Jump to content

US Stingers


jpratt88

Recommended Posts

Rather, I think he is trying to provide a logical argument, based upon HIS TEN YEAR SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY,

Respectfully, it was only eight on active duty and a little shy of a year so far in the National Guard.  

Anyway, back to Lucas


 

Next we need to look at the Third Battle of the Atlantic which, in the event of a war in Ukraine is going to take place in the event of war. Do you honestly think that Putin and his military commanders are going to just let US reinforcements flow across the Atlantic and build up for some huge set piece offensive which is what the US military is best at? No of couse not! The Russians will be using air and sea power (mostly submarines to interdict the Atlantic convoy routes

This is where you are confused again.  This is not World War Three.  This is a regional conflict that has boiled over thanks to itchy trigger fingers.  In a war of national survival that either ends with a Russian landing in Colorado, or a NATO victory parade past the Kremlin, the sort of expectations you have are less unreasonable.  However any sort of Naval or Air war is Russia directly playing against American strengths, and losing assets they cannot replace (there are minimal remaining Russian shipbuilding facilities, Russian air industry relies on imported components etc).  Not to mention the Russian Naval capabilities are even worse decayed than the rest of the Russian military which is bloody well saying something at this point.

 

I am not saying the US won't win the air war and I am not saying hat they won't build up a large and effective force in Europe. They can and will do it. Eventually and at a significant cost. It will likely take 6 to 8 weeks to build up the required force levels and achieve at least some measure of air superiority/ Th point is it will take a while for hese conditions to vbe achieved.

It will take less time to achieve a build up of air assets than ground assets.  This is relevant because again, you think there needs to be various LAAD type systems or the US military will be crushed by raining blows of Russian CAS.  The ground deployment will lag well behind the air, and if you've got even a preposition yard equipped ABCT in country, you've had at least 7-10 days from orders to deploy to first elements of the ABCT mission capable.  USAF squadrons flexing to europe is simply much faster because they're falling in on existing NATO logistics.  The air battle may not be won for a bit, but it certainly will not be some totally anarchic flow of random planes swooping and diving all over the place, with only LAAD standing between NATO forces and skyassault.  

So here's the situation with LAAD:

If it existed, it would only be available in numbers that would be commiserate with the forces deployed.  A Brigade level ADA asset will simply be overwhelmed and crushed if the Russians are able to blow through the amount of fighters than can (and would) be deployed within the ten day prepo draw window.  PATRIOT is different because PATRIOT can be better mobilized as it's just a series of large trucks, there's even PATRIOT batteries aligned with airborne units (likely meant to be flown in as a follow-on vs dropped).  But in terms of a ABCT, some mythical ADA asset simply would not be enough to ward off a Russian attack that again, plows aside some of the most effective fighters and theater level SAMs in the world.

The US military dumped horse cavalry, coastal artillery, dive bombers etc all because it found other better ways to accomplish those unit's missions.  We don't have 40 MM bofors strapped onto ships any more in spite of the dire threat of enemy aviation that leaks through SM-3 missiles and CIWS, which frankly might as well be suicide really.  The total lack of rearward facing machine gun turrets on the existing generation of strike fighters ensures they will be partially helpless when the hun bounces them from the sun after sneaking through radar, BVR engagements etc etc.  Tankers must be equipped with sabers to allow them to ride down dismounted enemy fusiliers in case the machine guns don't catch them first!

Seriously. You've played some video games.  There are some risks to not having an LAAD system.  In a land of infinite money we'd likely have one.  But the risk is simply not that high when you take into account the US military's role as Largest Air Force's of the World #1-3 and is close buddies with #6-22, and we don't have money for every project ever, and red air is, and likely will remain a distant threat to the American serviceman, unlike direct fire, IEDs, mortars, and poor dental hygiene.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@Currahee150  agree with all comments.  Additionally to reinforce, the Russian navy has suffered for years from neglect.  While she may have some vary capable equipment, it is nowhere near the numbers it once was nor are the crews as well trained.  If the Russian sub fleet had to sortie tomorrow to try and interdict the Atlantic, I'd expect a lot of lost crews.  Brave men are still dead men when thrown into a situation they are not prepared for.

The Severodvinsk, the latest Russian Attack sub was laid down in 1993 - 17 years in the making and there is only one active.  The only other recent build is the Lada class which was at one point even pulled from consideration for active service it performed so poorly.   Every other sub is at least 20+ years old and the work to try and modernize them has only just begun.  Assuming it can even be done.  The Northern fleet has approx 22 Attacks subs in varying condition.   The Black Sea fleet consists of 5 old Kilo class boats.  The Baltic fleet has 2.  The Pacific fleet has 17.  46 total subs. (I have seen one note that as few as 38 boats are in active service)

The US has 54 very modern nuclear attack subs and all of those subs are in better shape with better crews.

I don't have any idea what someone might be learning by playing Harpoon, but the reality is the Russian Navy is not even a glimmer of what it once was- sadly.  I remember pulling out the various Victory games Fleet series and just checking out the counters.  I loved looking at the Russian Navy.  If I had to do that now it would be odd. The flood of subs pushing the GIUK gaps being 22... total?  The surface fleet would simply be vaporized.  They would not even be able to perform as well as German Raiders in WW2.  It is a sad truth that history has left the Russian navy behind. Anyone who thinks they could even begin to challenge the US Navy is just being emotional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jpratt88,

Properly sited, with good fields of fire and in command, in my very limited experience, I found Stingers to be quite effective. A pair of Su-25s attacked, but one was downed and the other driven off. Unfortunately, by then my positions came under heavy attack. Events shown and described below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1n1hke5tz5c522s/Screenshot 2015-08-20 00.23.17.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hn8zz5ju3mjg3pw/Screenshot 2015-08-20 00.12.57.png?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8b4jldc31exqtsc/Screenshot 2015-08-20 00.12.09.png?dl=0
 

"A frog may not weigh much, but to be where a FROGFOOT jumps is something else altogether. While JasonC is indeed correct regarding insane overclaiming by tacair in attacking AFVs, there is no gainsaying what that airstrike did to me in the first minute of battle. The Bradley was hidden behind a house, but that turned out not to be hidden from the air. Results? Obliterated 2-story house and dead Bradley. Weapon appears to have been a bomb of appreciable size. Pics to follow.

 

ASA (Army Security Agency) radio intercept transcript  Intercept target: COMINT between REDFOR CO and CAS

 

"Berkut One (call sign for Su-25 element lead) to Comrade Sudoplatov (call sign REDFOR CO I.S. Sublimovitch). Over."

 

"Comrade Sublimovitch. Report. Over"

 

"Berkut One advises good strike. Repeat. Good strike on center of Objective Zapad. Hits observed on imperialist infantry positions. Personally destroyed Bradley and dismounted fighting position next to house at (gives grid)."

 

"Comrade Supoplatov to Berkut One. Excellent work! Repeat. Excellent Work! There's a medal in this for you."

 

(abrupt strong Russian oaths, followed by garbled message)

 

"...zenith rockets! Zenith rockets in air! Break left! Break left!"

 

(explosion, gurgling sound, then silence)

 

In his ACRV (NATO nomenclature) the formerly exuberant I.S. Sublimovitch's mood first crashes like his downed Grach, then turns to apoplectic rage. In one of those famous Russian COMSEC gaffes going back to WW I, one of the radio operators had inadvertently switched from presumed secure data link to a detected too late poorly protected frequency. ASA intercept operators (and later, Higher) found what came next most entertaining.

 

"Berkut One? Berkut One? Report. Report now!"

 

(timorous agitated voice comes up on CAS command net)

 

"Berkut One. Berkut One. This is Berkut Two. Advise Berkut One is down. Hard. No chute. Repeat. No chute. (Russian epithet regarding zenith rockets "Stinger"). Drawing ground fire but am continuing attack! Out."

 

In his ACRV, with his hapless staff trapped with him in the very close hot confines of the command track, Podpolkovnik Sublimovitch went through a whole series of emotional states in rapid succession, all expressed aloud, before regrouping internally and regaining his sang froid.

 

"They shot down my "flying tank" ? They shot down my "flying tank" ? How is that possible? I know for a fact that in the Georgia Operation, an Su-25 survived a Buk hit and made it back on one engine. A Buk hit! Compared to a Buk, the zenith rocket "Stinger" is a gnat! 

 

(rustling is heard, then gentle calm voice IDed before as Y.A. Nidanovitch, ops officer and close friend of the Komandir)

 

"I'm sorry, Iosef Sublimovitch, but we have three separate reports of seeing the plane hit by zenith rockets then falling out of the sky ablaze."

Granted, this is one QB's worth of results, but it is clear to me that Stingers are a deadly. Of two Su-25s committed, both got off an attack, but one died coming off the target in the initial pass and the other was driven off when re-attacking. That said, it's better when the Stingers engage before the sky falls on you!  I had my Stinger teams well sited on high ground, but the attack didn't come in on the likely threat axes, evidently resulting in tree obscured LOS and delaying the engagement cycle. I guarantee you Sublime feels Stingers are a mortal threat to his CAS, whether fixed wing or rotary wing. It is possible, though, considering how tiny is the Stinger warhead relative to that of a Buk hit described above, that what I got was a golden BB level result, the air defense equivalent of a lethal vision port hit on a Tiger 1 by a HEAT rifle grenade. I have no way of knowing the true situation one way or another. On balance, based solely on that QB, Stingers do not need any adjustment other than what might be gained if, say, new seeker capabilities are developed, or lost if Russian countermeasures against it improve.

As for the broader issue of what all those wonderful capabilities the US has for aerial warfare are expected to do, I thought it might be instructive to see things from the Russian side of the fence. The author of the most informative piece "Pesticide for Super Hornets" is a retired Colonel of Aviation and fighter pilot. Please note what he has to say about the AWACS problem and how the Su-27 deals with AMRAAM armed Super Hornets and such. It can do things I never heard of before in the latter case. 

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-060807-1.html

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

 

 

Thank you for that interesting article on Russian capabilities John. As I said earlier the Russian air dwefense network is not something to be underestimated. We all know armies and generals that have underestimated the Russians have often com to very sticky ends.

We must of course also consider the wider strategic and operational aspects of a war in Ukraine.

1 While the main land fighting will indeed take place in Ukraine it is quite likely, even probable that there will be a "second front in  the Baltic States that might possibly include Poland and Belorussia to some Certainly there will be some sort of fight around the Kaliningrad Enclave

2 Considerable air and naval combat outside the scope of CMBS will certainly be seen in the Mediterranean/Black Sea, the Arctic Ocean, the North Atlantic and the Baltic.Further air and sea combat is likely between Russian and Western forces in the Indian Ocean/Middle East and the Far East. That will take up no more than the first month of the war although there will probably still be residual Russian capabilities at that sage

3 The air war over Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Western Russia which is probably of most interest to CMBS players. This will be influenced by the requirements of the sea control battles during the opening days and weeks owing to competition fo resources 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Currahee150  agree with all comments.  Additionally to reinforce, the Russian navy has suffered for years from neglect.  While she may have some vary capable equipment, it is nowhere near the numbers it once was nor are the crews as well trained.  If the Russian sub fleet had to sortie tomorrow to try and interdict the Atlantic, I'd expect a lot of lost crews.  Brave men are still dead men when thrown into a situation they are not prepared for.

The Severodvinsk, the latest Russian Attack sub was laid down in 1993 - 17 years in the making and there is only one active.  The only other recent build is the Lada class which was at one point even pulled from consideration for active service it performed so poorly.   Every other sub is at least 20+ years old and the work to try and modernize them has only just begun.  Assuming it can even be done.  The Northern fleet has approx 22 Attacks subs in varying condition.   The Black Sea fleet consists of 5 old Kilo class boats.  The Baltic fleet has 2.  The Pacific fleet has 17.  46 total subs. (I have seen one note that as few as 38 boats are in active service)

The US has 54 very modern nuclear attack subs and all of those subs are in better shape with better crews.

I don't have any idea what someone might be learning by playing Harpoon, but the reality is the Russian Navy is not even a glimmer of what it once was- sadly.  I remember pulling out the various Victory games Fleet series and just checking out the counters.  I loved looking at the Russian Navy.  If I had to do that now it would be odd. The flood of subs pushing the GIUK gaps being 22... total?  The surface fleet would simply be vaporized.  They would not even be able to perform as well as German Raiders in WW2.  It is a sad truth that history has left the Russian navy behind. Anyone who thinks they could even begin to challenge the US Navy is just being emotional.

Well you would learn that the Russian navy would have to be defeated. I agree with you the magor Russiam surface elements probably would no last beyond the first week. Submarines somewhat longer. You would learn that the Dardanelles are a major choke point easily interdicted by submarines and naval minefields. You would earn that the Black Sea could well be turned into a shooting gallery.

You would learn that finding the enemy before he finds you is often the hardest part. And you would learn that modern naval warfare is fought out ove vast areas and, wen actual cmbat begins is high speed and unforgiving.

Those 20 or so Russian submarines coming through the GIUK are likely to be modern types including Yasen, Borei and Typhoon class. Maybe not as good as the most modern Western submarines but still hard to find and hard to destroy and could well make a mess of a least the firs few Atlantic convoys. Putin and his commanders are certainly not fools and will attempt to contest the Atlantic convoy routes as long as possible while they fight to win the ground war in Ukraine s rapidly as possible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian naval doctrine is to leave the SSBNs in a protected bastion  (the white sea, for instance) where they are much easier to defend, such as by surface combatants, land based aircraft, and diesel electric boats. There's nothing to gain by sending them into the Atlantic and a whole lot to lose.

Everyone but you is figuring a limited engagement contained locally to the black Sea area and/or Baltics. If Russia were to start a global naval conflict they would lose their entire remaining fleet for peanuts, and provoke a massive retaliatory response as punishment. Plus, it's not like the entire fleet can get underway. At any given moment fully 1/3 of the USN is in deep maintenance that would take at best several weeks to wrap up/cancel, and our maintenance record is substantially better than the Russians. I would be surprised if 50% of the Russian fleet could get underway if they even wanted to. The level of neglect is criminal.

A push into the Black Sea would be difficult by a CSG (they're not CVBGs anymore) and would take time. But the rest of your assumptions on the naval side are a little dated. Semi-related, if you like Harpoon, I recommend you check out CMANO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russian naval doctrine is to leave the SSBNs in a protected bastion  (the white sea, for instance) where they are much easier to defend, such as by surface combatants, land based aircraft, and diesel electric boats. There's nothing to gain by sending them into the Atlantic and a whole lot to lose.

Everyone but you is figuring a limited engagement contained locally to the black Sea area and/or Baltics. If Russia were to start a global naval conflict they would lose their entire remaining fleet for peanuts, and provoke a massive retaliatory response as punishment. Plus, it's not like the entire fleet can get underway. At any given moment fully 1/3 of the USN is in deep maintenance that would take at best several weeks to wrap up/cancel, and our maintenance record is substantially better than the Russians. I would be surprised if 50% of the Russian fleet could get underway if they even wanted to. The level of neglect is criminal.

A push into the Black Sea would be difficult by a CSG (they're not CVBGs anymore) and would take time. But the rest of your assumptions on the naval side are a little dated. Semi-related, if you like Harpoon, I recommend you check out CMANO.

What I am saying to you is that the conflict, while the major land fighting takes place in Eastern Europe is also going to involve quite considerable naval and air combat outside the main theater of war n land. Think Mahan and consider that the US is  Maritime Power. Russia is of course disadvantaged by geography as well as by naval technology and will have to consider these factors in a war with the US over Ukraine or anywhere else for that matter. I am actually thinking about these factors even though naval and air combat elsewhere in the world might well be quite limited in scope and duration. Do you really imagine Putin and his military commanders are stupid? Why do you think there are so many incidents involving Russian war planes violating British air space for example And why do you think Russian naval activity has been so high world wide? Of which this is just one example

http://sputniknews.com/us/20150416/1020951139.html

And here is another. Much closer to home

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/nato-admiral-were-seeing-more-181127919.html

You see only the Ukraine theater. I see that as the principal area of ground combat with a lot of air and naval combat going on elsewhere, primarily in the Mediterranean/Black Sea and in the Atlantic. I also see air and naval action potential in he Far East, Middle East and Indian Ocean if US/Western and Russian air and naval units are operating in relatively close proximity. In modern naval warfare terms "relatively close could mean up to a thousand miles.

In the 2017 CMBS scenario I definitely see a major surface action within a day or two of the outbreak of hostilities  taking place in the Eastern Mediterranean between the Russian Black Sea Fleet and US carriers I certainly do not question that Russia would lose this engagement and other surface engagements. Once hostilities open in Ukraine these naval battles are going to b fought. probably whether or not the Russians want to fight them or not. Personally I see the Russian surfacee navy wold wide lasting a week or maybe a little more. Say ten days a the outside.

They would have to contest the Atlantic Convoy routes. Otherwise the US will just roll convoys over and build up a huge mechanized force backed by air power. In a couple of moths this will roll right over the Russian army. But his force won't be ready for a couple of months. So. if we assume hostilities open on 1 June 2017 the units and logistics of he US contingent won't be ready to strike back until some time in the first week in August although limited counter offensive will be mounted earlier than that.

Russia on the other hand will be seeking to win the war quickly, achieving its' political/military aims before the US is ready to respond. Russia might hope t hand an over-confident US a "nasty little Kasserine" at the least causing significant losses, taking much or a;ll of Ukraine and perhaps taking the opportunity to take the Baltic Stats - a chance that probably will never come again Maybe even a good swipe at the Romanians, Poles or the Swedes if the opportunity presents itself

What I am saying to you is that the conflict, while the major land fighting happens in the Ukraine will not be as limited as you think in terms of air and naval combat. Although I will grant you air and naval action will be limited in duration and, after the elimination of the Russian naval and air threats to the maritime trade routes that will probably be it as far as active combat goes outside some selective air and missile strikes and blockade  of the Russian land mass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok fine. Lets take this 'video games trump everything' to its logical conclusion.

According to federal law, I am active duty. Not only am I active duty, but I have spent considerable amounts of time playing CMBS, CMBN, and CMSF. Following that logic, I should be promoted from Cadet Private to Chief of Staff of the US Army.

But wait! I don't only play CM, you know. I also have played Command: Modern Air Naval Operations, which is a generation ahead of Harpoon ANW. And one time, I shot down an Su-27 in Lock On. So I basically should become Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While I would accept the position, I doubt it would end up being in America's best interests.

Of course, I would get rid of the F-35, so maybe it would be worth it.

Edited by Currahee150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Command: Modern Air Naval Operations, which is a generation ahead of Harpoon ANW.

By this logic at 100+ hours played on CMANO I might as well be defense secretary, look out Russia!

You're welcome in my department of defense currahee, I expect great things from you and your Lock-On experience, consider yourself my air force chair.

Edited by Raptorx7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Command Modern Air Naval Operations. Highly recommend it as a Naval sim.

Lucas, I'm an active USN officer and Naval Aviator, I'm familiar with Mahan and I'd wager more familiar with our capabilities as well as our foes than you. You see grand escalation to World War 3. Everyone else, including both governments, sees a rapid and localized war. Putins goal would be to complete his objectives before NATO could bring those heavy reinforcements over. He would bank on no one wanting to go launch a costly counteroffensive for murky reasons that the western public wouldn't want to back. This was discussed in the Russian underequiped thread for several pages and that was the general consensus.

Be it Ukraine or the Baltics, I sincerely doubt you'd see any real naval action initially. The Russians would get a nice message saying that assets over/near Syria best remain nonhostile or face immediate destruction. The second that Slava sitting off Syria lights off a radar at a NATO aircraft it's getting a torpedo, and the Russians know this. The ships in Kaliningrad/St. Petersburg wouldn't sortie for the same reason, especially because they wouldn't contribute anything before they sank. The Northern Fleet wouldn't surge into the Atlantic because they can't in any meaningful numbers. The SSBNs damn well wouldn't surge because that's a MASSIVE escalation.

TL;DR, Russia would make sure the ground war ended asap as that's their best shot at approaching the negotiating table under favorable circumstances. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Command Modern Air Naval Operations. Highly recommend it as a Naval sim.

Lucas, I'm an active USN officer and Naval Aviator, I'm familiar with Mahan and I'd wager more familiar with our capabilities as well as our foes than you. You see grand escalation to World War 3. Everyone else, including both governments, sees a rapid and localized war. Putins goal would be to complete his objectives before NATO could bring those heavy reinforcements over. He would bank on no one wanting to go launch a costly counteroffensive for murky reasons that the western public wouldn't want to back. This was discussed in the Russian underequiped thread for several pages and that was the general consensus.

Be it Ukraine or the Baltics, I sincerely doubt you'd see any real naval action initially. The Russians would get a nice message saying that assets over/near Syria best remain nonhostile or face immediate destruction. The second that Slava sitting off Syria lights off a radar at a NATO aircraft it's getting a torpedo, and the Russians know this. The ships in Kaliningrad/St. Petersburg wouldn't sortie for the same reason, especially because they wouldn't contribute anything before they sank. The Northern Fleet wouldn't surge into the Atlantic because they can't in any meaningful numbers. The SSBNs damn well wouldn't surge because that's a MASSIVE escalation.

TL;DR, Russia would make sure the ground war ended asap as that's their best shot at approaching the negotiating table under favorable circumstances. 

Thanks for that. Actually I am not saying the scenario would be an escalation to WW3 although I would not rule it out. I think he most likely air and naval aspect would be relatively limited but locally serious combat i the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic/ Putin and his military commanders likely expect that as well which would explain their real world actions. 

I agree Putin will try to complete his goals before heavy US reinforcements arrive. He will also try to interdict and attrite those reinforcements using submarine assets which, as we both know are a serious threat to Atlantic convoys.He would be a fool if he didn't and it could cost him the entire war if he just allows a US buildup in Europe without trying to do something about it. Some form of action by the Northern Fleet would be something I would expect in order to at least try to do something about he US convoys Allowing an unimpeded US build up was one the mistakes Saddam Hussein made. Putin on the other hand is no fool I do see Western forces going after the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Mediterranean very actively and the Russians would actually try to get the first good shot here, Which as you well know is often critical in modern naval combat. Writing off the a large pat of the Northern and Black Sea Fleets and hoping they can do as much damage as possible is something Putin and his commanders will have to accept in that this will be of some use in their atemt to achieve a quick win on land. That as you know is what a continental power like Russia with a relatively weak blue water navy has to do when at war with a maratime power.

Regarding naval combat in the Indian Ocean/Middle East and the Far ast I see tht as possible but less likely. I would not however rule it out

By the way, have you read the War that Never Was by Michael Palmer.? An interesting thought provoking study of a WW3 fought circa 1990. Anyway  will take a look at CMANO though I probably won't buy it already owning Harpoon ANW. Having said that the map graphics in your game do look very attractive compared to the Harpoon maps even with heir colour palettes As far as possible naval aspects surrounding a 2017 Ukraine War either game will probably be just fine As I think both of us realize a computer game is probably the best way to play a simulation of modern naval warfare due to the vast area s involved if nothing else. A

Anyway, fascinating a subject as it is we have probably said enough for now in regard to the strategic, air and naval aspects of the conflict so it is probably time to start drawing this to a close :-) Although feel free to PM me if you would like to discuss the naval/strategic aspects for a bit longer - happy to hear from someone who is a naval professional - from whom a History/Politics grad like myself would no doubt gain significant insights :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, CMANO is way ahead of Harpoon ANW. Its worth the price tag, and I don't even like naval combat that much.

Back to the Russian navy:

Lets pretend that the fight in Ukraine somehow does go into WWIII mode. No one else here seems to think that is likely to happen, but lets go with it. The Russian navy is ordered to sortie. So lets follow this through. Not only do those 22 SSNs have to get past the Norwegians, the British, the Germans, and SOSUS, they then must contend with extremely heavily guarded convoys, because Norfolk and Jacksonville are mostly empty by now. And don't forget the picket line of US SSNs that would be established in the GIUK gap. Yes, the ASW capabilty of the GIUK nations is laughable compared to the 1980s. But Russia's SSN fleet is even worse off. Lets say somehow, through these layers of defenses, 8 submarines get through to the North Atlantic. Roving ASW patrols get more. Maybe 5 see a merchant ship. Lets say then that all 5 submarines, despite pitiful training and maintenance rates, manage to successfully engage and sink five merchies. They are then themselves sunk. They have successfully sunk 5 ships out of the tidal wave of ships crossing the Atlantic. Now, I don't know how the US military combat loads ships, but I'm willing to bet that the entirety of the 1st BCT, 3rd ID  isn't going to crammed into one ship.  So you may have set back a the 1st AD a few companies of Bradleys that will now have to flown in via C-17s instead. Or come in on the next convoy, because I don't think the US is going to run out of M1s and Bradleys like, ever. Heck, they may have not even sunk ships carrying actual units. They may have just made the 1st Cavalry division eat the same MRE for three weeks until more can come in. What I'm saying is, the Russian submarines aren't going to make a dent in the wave of reinforcements. Instead, the Russian navy is going to sit back and try and defend its shores in case the USN decide to prove that Maritime Strategy was right all along, critics be dammed. As for the Russian surface fleet...well, all I see is targets. And I'm sure most of the USN sees them that way as well.

Now one thing that the Russians may have the drop on us is ASM capable bombers. They could theoretically successfully mount a raid with 20-30 (guesstimate) bombers they have available. But again, a few Burke DDGs with the convoy would probably keep casualties to a minimum level. And I bet Russia would like to keep their Bears as a nuclear deterrent.

Look, I wrote a modern version of Maritime Strategy for my own personal use for CMMANO. I had to stretch reality a lot to even give the USN a challenge. The Russian navy is going to have a hard time defending its own shores, forget about creating a modern rendition of convoy PQ17.

Edited by Currahee150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@currahee150. I expect your sentiment is far more likely. Russia will not sortie those subs for good reason

1 the convoys arrival is past the point they would hope to have the conflict being focused at the negotiating table

2 no way in hell are they going to have all those attack subs leave Russian waters. They would have a dual role centered on maintaining what Russia would consider strategically far more important. Protecting their SSBN basins and trying to keep an eye for any US cruise missiles equipped boats from being in a strategically vulnerable location. 

The only real item I would consider if I were in command of the Russian Navy is maybe going after some of the global internet cabling on the seabed. That would have an outsize effect on the West for very little risk. 

 

As as to the other discussion. Really, 5 old kilo boats that have had little maintenance or training are going to challenge the US Navy?  Damn I am writing my congressman cause I seem to be getting a really sh***y return on my taxes. 

Btw I own CMANO as well, just haven't had a chance to really mess with it. I am still a sucker for naval sims

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe me, CMANO is way ahead of Harpoon ANW. Its worth the price tag, and I don't even like naval combat that much.

Back to the Russian navy:

Lets pretend that the fight in Ukraine somehow does go into WWIII mode. No one else here seems to think that is likely to happen, but lets go with it. The Russian navy is ordered to sortie. So lets follow this through. Not only do those 22 SSNs have to get past the Norwegians, the British, the Germans, and SOSUS, they then must contend with extremely heavily guarded convoys, because Norfolk and Jacksonville are mostly empty by now. And don't forget the picket line of US SSNs that would be established in the GIUK gap. Yes, the ASW capabilty of the GIUK nations is laughable compared to the 1980s. But Russia's SSN fleet is even worse off. Lets say somehow, through these layers of defenses, 8 submarines get through to the North Atlantic. Roving ASW patrols get more. Maybe 5 see a merchant ship. Lets say then that all 5 submarines, despite pitiful training and maintenance rates, manage to successfully engage and sink five merchies. They are then themselves sunk. They have successfully sunk 5 ships out of the tidal wave of ships crossing the Atlantic. Now, I don't know how the US military combat loads ships, but I'm willing to bet that the entirety of the 1st BCT, 3rd ID  isn't going to crammed into one ship.  So you may have set back a the 1st AD a few companies of Bradleys that will now have to flown in via C-17s instead. Or come in on the next convoy, because I don't think the US is going to run out of M1s and Bradleys like, ever. Heck, they may have not even sunk ships carrying actual units. They may have just made the 1st Cavalry division eat the same MRE for three weeks until more can come in. What I'm saying is, the Russian submarines aren't going to make a dent in the wave of reinforcements. Instead, the Russian navy is going to sit back and try and defend its shores in case the USN decide to prove that Maritime Strategy was right all along, critics be dammed. As for the Russian surface fleet...well, all I see is targets. And I'm sure most of the USN sees them that way as well.

Now one thing that the Russians may have the drop on us is ASM capable bombers. They could theoretically successfully mount a raid with 20-30 (guesstimate) bombers they have available. But again, a few Burke DDGs with the convoy would probably keep casualties to a minimum level. And I bet Russia would like to keep their Bears as a nuclear deterrent.

Look, I wrote a modern version of Maritime Strategy for my own personal use for CMMANO. I had to stretch reality a lot to even give the USN a challenge. The Russian navy is going to have a hard time defending its own shores, forget about creating a modern rendition of convoy PQ17.

I agree they won't stop the convoys - which will run whether this is a WW3 situation or not. So let's go with the assumption of 5 ships sunk on he first few convoys (say over the first month of the war) This factors in long range Russian ASM strikes against the convoys, After the first month the West can be assumed to have won the naval war and convoy losses will be dropping to negligible losses after that point. I don't see anything like PQ-17 or for that matter Operation Pedestal happening in this scenario. I think we can all agree that there will be some losses and this will have a limited impact on US forces fighting in Ukraine early in the war. This may or may not be decisive depending on how the land battle goes. However, in certain circumstances where the land campaign s finely balanced small differences might tip the balance. So let us say that the reinforcement convoys *would they be called REFORGER THESE DAYS?)

Having got as close to agreement about he course of the war at sea as we are likely to get perhaps we should get back to the land war. I think we can all agree Putin and his generals will know they need to push very hard before US heavy armour can arrive in strength. Presumably there will be something similar to the REFORGER sites with ebnough equipment for, say,  divisional sized force with additional equipment coming ov on the convoys as they would have during the `1980s scenario, 

What I am not sure of is the likely timescale of embarkation, transport, disembarkation and deployment per convoy. About 14 days per convoy seems like a reasonable ball park figure but does anyone have any accurate data they could share?

Remember the conflict portrayed in the game assumes a 3 month war

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good example of how these folks over weight Russian capabilities while then under weighting US capabilities.

This study on the first page

Armed with three (six by later this year) new, enhanced Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines, eleven thousand marines, and a surface contingent of forty-two ships as of 2014,

 

The Black Sea Fleet,...consists of;[35]

The Fleet also includes a small number of corvettes, patrol and coastal protection ships, light amphibious ships, and support vessels.

How did it go from 4 ships to 42?  Okay there are some corvettes to add, but 38 of them?  Sounds like the guy included rowboats (with a little googling I figured this guy added patrol boats, intelligence gathering ships, landing ships and auxiliaries to inflate the combat force impressions.)  As far as I can tell the Kilo modernization program was also over optimistic. Only 2 boats were completed in 2014 followed by two last year with one of those maybe both not having completed shakedown cruises.  The last two he assumes would be ready later in 2014 are not even launched yet.

Then it follows up with this

Russian deployment of Black Sea–based Kilo-class submarines to the region would insert a further threat into the undersea domain at a time when more advanced but already overtasked US nuclear submarines continue to decline within the force structure

Overtasked?  By what?  The US has 54 modern nuclear boats.  More than the entire Russian fleet with 11 more Virginia class on order 4 of which are actually under construction - this is the overtasked declining force?  This is what drives me nuckin futs with these forum debates.  They seem totally disconnected with easily obtainable information.  Google for christ's sake before accepting the report and see if reality matches up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good example of how these folks over weight Russian capabilities while then under weighting US capabilities.

This study on the first page

Armed with three (six by later this year) new, enhanced Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines, eleven thousand marines, and a surface contingent of forty-two ships as of 2014,

 

The Black Sea Fleet,...consists of;[35]

The Fleet also includes a small number of corvettes, patrol and coastal protection ships, light amphibious ships, and support vessels.

How did it go from 4 ships to 42?  Okay there are some corvettes to add, but 38 of them?  Sounds like the guy included rowboats (with a little googling I figured this guy added patrol boats, intelligence gathering ships, landing ships and auxiliaries to inflate the combat force impressions.)  As far as I can tell the Kilo modernization program was also over optimistic. Only 2 boats were completed in 2014 followed by two last year with one of those maybe both not having completed shakedown cruises.  The last two he assumes would be ready later in 2014 are not even launched yet.

Then it follows up with this

Russian deployment of Black Sea–based Kilo-class submarines to the region would insert a further threat into the undersea domain at a time when more advanced but already overtasked US nuclear submarines continue to decline within the force structure

Overtasked?  By what?  The US has 54 modern nuclear boats.  More than the entire Russian fleet with 11 more Virginia class on order 4 of which are actually under construction - this is the overtasked declining force?  This is what drives me nuckin futs with these forum debates.  They seem totally disconnected with easily obtainable information.  Google for christ's sake before accepting the report and see if

reality matches up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_submarine

 the point I am making is that they must make some attemptt to fight one I am not saying the Russians would win a naval war. They won't. But if they don't even try thy would be making the same strategic blunder Saddam Hussein made in 1990 in that, should they not do so, they would be allowing a massive buildup of US armour and logistical support If that hapens Putin knows very well h will lose they war.

Once war has started Putin#s best bet as we have all agreed is to try to win the ground war fast. Sacrificing the Northern Fleet and the Black Sea Fleet is a key component of such as strategy. If we go with the hypothesis of 5 ships lost per convoy over the first two or three weeks that is going to put a dent in #US capabilities on the ground in Ukraine. Can you not see that? Such a dent may or may not be decisive but, in those opening weeks it will very likely be touch and go.

After those opening weeks I would expect losses to drop off markedly to, say 1 or 2 ships per convoy in weeks 4 - 6  and then to negligible levels thereafter as Third Battle of the Atlantic is won

I also see a naval battle in he Mediterranean. The US want to deploy Marines to the Crimea eventually and of course the Russian Black Sea Fleet id a threat to US asses in the Mediterranean. This won't be a long fight. A couple of days to a week at the most before the surface elements of the Black Sea Fleet are sunk. The US might lose a couple of ships to do it either sunk or badly damaged. .

I would not rule out air and naval clashes elsewhere in the world although both sides want to keep the war limited.If such action does happen by mistake or design it will be limited to air and naval action To be honest the naval action will be limited to the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. I suggest strongly that you consider this a reasonable strategic assumption on the plain and simple ground that Putin and his military commanders are not fools. To assume that they are would be a foolish and dangerous assumption. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 ships per convoy for the first 2 or 3 weeks?  You really think that is at all a viable picture? I have to say my perception of Russia's naval capability and posture is far different. I don't believe Russia would ever consider that type of escalation.  Instead they would look for an opportunity to grab what they could within days, then go to a ceasefire and negotiations hoping that those would drag on and possibly utilize some kind of disagreements within NATO to allow them some kind of strategic advantage as a result. 

If the Russian navy attacked NATO shipping all bets would be off. First they would lose their Navy, secondly the negotiations would be much more difficult. As a last item I seriously doubt Russia would sink 5 ships total. Their force has been neglected far too long, they need more time to get a properly trained and equipped submarine fleet to project that kind of power. It is like that argument going on about the sudden appearance of a Chinese aircraft carrier capability. As if suddenly overnight, China will have mastered carrier flight operations and be able to project that power.  

I don't know where these projections come from that in the space of two years Russia can somehow almost from scratch field a full spectrum military force that could actually present a global challenge to the US.  I definitely respect Russia's capabilities and creativeness in design.  However the financial strain to accomplish all of what they dream of doing is out of their reach within the timelines that keep getting floated, and yet all that is accepted as not only gospel, but as if it has already been accomplished. 

To top that off, the fact that the US alone outnumbers Russia in every conceivable way with more modern, much more highly trained crews is discounted as being pretty much irrelevant. 

I don't consider any of the naval actions you have posited as viable. Not because I think Russia wouldn't like to try them, but because I give Russia more credit. Overall I think Russia has been a master at strategically stopping just short of doing anything that would unite the west.   Matching their capabilities to their strategic goals has been done overall I think better than the west. However I think they have pretty much run their course and overplayed their hand in Ukraine. To think that somehow they would suddenly get stupid and go all in daring the west to respond in kind belittles the kind of strategic planning they have already shown themselves capable of.  

Edited by sburke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...when I said "sink 5 merchies," I meant sink five ships overall. Like, in the whole war. Like, after those five ships, they can't sink any more because all the Russians subs are lodged in the ooze on the ocean floor. And this assumes that the Russians would even go into the North Atlantic, which I seriously feel like they wouldn't. I concur with sburke: the Russian navy isn't going to sortie in the North Atlantic. They are going to stay home and protect the homeland. Because it is far more logical for them to do so, especially since "Regional War over Ukraine" does not equal "OMG WWIII launch everything."

As for convoys, I don't know the first thing about loading ships, or convoy operations, or how REFORGER '17 would work. But I assume that you send more ships and supplies across than you need, and have it loaded so that a lucky Shipwreck doesn't take all of III Corps 155mm rounds with it. So you may sink 5 ships...but it doesn't matter, because we are sending over more than enough to sustain/equip our forces. Basically, 5 ships might not make a dent in the war. If the 1st Cav shows up missing the XOs tank in every tank company and is missing 100,000 fewer 25mm rounds out of the 5 million sent over...its not going to make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back story emphasizes the efforts both sides take to keep the scale limited, as does the Russian victory terms of campaign. It's both safe and realistic to say that there wouldn't be a battle of the North Atlantic as that's a major escalation. Instead, Russia wins the ground war conventionally before heavy reinforcements are mustered. NATO sees no gain in a counteroffensive and escalation and Russia "wins" at the diplomatic end. 

So from the manual (for both Red or NATO win) both sides keep the fighting contained. Also of note is that NATO Marines land within the first month of hostilities, meaning Black Sea Fleet forces sink before then. The best forces the Russians could commit against NATO warships wouldn't be the old subs, but rather backfires and shore based missiles. However I'm not entirely sold that Russia would use either on forces not attacking Russian soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 ships per convoy for the first 2 or 3 weeks?  You really think that is at all a viable picture? I have to say my perception of Russia's naval capability and posture is far different. I don't believe Russia would ever consider that type of escalation.  Instead they would look for an opportunity to grab what they could within days, then go to a ceasefire and negotiations hoping that those would drag on and possibly utilize some kind of disagreements within NATO to allow them some kind of strategic advantage as a result. 

If the Russian navy attacked NATO shipping all bets would be off. First they would lose their Navy, secondly the negotiations would be much more difficult. As a last item I seriously doubt Russia would sink 5 ships total. Their force has been neglected far too long, they need more time to get a properly trained and equipped submarine fleet to project that kind of power. It is like that argument going on about the sudden appearance of a Chinese aircraft carrier capability. As if suddenly overnight, China will have mastered carrier flight operations and be able to project that power.  

I don't know where these projections come from that in the space of two years Russia can somehow almost from scratch field a full spectrum military force that could actually present a global challenge to the US.  I definitely respect Russia's capabilities and creativeness in design.  However the financial strain to accomplish all of what they dream of doing is out of their reach within the timelines that keep getting floated, and yet all that is accepted as not only gospel, but as if it has already been accomplished. 

To top that off, the fact that the US alone outnumbers Russia in every conceivable way with more modern, much more highly trained crews is discounted as being pretty much irrelevant. 

I don't consider any of the naval actions you have posited as viable. Not because I think Russia wouldn't like to try them, but because I give Russia more credit. Overall I think Russia has been a master at strategically stopping just short of doing anything that would unite the west.   Matching their capabilities to their strategic goals has been done overall I think better than the west. However I think they have pretty much run their course and overplayed their hand in Ukraine. To think that somehow they would suddenly get stupid and go all in daring the west to respond in kind belittles the kind of strategic planning they have already shown themselves capable of.  

I will say it again. You need to look a this from Moscow's point of view,Having gotten yourself into a war with the US over Ukraine you are going to have t do what i takes to win hat war. Remember also thathe scenarion in CMBS DEPICTS A THREE MONTH WAR.

The Russian objective will be to delay and attrite US reinforcements coming from CONUS. Having gotten into his war Moscow does not have any choice but to do this. If they just let the US pour reinforcements over the Atlantic then the US will do thwe same thing to Russia as they did to Saddam Hussein. It is essentially the same equation as it ws during the Cold War.

We are NOT talking about an all out world wide war at sea. We are talking about LIMITED air and naval actions in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic. Yes Russia will have to sacrifice a large part of the Northern and Black Sea Fleets. But Russia is a Continental power, not a maritime power.

 As for convoy loss rates it was not I who brought up the 5 ship loss rate per convoy. You must consider just how difficult it is to detect modern submarines. You must consider that merchant shipping in particular will not be used to operating in convoy and mistakes will be made and lessons learned over the first few convoys. In he meantime Russian submarines will be enjoying a couple of weeks of early success - their "happy time" if you will. Assuming his period lasts between two and three weeks seems like a reasonable assumption after which, as I said, convoy loss rates will drop off ssignificantl as tactics improve and Russian submarines are hunted down.

Now, having gotten himself into a war with the US why would Putin not take the advice he would be given by hs military commanders to undertake limited air and naval action in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean with the objective of delaying and attriting the flow of US reinforcements to the land Theater of War which helps the ground forces in Ukraine in theiir objective of winning the war quickly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back story emphasizes the efforts both sides take to keep the scale limited, as does the Russian victory terms of campaign. It's both safe and realistic to say that there wouldn't be a battle of the North Atlantic as that's a major escalation. Instead, Russia wins the ground war conventionally before heavy reinforcements are mustered. NATO sees no gain in a counteroffensive and escalation and Russia "wins" at the diplomatic end. 

So from the manual (for both Red or NATO win) both sides keep the fighting contained. Also of note is that NATO Marines land within the first month of hostilities, meaning Black Sea Fleet forces sink before then. The best forces the Russians could commit against NATO warships wouldn't be the old subs, but rather backfires and shore based missiles. However I'm not entirely sold that Russia would use either on forces not attacking Russian soil.

Actually I would see the Russian Black Sea Fleet, at least the major surface elements being engaged and sunk in the first week.of the war. As far as a Battle of the Atlantic is concerned I must disagree with you on the grounds that. if Russia makes no attempt to delay and reduce the flow of reinforcements they would essentially be making the same strategic blunder as Saddam Hussein made and with even less excuse . In order to have any chance of winning the land war Russia has t delay and reduce that flow of reinforcements.

Limited air and naval action in the North Atlantic and Mediterranean, while an escalation, still keeps the war limited, Now, if air and naval action  .developed elsewhere, say in the Indian Ocean/Middle East or the Far East that would be a serious escalation and both sides would be taking measures t prevent that scenario developing, even by mistake.

Hence limited air and naval action in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic is plausible and indeed likely. NATO would be seeking to establish sea control to ensure safe deployment of ground forces to the Ukrainian battle fields. Russia would be aiming to delay and reduce that flow of reinforcements for as long as possible while they try o win a quick victory on land. Maybe, in the Russian victory timeline one of the reasons for the less successful NATO counter attack was because the Russians did better in attriting US convoys hence reinforcements and logistical support from the US were less thn anticipated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...