Russian Navy "On Verge of Collapse"

The main fear, I believe, was not the Russian Naval vessels per se, but the Russian Navy's aircraft armed with stand-off Anti-ship nuclear-armed missiles. with an operational range of 300 km, a Kh-15 accelerating to Mach 5 is pretty hard to stop. Given that a single Tu-22M3 could potentially carry 10 Kh-15, a flight of three is going to hurt something.

 

Exactly! The Club K (container missiles) have a very long range. The idea behind them is to prevent any carrier group from coming within 1000 kilometers of the Russian shore...

 

Admiral Rickover's comment has to be taken with a grain of salt on a couple of levels. First off in a full on nuclear exchange nothing would have lasted more than a few days no matter what the type of large military asset. Further any ship in a naval shipyard would last no longer than 30 minutes (the flight time of a ICBM/SLBM/SLCM) after the start of general nuclear exchange, including his beloved nuclear boats. The Carriers would have a better chance of lasting at sea and away from those ICBM's

Rickover was a brilliant engineer and a royal pain in the butt to anyone who disagreed with him. Much like Army Air Corps General Billy Mitchell, he had one great idea that he pushed to the exclusion of all else. People either loved him or loathed him. He was constantly in a political struggle within and without both the military and political command of the US. His passion took him places where he saw things as a zero sum debate, he was always right and those not agreeing with him, always wrong.

As to the argument over Carrier over Missile lets hope we never find out but I would point to the versatility of Carrier operations over the last 6 decades since the end of WWII that missile armed ships simply has not proved to be the case, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, 6 decades or real world actual combat experience that 'missile' navy's simply do not have.

Could Britain have retaken the Falklands without her diminutive Carriers?

 

Wonder if rail guns or lasers on ships would defeat missile attack.
Can rail guns be used to shoot down missiles?

 

Most certainly.

The toughest issue for the rail gun would be target tracking, followed closely by power consumption in conjunction with rate of fire - The rail guns are power hogs and will need a large power source/supply to maintain a good RoF.

The same problems apply to lasers: target tracking and power supply.

 

So nuclear powered ships?

 

?????

Are you certain? AFAIK, all sources point to the naval attack version as having a maximum range of up to 600km/660km - Roughly the combat range of an F/A-18(with no air-to-air refueling).

It is the land attack versions of the Club that have the longer "legs".

 

With the exception of the aircraft carriers and submarines, we don't have those any more. All the nuclear powered cruisers are gone.

However, the likely candidate will be the 3 destroyers of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class. Their power plants can generate something like 60-70+ megawatts as opposed to the 9 megawatts of the DDG-51s.

 

You will get no argument from me concerning the end result of a nuclear exchange It is because of this mutual assured destruction I question if Rickover was speaking of a nuclear threat. I can't imagine either nation using nuclear weapons before exhausting all others first. A naval confrontation doesn't necessarily constitute a nuclear exchange. It is for this reason I believe Rickover was more concerned about what came from below rather than from above. Believe it or not, the Soviet always knew where every single carrier group was at any given time of day 24/7 365 a year. They made it their business to know especially after Pearl Harbor. Before satellites it was up to reconnaissance aircraft and submarines. Russia attack subs (Akula, meaning Shark) shadowed NATO everywhere. They had one job and one job only destroy carrier groups. The Russians also built nuclear submarines. These would sit idle in the Gulf of Mexico for weeks/months at a time waiting on orders to launch their ICBMs. The Americans always knew they were there, finding them was the tough part.

After the SU collapsed NATO commanders were for the first time able to inspect the Russia subs. All had the same outlook. They were unimpressed with the technological level (computers and such) as theWestern subs were more advanced but all were shocked and impressed with the engineering of the subs themselves, engines included and the terrifying firepower which they possessed. I forget whom but one US commander stated "forget the US, one such sub can wipe out the Western Hemisphere". NATO had nothing of the sort....

Seems when both sides had military doctrines which would forbid the use of nuclear weapons unless in response to a nuclear strike seems safer rather than doctrine that allows a pre-emptive nuclear strike. This is precisely why I question US withdrawal from missile treaties with Russia under president Bush. The US can now theoretically launch a pre emptive nuclear strike on anything deemed a threat. A question arises: who threatens a nuclear power other than another nuclear power? Russia didn't take this lightly. For every action there is a reaction.

What's truly puzzling is that US's ICBMs are hopelessly outdated (Tridents were built in the 80s). Russia has since built three types of ICBM's, Topol M, it's submarine version the Bulava and finally the newest YARS. Each is better than the previous and all are far superior to the Trident in all categories. It wasn't until China came out recently and openly speaking of Russia's new ICBM coming next year the Rubezh that caused panic. It's not everyday that a Chinese General admits that a country has a weapon that no one else can stop. Speaking of the new missile he stated "Russia is officially 100% safe."

http://m.sputniknews.com/russia/20160309/1036002714/russia-missile-shocker.html


Cheers

 

That is a lot of energy. Going to guess it is not green energy. Whatever that is.
You got anything about how all that power is generated/stored?

Does hiding offensive missiles in transport containers contravene any conventions?

 

I should have been more clear, apologies. The idea of "container missiles" is to hide them in plain sight. The objective is to never allow a carrier group within 1000 kilometers off Russian mainland. A cargo vessel in the mediterranean for example could shadow a carrier group inconspicuously and fire the missiles thousands of kilometers away from Russian coast if the need ever arose. Placing these missiles in Kaliningrad would also defend mainland Russia (St. Petersburg) from a carrier group operating in Northern Europe.

These of course aren't the only missiles Russia has. I suspect that the "container" missiles are mainly for export to friendly governments concerned for their safety. This can not be sitting well with the Pentagon.

 

Unfortunately not and I was speaking solely from memory but this can all easily be obtained on the internet if one is truly interested.

As for the container missiles... No laws have been broken that I am aware off. Cant imagine a permanent member of the security council selling illegal weapons on the world market. Just my thoughts tho.

 

So...Basically, they constitute a "first-strike" weapon. As they are hardly defensive in nature. Indeed, you admit as much with your example of a cargo ship equipped with such missiles in the Med.

Given the plethora of NATO airbases in close proximity to Kaliningrad...Why would the US even attempt to sail an aircraft carrier into the Baltic? Further, the range of the Club does not eve extend into the North Sea.

The only real advantage to putting the Club in Kaliningrad, would be to use the land-attack variants with their greater range to threaten countries such as Germany, Belgium, France, Austria, etc.

 

I don't want to speculate but I would imagine that the Iskandar missiles (nuke tipped) which Russia already placed in Kaliningrad (in direct response to the US missile shield in Eastern Europe) are a far greater threat than the "Club" variants.

Brushing aside Russian concerns; NATO made the decision to place these missiles in Poland,Romania etc. under the nerrative of protecting Europe from Iran...The Russians didn't fall for it (especially now that sanctions have been removed from Iran and a nuke deal reached). Again,for every action there is a reaction.

For some reason I'm ha I g a difficult time posting the video. For those interested go to YouTube and type in "Club K Container missile"... The 6 minute video shows what the missile are intended to do (in theory).

 

"every action there is a reaction."
Ha
That is so true. Giant chess game.
Heard Russia is pulling out of Syria. Partially. Maybe wrong thread.

 

Thanks Poppy and yes the withdrawal has begun. According to Shogui (minister of defense). Russia has accomplished its primary objective (resulting in the liberation of nearly 400 villages and towns in an area of 10k square kilometers.

Troops will remain at the two Bases in Syria just in case while the rest are headed home. 5 months and 9000 sorties later a cease fire has been established and all redical movements have been suppressed or exiled. The war isn't over and there is still plenty to do on the ground (mopping up) but the Russians are confident that the SAA with the help of Iran is more than capable of the task ahead.

 

He was, but the pro-Russian/Pro-Soviet/anti-carrier websites won't post the Rickover quote in it's entirety...As a matter of fact, they won't even source where the quote came from.

IIRC, Rickover continued...to the effect, that if both sides had ballistic missiles, it would not matter if one side had aircraft carriers.

After Pearl Harbor? It was what...two decades after Pearl Harbor that the Soviets had a navy worthy of the name.

IIRC, the Russian Akula class is a ballistic missile submarine, here in the West we call them the Typhoon class. Or, are you speaking of the Shchuka-B class attack submarine(Shchuka is Russian for "Pike" is it not), which we in the West call the Akula class.

Also, IIRC, the "job" of destroying the carrier groups fell on the anti-ship cruise missile submarines: First, with the upgraded Echo IIs, then the Charlie I & II classes, followed by the one-off Papa class, then the Oscar I & IIs, and most recently, the Severodvinsk class.

Are you certain about the Soviet SSBNs in the Gulf of Mexico? One would think that Soviet SSBNs would not need to get that close to fire their missiles. Declassified data(through the 1990's) shows the Soviet SSBNs never having ventured into the Gulf of Mexico. Conversely, the data shows the Soviets pulling back there SSBNs to positions closer to the Soviet Union, where those SSBNs couls be better defended from American attack submarines(longer ballistic missile ranges also helped).

Finding Soviet SSBNs was the "tough part"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCA2kFnYTwg

https://donmooreswartales.com/2010/04/30/whitey-mack/

One such Soviet sub could wipe out the Western Hemisphere...Given the prevalence for reactor accidents aboard Soviet submarines.

Please...AFAIK, the only treat that Bush withdrew from was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

While some have argued that with ABMs the US can negate a Russian retaliatory strike, the effectively eliminating MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction). This argument can be effectively countered by taking the position that the ABMs are ineffective against submarine launched ballistic missiles and also against air-launched nuclear missiles. Nor can any such US ABM system be 100% effective against Russian ballistic missiles - too many mobile launchers, too much territory to cover, not to mention any over-the-Pole shots.

Of course, Russia did "not take this matter lightly." The Russian reaction was to withdraw from START II(which it had only ratified in April, 2000, despite the US having ratified it in January, 1996). Further, START II had already been effectively succeeded by SORT, but SORT had not yet entered into force.

So, yes...Russia, at the time, did take this matter rather lightly.

Now this is comedy folks...

Which Trident missile are you comparing the Topol M, Bulava, and YARS to?
HINT: There is more than one...
From the way you are crowing, I'm guessing your using the older & out-of-service since 2005, UGM-96 Trident I C-4.

 

First I do not dismiss Russian naval capability outright, its just that over my lifetime I have heard periodically about so called technology gaps which the US has found itself in, which in hindsight has turned out to be overblown. Russia has in the past created some technology breakthrough's, as has the US. It all comes down to both what you can do and what you want to do to determine what toys you end up with.

Looking at the long picture the US Navy began from very modest means, mostly converted merchant ships, to the premier navel presence for the last 60 years. Russia's history is different, yet repetitive. A rapid rise followed by a equally rapid fall. With respect they will need to prove that have escaped this cycle to be considered a true rival to the USN and a world player.

That the Soviet's and the current Russian navy knew/know where US Carrier groups are at any given moment is hardly earth shattering. CV Groups are not exactly very stealthy, nor are they meant to be considering how the US employs them. They are used as a very visible diplomatic/military tool to shape current events. Politic's by other means.

For that matter you could keep track of US Carrier groups by watching open media sources most of the time.

 

I made a generalization and did not attempt to go into specifics too far as that is time-consuming and unnecessary for the point that I was trying to convey. Generalizations are easy to nitpick at with specifics and I was prepared for the fall out when writing my reply. You do make some interesting and valid points but none, however, that disprove anything I wrote.

Please don't take offense to me skipping 90% of your reply. I simply don't see anything constructive coming from a debate concerning the above.

I will comment on the ICBM tho...Speaking from memory I believe that the Trident replaced the Minuteman and the Trident II replaced the first. Now unless there is another ICBM that I am unaware off (possible) the Trident II which entered service in 89-91(?) is the newest ICBM in the US arsenal making it roughly 25 years old. All three Russian ICBMs are newer more advanced than the Trident.

 

Again, I'm not sure that we disagree. I guess the point that I was trying to convey in that regard was that the only way the Soviet Union could counter the United States Navy's surface ships was with the use of submarines. I do not see this changing in the foreseeable future. A nation with limited access to water doesn't need carrier groups as much as she needs defending the little water she has. Submarines with the addition of missiles seem to be capable of the task at hand (at least on paper).