could return to active duty very quickly. I prefer to believe to our admiral then to Kaizergrey.

Proper funds? Where will you get the money? Pull it out of your ass? You're asking for DONATIONS just to repair a Kirov, you know. And in any case, you can't just pull a ship out of inactive or mothball status and expect it to be combat ready in a few weeks or even months.
And anyway, the US has the same capability as you do to do this, except we could pull far more forces out of naval reserves, including, for starters, 3 or 4 carriers and 2 battleships.

It’s just ridiculous. This data took out of Hazardgay’s ass and multiply divided.

Actually, the numbers are a little higher, I was counting only the Northern and Pacific Fleets, although I should have added in the Baltic Fleet as well, which would add a destroyer and a few frigates to your forces. But the Black Sea Fleet could not realistically enter the battle, because why would Turkey allow Russian warships on a war mission against the US transit the Bosporous?

At least 2. First is on Northern fleet, second on Pacific. But more likely 3. I’m 100% sure that one under repair now in Severodvinsk. None of four was decommissioned, so remaining should be in service or under repair.

Sorry, you only have 1 active. Please try again.

Just notice, SINCE LATE 70S. This technology is almost 30 years old, BUT YOU STILL DIDN’T CREATED SOMETHING EQUAL!!!

Why would the US need carrier-killing torpedos when no other nation on the planet possesses a real aircraft carrier anywhere along the lines of a Nimitz?

Sure you heard about “Kursk”. Do you know that Commander of “Kursk” was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero of Russian Federation”? This is the highest Russian award. Do you know why he received Golden Star and title of Hero? I’ll tell you. Few years ago in Mediterranean “Kursk” made a successful training attack on US battle group. The “Kursk” engaged at firing range to your carrier and made a “training launch” of its torpedoes while it was absolutely unnoticed. After his “training target was destroyed” he just swim away. Your entire Fleet tried to chase “Kursk” but failed. When Kursk returned from this raid commander was awarded by medal “Golden Star of Hero” and various medals awarded other crewmembers also.

Congratulations. A Russian submarine on a basically war footing successfully "attacked" a US carrier on a peacetime alert status.
I think you might run into slightly more problems, not to mention slightly more ships, in a war situation

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


erm... uh... I hope this was a joke, or at least a fit of pariotic fervor. The last thing would call US naval actions in the Pacific are childish games...

It wasn't a joke. It was trolling.
The same as David's- "Russian Navy didn't saw action since 1905".

I will have toread through the rest of your volumes to see if there is any other stuff like this. You write alot!

Sure you could easily find the same things in remaining posts. I often write a lot.

[David Floyd]

First off all, you greatly underestimate the possibilities of mobilization economy. In 1941 Hitler out produced SU almost twice. But as long as we switched to mobilization economy, we started to out produce Germany (not actually only Germany but also all Europe conquered by Hitler.) pretty quickly. This is the best type of economy for war time.

OK, and the US couldn't, in theory, do the same thing why? Remember, also, the US has more heavy industry than Russia does, what with the breakup of the Soviet Union, so if it came down to an arms race with both sides starting with equal amounts of weapons, the US would still win.

Second your industry will be damaged as bad as ours. Forget that you could sit in safety on your continent and making weapons. Not this time. Prepare for explosions, for casualties, for destruction of factories.

Neither side has nearly enough bombers to significantly damage the industry of the other. Although if you want to task your strategic bombers to going after a factory complex in Pennsylvania, while ours go after your bomber bases on the Kola Peninsula, be my guest. Not only will you not do significant damage to US industry with your few bombers, but many of those bombers would be shot down, and soon they would have no forward airfields from which to fly.

Your numbers are wrong because they took from Gasegreat. This guy is bullsh*ter and I haven’t a single reason to trust to his data.

We're talking about a difference of, what? A few destroyers and frigates? Come on, it's not significant, and every major, up to date source agrees with me about the number of missile cruisers and nuclear submarines.

In accordance with www.naval-technology.com Kursk was 10th. And now we have 9 fully operational.

In accordance with your five year old source you had 9 operational, a number that obviously did not take the loss of the Kursk into account.

Good luck capturing Kamchatka. You’ll need it, really big luck.

I didn't say we would capture all of Kamchatka, I said realistic goals would be the area around Petropavlovsk, Russian airfields along or near the coast, and a few other strategic areas in order to fully safeguard Alaska and eliminate a major Russian Pacific Fleet base.

In 1945 through this railroad 2 million army with tanks artillery trucks etc, etc, was moved within less then two month from Europe to borders of Japan. It was more then 50 ears ago when we used steam trains, when there was no modern signalization, modern infrastructure, when “Baikalo Amurskaya Magistral” wasn’t constructed. I don’t see any troubles today to do what we done 50 years ago. In any case Railroad transport much faster and much more efficient then Naval transportation.

You moved 2 million men to Manchuria (and by the way, you begged the US to give you motorized and mechanized transportation for these troops before you agreed to enter the war against Japan), not to Kamchatka. Big difference.

And when your majesty last time inspected our Air forces? What could you know about our AF?

It's not what I know, it's what analysts suspect. They probably know what they are talking about.

[David Floyd]

The same as David's- "Russian Navy didn't saw action since 1905".

I meant significant action and you know it.

[Serb]

Long post, David.
Unfortunately I don't have time right now to answer it. But I'll do it, later.

[Serb]

Your military may be much better than 5 years ago, but is it much better than it was at the height of the Soviet Empire? I think not. It's a shadow of the old Red Army.

Sure it is not. Perhaps you don't noticed, but the world is changed. Our countries don't consider themselfs as enemies anymore. We don't dream about worldwide revolution anymore and we don't need huge army for this. All we need now is forces for self defense.

Most likely, although it certainly depends on the circumstances. If Russia were to invade, say, Poland, that would not be their response.

Why we should invade Poland? It's silly to start another war when you are already in war with USA.

And I'll say one more time that the site you provided is 5 years out of date, and the information you provided is easily refuted by Hazegray, which documents the status of ships it says are not in commission - I believe I cited that documentation to you.

I was talking about http://www.naval-technology.com/ it is much fair source then mysterious Hazegay. Who the f*ck is this guy?

Refer to my previous post and you will see I cited 5 Typhoons that were taken out of service by name.

First of all 7 again. And they should be decommisioned and scraped not because of their current technical status, but in accordance with START-2. As long as you out of ABM treaty, START-2 didin't ratified and not so long ago our countries signed new agreement about nukes (aside Start-2 which was a document contained hundreds of pages, this new agreement has only a couple of pages) which only determinate total number of nukes only and nothing more, WE DON"T NEED TO SCRAP THEM. AND we will not. In fact we build another one. So we have SEVEN.

Well, personally I think you need to read books about Hitler's attitude towards his "Superweapons" such as rockets.

Perhaps, you misunderstood me. Hitler could think anything about is "weapon of revenge", but the scientists who created them could only thought that they designed missiles for delivering of warheads to enemy territory. Who enyone could create a weapon DESIGNED to stop the war. "To stop the war"- it's too abstract goal to design smth.

Of course you had a fleet. It didn't really affect the war in any significant way, though - the German Navy was more influential.

Of course
In accordance to your ****ty theory Red Army and SU war efforts didn't affect the war in any significant way. It was you who won this war, not Russkies.

I suggest you read a book. Not any book in particular, just ANY book about WW2. Read 10 books about WW2. I guarantee none of those books will support your apparent thesis that the Russian Navy was more important than the US Navy

I said it to demonstrate that your thesis how Russian Navy didn't have action since 1905 is total bullsh*t.

In certain cases historically proven doctrines are wrong. In the civil war, the rifle made some Napoleonic tactics obsolete. That does not refute my real point, which had to do with historical experience at naval warfare.

So, why you are so sure that your 80 years old doctrine of use air carriers don't absolete now? You said that invention of rifle made Napoleonic tactics obsolete. Why invention of cruise missile couldn't make carrier obsolete?

But we can have this discussion if you like, no problem.

First of all, Blah...blah...blah....Your primary long-range defensive SAM, the SA-N-6, has a range of 54 miles. This means that Harpoons can be fired before your SAMs can track the aircraft firing them.

No way. It's range 150km (and btw, this is not a maximum range on practice). And S-300 is able to shot down your planes before they launch their ASM.

What this means is that those F/A-18s can fly back to the carrier, rearm, and launch a second strike. In fact, in a war situation, the carrier air wing would probably be beefed up anyway, to include a third and possibly even fourth squadron of F/A-18s, so a second strike could already be in the air. The difference, though, would be that since the Kirov already expended most of its long-range missiles, the aircraft could launch from much closer to the carrier this time, maybe around 10-12 miles away.

Keep dreaming. Kirov wouldn't just stay and waiting for waves of your fighters, it will strike too. When your first wing will be on its way back home. Kirov's Granits will be already launched and your carrier more probably will be already sunk.

Blah...blah...blah....But let's also not forget the fact that this Tomahawk attack would be coordinated with naval aircraft Harpoon attacks, which would likely be coming in from a somewhat different angle. This would add to the already large clutter on Russian radar screens, and as the missiles would be coming in from different altitudes, they would be harder to hit. Some would have to get through, and this becomes even more true when you add in submarine attacks. Blah...blah....blah....

I told you it's all what you can do to destroy Kirov. Your point that one single Nimitz could easily destroy Kirov without support is no omre then BS.

First of all, once these missiles are detected, they can be engaged by the RIM-67 SM-2 Block III and above, not to mention the CIWS system, which is incredibly capable against missiles.

Good luck detecting a group of missiles which flew on 20 feets attitude. You'll need all luck possible to do so.

So, detecting them is really the issue. While I highly doubt that the US has developed no defense for the Granit, no detection ability, even if it didn't have a defense I still have two answers (note that top-end US radar and detection abilities are likely to be very classified).

Sure you didn't invented defense for "Granit" it's still "Shipwreck" for you. The talk about classified defenses is pointless, because I could start saying about Russian super wepons which could easily destroy entire US navy within few seconds, but unfortunately I don't have any information about this weapons, because its classified.

First of all, the SPY1D(V) radar upgrade will be available in a few months, well under a year, and this system is much more able to detect, or rather filter, low-flying targets such as the Granit. While it's true that this system is not available now, it will be very soon, and if war broke out tomorrow, the process could be expedited.

Also soon you should have a anti missile sheild which should protect you from ICBM. So what? Does it mean that it will work?

The other answer is that, again, your battlegroup simply would not be able to approach within the necessary 350 miles of the US CVBG in order to launch the missiles for reasons I have explained above. To clarify a bit more, each US carrier has 4 E-2C Hawkeyes, only one of which needs to be aloft at a time in order to detect any warships for hundreds of miles.

Why are you bothering with pretty expensive radar upgrade if you are so sure about this?
The only reason is that you perfectly know that this is bullsh*t. And Kirov more then able to aproach on 550km to your carrier.

What, do you think I mean we create a wall of fighters at a range of 550km? No, by "bubble", I simply mean a detection area, and such an area would actually exceed 550km by quite a bit, using the E-2C Hawkeye. Given the fact that the top speed of the Nimitz and the Kirov classes are roughly equal, as are the top speeds of their escorts, it seems clear to me that the US CVBG would be able to maneuver in such a way that a missile-firing Russian warship never approached closer than 550km - simple logic, right? I mean, what can you do, corner a ship in the ocean? Come on

You call this maneuver, I call this second scenario for your carrier actions- run away with tail between its legs.

Good thing we have 4 E-2Cs, each with a maximum "on station" time of over 6 hours, plus aerial refueling options, which means the US has airborne coverage 24 hours a day if necessary.

Try to imagine such 24 hours a day activity for a week. Do you realize what amount of fuel such activity would cost you? Can you imagine physical shape of pilots who fly all the time without rest?

How will that help you? You have to penetrate to within 550km, the US CVBG has to keep you that far away, and the speeds of both fleets are roughly equal. Assuming the two forces start at least that far apart - duh - then simple math will tell you the answer to this problem.

So, your suggestion is that you will constantly running away from Kirov. As I said earlier, it's your carrier best choice- to run away as long as he detect Kirov. Run, run and again run away in panic from our carrier-killer.

Good thing we have such a procedure known as +5 and +15 Alert

Now calculate time needed to launch all your aircrafts from carrier. And try to tell me that you are able to use all carrier's aircrafts in airstrike vs. Kirov.

That's why tankers are in the air to refuel aircraft when necessary - the US has been doing carrier aviation for pushing 80 years. We aren't stupid.

Tankers? Near our coast? (I don't see any reason why Kirov should be near your coast) Then calculate the distance and number of tankers needed to refuel all your aircrafts. (And don't forget that bubble could be needed within perhaps weeks)

Actually, depending on the presence of extra fuel pods, the operational range of the F/A-18 C/D is over 500 miles (800+ km), which can be further extended by the presence of tanker aircraft.

First of all, extra fuel pods means reduction of armament.And it doesnt mean that you will be able to make a massive air strike vs Kirov. You could launch wing, but wing is not a problem for S-300, because it has more then enough missiles to destroy single wing with probability 100%. And what prevent to rearm S-300 with new missiles from support ship while your next wing is aproaching? I guess nothing.

Proper funds? Where will you get the money? Pull it out of your ass? You're asking for DONATIONS just to repair a Kirov, you know. And in any case, you can't just pull a ship out of inactive or mothball status and expect it to be combat ready in a few weeks or even months. And anyway, the US has the same capability as you do to do this, except we could pull far more forces out of naval reserves, including, for starters, 3 or 4 carriers and 2 battleships.

No one asking for DONATIONS. It was silly gossip launched few years ago.
In case of war we will don't need money. You just unable to understand this. In case of war our population will work as hard as they can and without salary, just to resist agression.This what I call a mobilization economy- the economy which SU had during WW2.

Actually, the numbers are a little higher, I was counting only the Northern and Pacific Fleets, although I should have added in the Baltic Fleet as well, which would add a destroyer and a few frigates to your forces. But the Black Sea Fleet could not realistically enter the battle, because why would Turkey allow Russian warships on a war mission against the US transit the Bosporous?

Black Sea Fleet alone has couple of Slava. Your numbers is inaccurate. And you, and even your Hazergay couldn't know exect numbers of our ships. This thing is known (if known of course) only to your generals. This talk is pointless.

Why would the US need carrier-killing torpedos when no other nation on the planet possesses a real aircraft carrier anywhere along the lines of a Nimitz?

Do you think those torpedoes desined to sink carriers? Those torpedos designed to sink SHIPS, ANY SHIPS. And it's still unique and best torpedoes of the world. Even after almost 30 years since this technology was invented.

Congratulations. A Russian submarine on a basically war footing successfully "attacked" a US carrier on a peacetime alert status.

I wonder if it was on on a peacetime alert status. As long as I remember your battle group was in the middle of large training exercises.

OK, and the US couldn't, in theory, do the same thing why? Remember, also, the US has more heavy industry than Russia does, what with the breakup of the Soviet Union, so if it came down to an arms race with both sides starting with equal amounts of weapons, the US would still win.

Why?
Because you know nothing except capitalism. Capitalism is in your genes. Could your population work 16 hours a day without salary and receive only 500 grams of bread for this work? If yes, then sure you can switch to mobilization economy of our type. But I doubt that you can.

Neither side has nearly enough bombers to significantly damage the industry of the other.

So, we returned to main question. How the f*ck you suggest to wipe floor with Russia? The only way to do so- large ground compaign. As long as you will step to our backyard it will be game by OUR rules and will kick your asses no doubt. The only think you probably able to do, (but again with bad casualties) is to destroy our Pacific fleet. So, again HOW EXACTLY USA WILL WIPE THE FLOOR WITH RUSSIA?

In accordance with your five year old source you had 9 operational, a number that obviously did not take the loss of the Kursk into account.

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

Stop *****ng my brains David.
"As a cruise missile submarine, the Oscar was designed primarily to attack NATO aircraft carrier battle groups. To cope with its resource problems, the Russian Navy, in the early 1990s, made an effort at preserving its core submarine force capabilities. The Russian Navy continued to invest in new construction. In the late 1990s, it completed several new submarines of the third-generation Oscar II. A dozen of the larger Oscar II submarines were built between 1985 and 1999 at the Sevmash yard in Severodvinsk. Two have been decommissioned and one, the Kursk, sank. Five Oscar II submarines are active with the Northern Fleet and four with the Pacific Fleet."
Your Kaizergay didn't even know to which fleets those subs are belong.

I didn't say we would capture all of Kamchatka, I said realistic goals would be the area around Petropavlovsk, Russian airfields along or near the coast, and a few other strategic areas in order to fully safeguard Alaska and eliminate a major Russian Pacific Fleet base.

Good luck. I guess you have no idea about number of forces staitioned there. If you think that you could take it without large groun operation with heave casualties from your side.

You moved 2 million men to Manchuria (blah...bs...blah) not to Kamchatka. Big difference.

Not so big. We will move our troops much faster through our railroads the you will move your troops through cargo ships.

[Kramerman]

Perhaps, you misunderstood me. Hitler could think anything about is "weapon of revenge", but the scientists who created them could only thought that they designed missiles for delivering of warheads to enemy territory. Who enyone could create a weapon DESIGNED to stop the war. "To stop the war"- it's too abstract goal to design smth.

Just a point here. The US develped the Atomic bomb to end world war II, and that is exactly what it did. It is not too abstract an idea. Simply a weapon is neccessary that is so destructive that it breaks your enemy's will to fight. If V-1 and V-2 would of been produced in large enough quantities they very well could have done this. But strategic bombing and invasion can do this too.

Of course
In accordance to your ****ty theory Red Army and SU war efforts didn't affect the war in any significant way. It was you who won this war, not Russkies.

Aww ****. we already had this discussion. Anyway he was refering to SU naval power having little effect on the war, not SU military power.

So, why you are so sure that your 80 years old doctrine of use air carriers don't absolete now? You said that invention of rifle made Napoleonic tactics obsolete. Why invention of cruise missile couldn't make carrier obsolete?

Well, the doctrine was adopted during WWII when planes showed their effectiveness in killing ships. This would make it maybe 60 years old. The rifle made Napoleonic muskets obsolete, like F-14 Tomcats made Corsairs obsolete. Just because the musket went obsolete to the rifle does not mean you no longer use the infantry unit. So now that the Corsair is obsolete, that does not mean we have to do away with the carrier group.

EDIT: well i think im going to stop there. The arguements are too long and I am losing interest. Though both side have made good points, Im leaning towards David. Though I dont remember WHat yall are originally argueing about. Perhaps if you refresh my memory I might change my mind. It that Davids arguements seem a little mor logical, not to say Serb hasnt had any logical arguements. Both, unfortunately, have had some prety irrational ones though. But we all do, they are mostly use in spite, and especially that is evident in this little discussion . But we are all friends in the end...(oh my God, that is the corniest thing Ive ever said)

[Serb]

Re: The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

I'm gladly refresh your memory about the subject of debate.
David seriously think that USA could handle with Russia like it handle with Yugoslavia or Afghanistan:

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

He still didn't explained how exactly he want to wipe floor with us.

Still on his side?