Putin confirms anti-ship missile deployment to Crimea

a reply to: Phage

That is now the Liaoning. It's still doing acceptance trials and work ups, as well as teaching the Chinese how to operate a carrier.

a reply to: Zaphod58
A bristly sumbitch he was. I imagine he was pretty well stripped down before the deal was closed.

a reply to: Phage

It was refitted in a Chinese yard over many years. They're in the process of building an indigenous hull now, apparently a CATOBAR.

There's talk that the Russians are designing a hypersonic AShM designed to launch from the Tu-22M3.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Sunburn on steroids.

Maybe an emphasis on a littoral fleet rather than blue water makes sense in the face of something like that. No real capital asset to go after.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: johnwick

Cruise missiles can easily come in under the radar and strike anything.

Just the nearly ancient tomahawk can run nap of the earth radar evasion routes.

Did not know the nap of the earth strategy can be run by the cruise missiles. That gives them an extra points against the radars. Other modes likes IRST and passive trackers would have be coordinated in this case.

The lasers ofcourse are a new deal in town. But Russians can also use then for defensive purposes. Pantsirs also have missiles that blast cluster bomb fragments over the incoming threat area. However, there are 12 of these missiles in each Pantsir. Are these too few is the question of per situation basis.

The real threat to Russians would be missile with Hypersonic Stealth with Laser defensive mechanism. But they would be really expensive like $3 to 5 million each.

Would US throw in $200 million worth of JASSMs i.e. 200 such missiles to take out one area let's say Crimea's coastal defense? Guess $200 million for US is not much and especially when the opposing party is Russia or China. However, few mistakes and Ruskies can really rack up the costs of the misadventure to the aggressor.

That is why you saturation bomb one erea, then kill their countermeasures during reload.

That's why simple military strategy of keeping the reserves in tandem should be applied. When main defensive mechanism is busy reloading then reserves are active in defending and vice versa. After the first few rounds it will become the factor of numbers and depth in the pockets.

Very good points here.

It is like playing chess.

I describe moves, you describe counter moves.

Have you factored in the use of MALD JSOW and HARM systems into your thoughts?

These are unknowns to me, as I don't remember seeing them effectively used anywhere but sales pitches to the military.

Do you think they are capable of even a fraction of their pitch usefulness.

I know HARM is effective just by themselves.

But Raytheon is pitching the use of all 3 at once could cripple a strong modern SAM defense rapidly.

I don't know this to be true though, so I didn't include it in my thoughts about possible strategy.

The US very well might break out the good stuff and drop $200 million on one coastal zone if they tried a more conventional route and got spanked.

Hard to know honestly though.

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Zaphod58

Glad you join in Mr. Z. So what would be the first battle

a) TLAMs and cousins against the defensive area

or

b) dogfight between F22s and Su-35s.

Su-35s can fly out and unleash their Anti ship missiles to try to kill the launch pads but F-22s should put in an interception.

Currently Russia barely has 30 odd Su-35s, so outnumber 1 to 6 vrs F22s, it would be a down scenario to begin with it seems.

That is one dog fight I would like to see.

My Lord, the F-22 vs the Su-35....I just want to see how both stack up against a fellow next gen.

Watching them kick the hell out of older fighters is like watching mike Tyson in his youth vs some old washed boxer that is 50.

It would get ugly as russia would send swarms of their own missiles, as being land based gives one hell of an advantage.

a reply to: johnwick

It would get ugly as russia would send swarms of their own missiles, as being land based gives one hell of an advantage.

The Soviet doctrine. Cheap, nasty...and plentiful.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: johnwick
Carrier based operations can and will easily be conducted from outside the systems range.

The range covers about 80% of the Black Sea from the Crimean Peninsula and completely denies the Eastern Black Sea.

Not to mention it is guarded by AEGIS, and one of the best Defensive systems ever devised by man.

unlikely to stop a swarm of missiles, as stated already. Just one gets through and the carrier is a coral reef.

And now to top it off is testing the new solid state laser kill system.
Hi mach anti ship missiles are fast, light is still much faster, like the Missiles are standing still.
Confirmed kill at over a mile, cut right through a carbody and engine block like a hot knife through butter.

that test was a stationary truck...a wee bit different than an incoming missile with a target profile about 1 foot radius. That system is years away from missile defense.

US military planners have openly worried about anti-ship missiles and carrier operations. You need to read up on those concerns cause they are real.

Oh I know they are real.

The test against a truck was a new laser system.

The first gen, the one they are testing right now on the fleet, has and can shoot down missiles.

Hence the need to field test it so badly.

Otherwise the antiship missiles will make carriers"reefs" as you stated so well.

Short of a laser defense system..I do not see any way to save such a big target.

Doesn't russia also have some super fast torpedo that pushes steam out in front of it, making the torpedo "fly" under the water at hundreds of miles an hour?

Or was that just a project that didn't pan out?

I believe last I read it was at least possible.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: noeltrotsky

The Navy has the ability to stop cruise missiles up to mach 2.5 with regularity.

The only way one cruise missile sinks a carrier is if it's nuclear. One of the older carriers built just after WWII was sunk in a weapons test, and had multiple explosives detonated in contact with and near the hull, including a 2000 lb explosive, and was in no danger of sinking until the scuttling charges were detonated.

I saw a documentary about something like that.

They were sinking a super carrier to make a reef.

They cut 60 foot holes every 80 feet all the to the waterline from the flight deck.

Then cut holes through the ship fore to aft, it basically honeycombed the thing.

Right before they detonated to charges to blow the hull holes out the engineer in charge turns to the camera and says "I don't even know if this thing is going to sink.".

I was just like...damn!!!

a reply to: johnwick

It's a super cavitating torpedo. It doesn't use steam, it injects bubbles around it to create a curtain that allows higher speeds, up to about 110 knots. It's currently extremely short ranged though.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

It would get ugly as russia would send swarms of their own missiles, as being land based gives one hell of an advantage.

The Soviet doctrine. Cheap, nasty...and plentiful.

you got that right.

The doctrine of Sherman's vs tigers from ww2.

Sure a tiger could kill 5 or 6 Sherman's in one sitting, but we were building like 12 for every one of the panzers and like 20 for every tiger.

a reply to: johnwick
With a bit of a difference.
Missiles don't have riders.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: johnwick

It's a super cavitating torpedo. It doesn't use steam, it injects bubbles around it to create a curtain that allows higher speeds, up to about 110 knots. It's currently extremely short ranged though.

Wow, 110 knots....wow!!!

Probably has the best sonar around too I assume.

But if its range is very limited, then it won't be nearly as effective.

Because honestly their sub's don't have much chance of getting g close last time I read up on it.

Perhaps their new class?


So zaphpd phage, what do you guys think, just speculating here, is the most likely scenario if it does cone to a fight?

Mass cruise missile volleys?

MALDs JSOWs HARMs with cruise missiles and stealth assaults in tandem?

Might we actually see F-22 vs Su-35 dogfights?

a reply to: johnwick

Might we actually see F-22 vs Su-35 dogfights?

Nope. But I guess that depends on your definition of dogfight.

a reply to: johnwick

Would Russian point defenses like Pantsirs or Tor be able to handle the HARMs? do not know, these sure are nearly Mach 2 missiles but with operational range of only 150 kms meaning will have be delivered by an aircraft, F22s most probably. Don't know how these work against a moving target. I bet due to range, these will come later in the innings. JSOWs are also probably later innings deal due to the range issues.

Have heard about MALDs which try to fool the SAMs and ADs into opening up and thus revealing their positions etc. Do not know what is Russian answer to such tricks. Would passive trackers like Tamara or Kolchuga radars be able to help any in differentiating between real vrs fake threat.

Regarding F22s vrs Su-35 it will not be a fair fight. One place quoted even Pak-Fa (Russian answer to F22s) as 4.5 generation aircraft barely ahead of Su-35 in terms of stealth and avionics. The best chance for these two would be to avoid the missiles launched by F22s and come closer to the Raptor and then do an old fashioned dogfight ending with a cannon kill. F22s and F35s have some secret ability that does not allow the enemy missile to gain a lock on them very easily. In a BVR scenario even F22 would have maximum 15-20% chance of a successful hit. Su-35 would have barely 5 to atmost 10% chance of a successful missile kill.

Russians have come up with a new missile that guarantees the 100% lock and kill but do not know much about it and as to why would US not be able to counter or even improve on this technology.

There is another point on a scenario where both sides have taken out atleast 50% each others satellites. Will that negate the GPS, datalinks, Drones, remote missile guidance and other slick stuff out of the equation? Real pros in the field might have better inputs.

Another major point in equation is the Cyber damage done to each other's important points. Guess the next generation war might start with Cyber hits on each other.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick
With a bit of a difference.
Missiles don't have riders.

Not that the Russians have historically cared about their casualty rates very much.

But the ability to risk nobody at the same time....

I hope it doesn't come to this.

It will be ugly as my first girlfriend, and half as pleasant.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: johnwick

Might we actually see F-22 vs Su-35 dogfights?

Nope. But I guess that depends on your definition of dogfight.

Good point.

a reply to: johnwick

Like I said before cruise missiles to start, followed by SEAD/DEAD, then the bombers go through.

The F-22s will be used BVR as much as possible, which is what they're designed for. They'll eventually get into WVR fights, but it'll mostly be the older legacy fighters doing WVR at first.

a reply to: johnwick
True.
But getting back to your prior question. I think air superiority will always be the deciding factor (in the immediate future and unless it goes non-conventional). I also don't think that either "side" has a clear advantage in that theater. Zaphod knows more about current capability than I though.

a reply to: victor7

There is no 100% kill with air to air missiles. The new missiles will have a higher kill rate than older missiles, but certainly not 100%.