Codename Duchess

Anyone here play World of Warships?

Ticonderoga class, just because this never gets old*. I guess DDGs can too, but it's not the same. Funny story, I was on a CG off San Diego as a Midshipman back in school. After a certain distance they warned they were going to energize the SPY-1 radars and we should put our phones away. I was a little slow on the draw and sure enough it got totally fried. Worked when we got back to port though. Pretty sure if I think on it though I can come up with something odd. But if I can't choose a CV/CVN, I'll choose the next best thing (besides its air wing) *Disclaimer - Anime isn't really my thing but it's a great clip for demonstration purposes** **It's not even that far off really. There's a red button in Aegis ships that is the "Press in case of war" button. It basically unleashes HAL-9000, and anything not on the proper IFF stuff within [max range of a Standard Missile] dies, and dies horribly.

Agreed. Let's talk about ships more. Don't tell the SWOs that an Aviator likes them though, they're insufferable as is.

I thought we had thoroughly debunked all this nonsense by now.

Keep in mind, export Abrams tanks do not have the same classified mix of armor that American ones do.

Sanity prevails!

sburke is correct, but for what it's worth the Stinger is all aspect.

I wonder if Big Army has thought about converting the TOWs onboard a Bradley to Javelins? What exactly is the advantage of TOW over Javelin?

Any actions to blockade Gibraltar needs to be done on day one by forces already out of the Black Sea. Nothing Russia has will be able to get out once NATO is involved and Turkey says "nah mate". So The Black Sea Fleet has 5 Kilos. Some of these are pretty new, so we'll assume a decent readiness rate. That means that 2 or 3 will be able to sail, maybe, at any given time. (That's how the US Navy sustains it's ships, 1/3 is always in maintenance). Might be able to get a 4th one out if maintenance requirements are light. I have no reason, whatsoever, to believe that the Russians can sortie all 5 (seeing as they can't do it literally anywhere else). I sure as hell think NATO would notice if more than one of those Kilos left the piers, let alone the Black Sea. It's not like the Bosphorous is that deep, and Turkey has submarines too, plus ASW patrol boats guarding the straights. It's a simple phonecall then to get a bigger NATO submarine to wait at the far end of the Dardanelles/Aegean and find it, supported by MPA from NATO countries. They would be hard tasked with just 2-4 boats to defend the Black Sea entrance, Blockade Gibraltar (which still leaves a lot of NATO fleets behind them, and the Suez), and find and attack a US Carrier Strike Group (with it's own pretty awesome ASW assets) (assuming there even is one in the Med at the beginning of hostilities). It's a hefty task order for a limited force, even assuming they get by Turkey.

Would it help if I said "you are right" before debunking everything you said? Or are you going to just continue to refuse to hear the other side of the argument which is pretty simple really. It's not that he doesn't want to, it's just that he can't.

My quote system is all sorts of broken, sorry about that: iii. False, but everything else was pretty good. As were your follow on points. Okay, here we go. After this I'm pretty much done. That's not going to make the Europeans very happy, and they're kind of our allies. Doesn't matter how limited it is, if a single UK, French, German, etc citizen is killed on their own soil it's Article 5 game on time. God help the Russians if an American is killed. The Western Public does not care, at all, if it's a "limited" strike. How does that not register? Therefore it's a bad move. I have discussed the North Atlantic. Nothing that you want is possible. There might be a shootout, but that fleet sure as **** ain't getting past Iceland. Any Russian ships in the Med will last at most two days. In this you are correct. The Black Sea Fleet will be destroyed in it's entirety at the time and place of NATO's choosing. In this you are correct. Russian (Kilo class) submarines will interdict the Dardanelles, assisted by mines. In this you are correct. Won't change the endgame of Marines landing in Odessa (CMBS canon). Those same submarines interdicting Gibraltar. You're fighting outnumbered in European home waters for 1000 miles just to get to an easily defensible position. Nope. Gain as much time as possible: Yes that's the goal, but seeing as all the fighting is in the Black Sea, that's the only part where it matters. It will be easier and with a higher probability of success for Russian Tanks to drive that much faster to Kiev than for the Northern Fleet to attempt a second front. So you are correct. Yup, we all agree there. This is the stuff being discussed in the other big thread right now, but yeah it's an interesting what if. The Black Sea Fleet will have those objectives, but is hopelessly outclassed in their ability to conduct them. Still they will put up a hell of a fight. I think other Russian forces may sortie in a defensive posture (that's what they're good at, coastal defense) but will make no efforts to get anywhere near any Western forces. Western Forces in return will probably have a weapons hold posture and not seek to close with any Russian fleets. Therefore, the naval war is contained. The exception would be NATO submarines which would keep very close eyes on any Russian submarines that attempted to leave the coastal regions. I'm not sure where Russia would commit the TU-22Ms. Probably the Black Sea for the reasons above.

That's the Northern Fleet ORBAT, on paper. ORBAT on paper doesn't equal functional hulls in the water. Functional hulls in the water doesn't equal deployable hulls. Deployable hulls. Doesn't mean experienced crews. Please read the links in my orbat post on the previous page, especially this article: https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/russian-naval-capabilities-and-procurement-plans/ It's from a Harvard professor prepared for Oxford. Of note regarding the Northern Fleet: All emphasis my own and I have analyzed what this really means in terms of capability on the previous page. The Russian Navy has been criminally neglected, but it was the right call to make. I'm not saying a War in the Atlantic isn't the right idea, on paper. I am saying that it won't happen as it will just be the great North Atlantic Turkey shoot, over before the first transatlantic convoy forms up. Or from another angle, I set up a CMANO scenario (since you're a Harpoon expert, I'll take it's more advanced descendant as just as valid) of the Northern Fleet submarine Force trying to break out. It went poorly for Russia. Sorry to say. It's just too stacked in their favor to even make it into the North Atlantic in 2017. Their best case is pre-emptive deployments, although you bet we'll notice if every deployable sub goes to sea. And here's where my awesomesauce actual real world perspective comes into play. When their subs deploy on routine patrols, whose subs do you think follow them fat dumb and happy the whole time? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with US Navy. One last game we can play, since you can commit the entirety of the Russian Northern Fleet to fighting in the North Atlantic, by the same logic I can commit every US vessel on the east coast: 5 Nuclear Super Carriers (remember, every ship counts, even the ones in Nuclear Refueling) 4 Amphibious Assault Carriers (only 150' shorter than the sole Russian Carrier and capable of fixed wing operations) 10 Guided Missile Cruisers (For Reference) 28 Guided Missile Destroyers 6 Ballistic Missile Submarines (Zero and no reason to be hunting Russian hulls but hey you counted them first) 2 Guided Missile Submarines (154 Tomahawks each). 16 Los Angeles Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines (I figure you've heard of these) 8 Virginia Class Fast Attack Nuclear Submarines. And a bunch of other Amphibs and Auxiliaries. You also get: 6 P-3/P-8 Maritime Patrol Squadrons which don't have to avoid Russian fighters in the North Atlantic, unlike their Red Star brethren that have to circumvent a bunch of countries that would be happy to intercept them. And since we're attacking NATO in their home countries, you can factor them in as well. Would you like me to do that for you too? In conclusion

I generally agree with you, although I think Kaliningrad is a huge wildcard in any scenario. Lucas: Your Russian Strategic Problem: If NATO is allowed to buildup, I will lose. Analysis: This is correct. Your solution: We must attack everywhere we can with everything we can so as to ensure we.......liberate Ukraine? My Analysis: The American people doesn't like dead Americans on American soil, so I hope you like a lot of dead Russians on Russian soil. We were trying to avoid this point because we thought you were too. My solution: See above.

BLUF: I'd tell him you better win quickly in Ukraine because my fleet can't do anything. Can I have more money please? Look if this was World War Three or just about, then yeah I'd unleash everything I had worldwide because use it or lose it. This isn't, it's localized. NATO is going to destroy the Black Sea Fleet so sail it, but they're probably just going to blockade Kaliningrad (maybe not even then, Ukraine isn't NATO). Dude, calm down. And thanks for calling me uninformed and unintelligent. They're not going to lose the war for the same reason Saddam did. Their goals are different. Iraq and the coalition sat opposed from each other for like six months. That's how we built up forces, unopposed. This scenario is closer to if he seized Kuwait and then didn't stop and wait. Like look at how Georgia and Ukraine were conducted, not how the Cold War would have been conducted. That's how this would happen. Y'know, because it just did. I don't think Putin is a bigger moron than Saddam. Quite the contrary. But I think he's a realist. That's why he used Little Green Men and Hybrid War in the Ukraine, and not just waves of armored divisions. Because he needs to play smart against NATO. Ways to play smart against NATO: Maintain plausible deniability up until H hour. Take your objectives before NATO can respond. Force NATO to come to the negotiating table with favorable terms for Russia. Do not rally the American people against you. Ways to play dumb against NATO: Broadcast your intentions for enough of a peaceful buildup (Saddam). Attack NATO homeland (Article 5, galvanized public, WORLD ****ING WAR THREE). Play to NATO's strengths (Navy). Look the American public is a fickle bunch, but if you have American servicemen or civilians killed on American soil by Russians then BOY HOWDY ARE WE GOIN' GIT THEM ROOSHAN SUMBITCHES. I assure you the finer strategy of the "limited tactical escalation" by Russia will be lost on the Channel 5 Action News Team and all of our politicians. Same thing applies to Europeans. They spent an awful lot of recent memory looking at the business end of Russian artillery. And they're sure as hell not going to launch Tomahawks at Kaliningrad or Murmansk for the same damn reason. It serves no purpose. We're trying to win a war in Ukraine, not a global dismantling of the Russian menace. To humor you, I set up a scenario in CMANO attempting a breakout of 8 Russian SSN's through the GIUK gap. I was able to localize every single one more than 350 miles away from the SOSUS arrays which were supported by two SURTASS vessels (the Yasen got the closest, 345 miles from the hydrophone). Note that I wasn't trying to get caught, I had the Russians trying above or below the layer. I didn't even bother adding in MPA, NATO SSNs, or Surface Ships by that point because if you've found the submarine you can kill it. If you can't stem the personal attacks I see no further purpose in discussion. You're going to war in 2017 with the Russian Navy of 1987 and the goals of 1957.

For a history student you still seem caught up in the late 80s. They haven't been the 101st airmobile division since the 70s. The Russian fleet is not of the same size as the Soviet Navy. Russian goals in Ukraine are not the same as Soviet goals of glorious Socialist T-80s on the Champs-Elysees. Have you read my post on realistic Russian naval capabilities from the previous page? Yes or no? Until I know that you're tracking on what the modern Russian Navy looks like, I can't continue this discussion meaningfully. If we want to talk about the 1980s Navy like you seem to want to, then I'll bite. But you don't seem to comprehend they're not the same. My Fulda Gap reference was in terms of scale. I was referencing multiple Army groups fighting multiple Army groups. That requires a heavy logistics tail requiring daily convoys right the **** now. A few brigades does not. The Russian victory stems from the rapid achievement of goals combined with Western public not being favorable to the war. Nowhere is escalation mentioned. And again, you seem to think that strikes on civilian ports would somehow 1) be meaningful 2) be possible and 3) be non-escalatory. I've read Arc Light too. May I remind you that that (great) book ends with TEAMS tanks in Moscow.

1) I'm still not convinced you've read my post spelling out the actual hard capabilities of the Russian fleet. You keep referencing this like it's the late Soviet Union. It's not. 2) You're assuming his generals/admirals say that it's a good idea to attack NATO where they're strongest. I'm saying that's not as likely as you see because of the vast disparity. It's like the charge of the light brigade, only worse. Give NATO any warning and the GIUK gap gets bottled up real quick. Please see my previous post, it's the second on this page. 3) I get that this strategy makes sense to you. It makes sense to the late Soviet fleet. It does not make sense to the present day, like at all. You're calling for the death of 1000 or so Russians with nothing to gain. You won't stop a single convoy. You might sink one or two ships. The USN out classes the Russians in this regard in every metric. We can have a sub follow every single one of theirs, and the Kuznetsov, and still have leftovers. Please read my post. It's the second one on this page. That's what you have to deal with. 4) The convoys aren't so desperately needed that they have to sail under overwhelming threat. Between the gradual ramp up, preexisting stocks, and the Air Mobility Command we can delay the inevitable quite a while. Again, this isn't Fulda Gap/REFORGER. 5) The Battle of the Atlantic. Somehow you don't think total air and Naval war across an entire ocean is an escalation. You are expanding a limited engagement (Ukraine) to a global one. That's escalation. The US government if it's forced to fight in the Atlantic will take that fight worldwide. As that's pretty obviously not what Russia wants in this scenario, that is a bad move. 6) "Probably it won't matter too much if most of the Black Sea, Baltic Sea and Northern Fleets are lost doing it as long as the strategic and military objectives in Ukraine are met." That's fully 3 of 4.5 Russian Fleets destroyed in exchange for the Ukraine. There's no way Russia accepts that trade. 7) You're arguing that your grasp of "basic strategy" against two US military officers (sorry sburke, don't know your background). I understand we're arguing on the internet, but because our views are different than yours we have no grasp of "basic strategy." Yet we've both said your idea has merit, but it's impossible with the given forces. It's "basic strategy" for panzer to drive his tank company from Germany to the Kremlin because taking out leadership severely weakens the war effort. Same for if I was sent to bomb Beijing in my jet. But neither of those ideas is any more possible than you enforcing meaningful Sea Denial with 8 outclassed submarines. The Russian Navy as it stands today is very good at coastal defense. That's about it. 8) Baltics and Syria. Those have been hashed out enough in other threads that I have zero desire to repeat them in here. 9) Long ranged ASM strikes. How, in your limited engagement scenario, do the bombers get past the Norwegians, British, and any other NATO air forces? Does your limited engagement now require the invasion of Iceland and Norway? I know that was really cool in Red Storm Rising, but...

No one is saying it wouldn't be smart to attack reinforcements. The problem is, as I outlined in my post which I'm still not sure you saw, he can't. There's simply no way with 8 submarines you would do anything but lose 8 submarines. FURTHERMORE, with existing stocks being what they are, you're not going to see a non-airborne resupply convoy sail until every single Northern Fleet SSN is accounted for. This isn't the Fulda Gap where we need everything the US has, right the **** now. And ANY attack on ANY NATO homeland is a MAJOR escalation. I don't care if you keep saying it's a "limited" strike. It won't be seen as "limited" by the populace of any of those nations. Seriously, look at our response to 9/11. Look at the US public response to the Paris attacks. Look at the recent fears in the US public of Russia already. Look at all the people who still vividly remember the Cold War. It. Is. Going. To. Escalate. If. You. Attack. A. Port. The Black Sea Fleet can only defend the Black Sea in a war with Ukraine, and they'll still lose (you admit this). They have 4 surface combatants total, and 5-6 submarines. Please look at fleet readiness levels in my previous post. They won't be able to push into the Med under any circumstances. The Northern Sea Fleet will not be able to penetrate the North Atlantic. Look I've read Mahan, studied the buildup in Saudi Arabia ad nauseum (I went to a Merchant Marine Academy), and am aware of the late Cold War. I know the difference between Sea Control and Sea Denial (again, I'm a west coast aviator). But times have changed and the Russian capabilities in the Atlantic have grossly atrophied. They cannot effect ANY Sea Denial. If they had the forces that you remember from 1989, yeah it'd be a hell of a fight. But as sburke and I both have proven, they don't.

Did you read anything I posted in my breakdown of the orbat Lucas? Your plans make sense, sort of, for late Soviet Union fleet. But that was a very long 27 years before this scenario. You are only going to get 8 submarines to do your big plans... http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121459-us-stingers/?do=findComment&comment=1654039

I never said NBC, I didn't even think of NBC. That doesn't mean the US public is going to be okay with HE missiles. Like seriously, how on Earth do you actually think we'd be okay with that? That is like the literal definition of escalation. It's an attack on the homeland of a NATO nation.

I somehow missed this gem. Do you honestly believe that Russian cruise missile strikes on US (or European ports) will be seen as "okay" by their respective populaces? ......okay then. What happens when ALL THE TOMAHAWKS from EVERYWHERE hit Russia in return? The American public, when properly motivated, is a feisty one. Burning piers is a very visible symbol.

The following post has nothing to do with Stinger missiles. Going to steal panzersauerkrautwerfer's style here. Re: Ships take time and plenty of Tender Love and Care to work right. The less attention you pay to them in port, the longer it takes to get them making waves again. Just because a force is credited with having ships on paper doesn't mean they're ready to go, let alone even in the water. Hence... Re: The Russian Navy as a whole One thing that needs to be kept in mind throughout all of this: The Russian Navy is definitely NOT the Soviet Navy. There's a reason you don't see their ships all over the world. They do NOT enjoy the same levels of training, funding, actual at sea time (this counts a lot), maintenance, etc. And I'm not talking small discrepancies, I mean massive disparities. All of the factors that seriously affect a fleet's readiness and ability to project power. Compare this to... Recommended Reading: http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/ https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-russian-navy-is-on-the-verge-of-collapse-b0ce344ebf96#.7m3caiiql http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3493 HIGHLY Recommended Reading (this is what the War is Boring article references. Comes from analysis from a Harvard professor on these things): https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/russian-naval-capabilities-and-procurement-plans/ Re: Decadent HATO ship people. The USN uses a model broken into thirds, with a third of the fleet actually deployed in presence/power projection style roles, 1/3 working up for the same and ready to sail quickly, and 1/3 in a deeper maintenance period. This is because we have maintained a presence around the world since WW2, even despite being essentially unopposed for the past 26 years. European fleets are somewhere between the level of the USN and Russians, but I'd expect that they are more capable of surging than the Russians. However, the European maintenance levels will be much higher. Re: Mediterranean/Black Sea Naval Action I won't dispute this will occur, but it will be very quick. We've gone over the limited combat strength of the Black Sea Fleet already. The surface combatants would be lost almost immediately, and the submarines hunted down at the leisure of NATO prior to/during any amphibious operations. Remember this is only 2-3 boats. Re: The Great North Atlantic Turkey Shoot This isn't the turkey shoot you keep implying. From above, the Northern Fleet has 18 SSNs/SSGNs. Approximately half of these are in active duty, and not in the yard*. So we have 9-10 nuclear boats that can prowl the North Atlantic (we will assume the Kilos will stay and defend the Rodina because that's what they're best at and would be severely outclassed in deep water). Remember that can =/= will. We'll say that for whatever reason, 8 nuc boats set sail for the North Atlantic. Russian surface forces would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by sailing into the North Atlantic so we will discount them as well. Now the USN has 56 SSNs, divided 30/26 between West and East coasts. USN submarines deploy more often (although usually for shorter to make up for this) than their surface brethren because they are so important. Because of this, you'll often see 2/3 of them underway at a given time. I can't even begin to speculate on the spooky nature of their deployments, although I do know from bubblehead compatriots that pretty much every submarine from "less than friendly" nations is accompanied by one of ours when they sail, and I sincerely doubt they're meaningfully tracked in return. We'll say 17 east coast boats (because I went on google earth and counted 9 pierside on whatever day the photo was taken) are deployed. Knock off 5-7 for spooky **** in the Med or elsewhere. 10 boats vs the Russian 8 in the Atlantic, at least one of which immediately would have a tail (because there's definitely an SSN watching Murmansk at all times, especially in the escalating crisis of the game). So right away we know how many boats are sailing from that tail, and we know where they're going because they really only have one choice. The other boats make best speed for the GIUK gap with some making it in time. Combine this with SURTASS and SOSUS and we can get a decent fix on at least half of the Russian boats. Oh but wait, we have P-8s and P-3s from the USN and other NATO nations that can contribute at the thing they're best designed to do. And man is the P-8 good at what it does (I don't fly one but I've been around them). Also, France and the UK have SSNs as well and I'm sure we'd get at least one of each either on convoy guard or GIUK hunting. Other European D-E boats would probably be busy in the Med, Mid-Atlantic, or off Norway. ALSO: With prepositioned forces and fast supply ships, we'd get an initial load of gear and supplies off for the first month of fighting. This would give a month of time to organize the convoys. This gives NATO a month to get their ASW screen in place. If you give NATO a month to orient along the obvious threat, then I'd call it 50/50 odds that just one Russian boat gets by the screen (only to then have to contend with other MPA and surface forces/SSNs guarding the convoys). Backfire raids could have some more success, but these would have to contend with European NATO air forces and any North Atlantic Carrier Strike Groups (which will definitely be in place given a month). They also have to deal with NATO's response to the Black Sea itself, as they're your best option there. If Putin decides to use them. In conclusion, their would be no Russian "Happy Period." Every Russian sub that sortied would be destroyed by the time the first convoy sailed. Putin and his Admirals know this. You would lose a capable trump card and over 1000 Russians for no gain and marginal effects. * "In the yard" in the Russian Navy can last for literal decades, keep in mind.

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.

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.

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.

I don't have time for a full response as I'm on my phone, but John take a heaping pile of salt with all of that post. While I'm semi-familiar with the Russians long range AWACS killers I haven't heard much in terms of operation or training. As for his engagement with the Super Hornet, it's borderline absurd. A lot of the tactics are feasible but they greatly underestimate our own capabilities, tactics (this is a hard training number here, folks. US pilots fly orders of magnitude more than Russian pilots), and so forth. Also the idea of an RWR guiding a missile (that the Hornet *somehow* doesn't know about) actually made me reread that section three times to see if he was kidding. I can personally attest we practice BVR fighting too. Also as of December Russia has only 40 SU-35s. Maintenance being what it is, go ahead and call it a generous 30 ready at a given time. That's not going to last you more than a day if you commit them seriously.