Russia Naval News and Naval Vessels Program

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,307
Reactions
7 749
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
This UHF cross section posted by the OP supposedly shows the how "Plasma stealth" could defeat returning radar waves, thereby translating into an anti stealth. There's really nothing wrong with that statement.
your not even joking anymore that your attention span is just that horrible :ROFLMAO: read the frequency chart and the math calculator that shows what frequencies the Zircon's plasma sheath can handle.
But to be fair, it's not something that really has no countermeasures.
plasma sheaths deal with low and high frequencies who are you even quoting? Check the frequency plasma blackout chart if you whoever the hell you are quoting is not some blog user or yourself than re-entry vehicles going mach 25 down to the earth would have no problems communicating in low frequencies, but thats not the case now, is it?

you are disappointing me
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
As I mentioned earlier. Satellites had been used in an "attempt" to find the Ranger (a WW2 era carrier), the result is Hawaii got "bombed" multiple times and the Ranger safely gets back to port. The amount of accumulated institutional knowledge the US navy has gained since then in EMCON and general spoofing has increased since then. So there's every reason to believe that yes, US navy of the 21st century will fare better than the Ranger in 1986.

As for submarines, its either a flight of MH-60R Romeo above them or Virginias back on their asses.

If a missile is launched (probably Kalibr), US satellites, military and civilian WILL detect and triangulate those.

NASA's FIRMS are known to detect fires big and small, and missile lauch does generate quite an amount of IR signature :)


And once the general search area has been known. This, will come to visit in mere minutes. Maybe not scary for us sitting in our bench, scary and pretty sorry for the guys on the receiving end in a barrel under the sea. Remember, in those airspace the only one that will fly is US's. In other words, the Kalibr carrying submarine is alone with swarms of US aviation on top. They will not like it.

P-8A-Poseidon.jpg


In peacetime, the standard E-2D that a CVN carries is 5, in wartime could be more than that, and there's no guarantee that a CVN will operate alone. It's not rare to have multiple CSG groupings like we saw in Desert storm (against a country with no Navy).

US_Navy_Battle_Force_Zulu_1991_-_DN-ST-91-07575.jpg

image: task force Zulu 1991.

A constant flight of 4-5 AEW&C is not a problem. And again depending on geography USAF AWACS and other intelligence gathering assets flying from allied airbase will ease the burden. And again, this is the US, their intelligence gathering are a league of its own. With satellites constellation above, human intelligence that is proven accurate in predicting Russia's invasion of Ukraine

Do YOU know that AWACS can detect and tracked both air and surface targets (periscopes) ? lol

In other words any opposing submarine will be blind once they enter they designated operating area, not only Russian but actually everyone. They can't raise their communication periscope because the threat of US aviation and to be honest not many US opponents has nuclear attack submarine that could combat dive for eternity, in the end they'll have to surface and probably die. That includes the silent (for 1980s standard) blackhole submarine. :)

I mean it's not like Russia is good at hiding anything, from officers killed in Ukraine to Moskva everyone knows how good are their OPSEC and EMCON.

Now that long range cruise missile are known vulnerable against US navy defensive rings, the usual boo hoo will come with their secret weapons, the ballistic and glide missile now that plasma stealth are known bunk.

As if they forgot that ASBM has its own limitations and many of those are not yet proven and/or matured. The Chinese unveiled the DF-21D ASBM back in 2011 and guess what, this is the 2020s and we recently figured out that China is still testing those ASBM in their ranges, moral of the story ? announcements =/= it works.

ASBM hasits achilless heel, that is its kill chain. The biggest issue here is actually the simplest of things, looking for what they're firing at. There are thousands of ships sailing the modern ocean and onboard ASBM sensors has no way to tell what they are seeing. Coastal systems (radars) has no way to tell if the ships they're looking at are tankers or aircraft carriers.:ROFLMAO:, that is unless you believe the usual physics defying explanations that comes from the same members again and again.

And because there's no way for radars to know if what its looking at is a tanker or a warships, the US navy could easily rigged any barges at sea to spoof radar based surveillance system.

Spoofing not only adding complexity to shore based radars, it will definetly add an even more significant hurdles and stress to ASBMs equipped with radar seekers, which because of the size and shape limitations could only accommodate radars with a tiny fraction than than land based system.

So forgot the "ASBM can manuver" shit, you can't even tell what you're shooting at. And this is a bigger hurdles for a country that fails to kill a SINGLE Ukrainian HIMARS.

During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Indian navy modifies its frigates to emit radio chatter of that of an aircraft carrier, fooling an incoming PAF air attack. So what's the chance here that the even more sophisticated US military spoof a barge with radio and IR signature from that of an aircraft carrier. Or even active electronic attacks and decoy.

good-decoy-pic-straightened-on-horizon-e1481190229713.jpg

this thing radiate the same RCS as a warship.

Both radar and satellite based surveillance has been known to be defeated by the US, so what options are there left ?
 

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,307
Reactions
7 749
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
As I mentioned earlier. Satellites had been used in an "attempt" to find the Ranger (a WW2 era carrier), the result is Hawaii got "bombed" multiple times and the Ranger safely gets back to port. The amount of accumulated institutional knowledge the US navy has gained since then in EMCON and general spoofing has increased since then. So there's every reason to believe that yes, US navy of the 21st century will fare better than the Ranger in 1986.

As for submarines, its either a flight of MH-60R Romeo above them or Virginias back on their asses.

If a missile is launched (probably Kalibr), US satellites, military and civilian WILL detect and triangulate those.

NASA's FIRMS are known to detect fires big and small, and missile lauch does generate quite an amount of IR signature
when you start conversations your never really specific on what you eloborate, you need to work on that a little bit because your just giving me alot more questions and headaches, Such as is your information from regular or military satellites, are those satellites old that have observed to find the Ranger? How long ago was that? My information on satellites are the newer kinds and just because they missed finding one ship must mean they cannot spot CSGs in which you are making it sound like those satellites never check ports where US ships go than continously monitor them. Even than there are satellites that can pick up frequencies and US ships cant always stay radio silent.

And once the general search area has been known. This, will come to visit in mere minutes. Maybe not scary for us sitting in our bench, scary and pretty sorry for the guys on the receiving end in a barrel under the sea. Remember, in those airspace the only one that will fly is US's. In other words, the Kalibr carrying submarine is alone with swarms of US aviation on top. They will not like it.
yeah but you need to drop sonobouys is what I said earlier unless those aircrafts your talking about have some powerful LIDAR sensors that can see underwater on where a submarine launched a missile submerged?
Do YOU know that AWACS can detect and tracked both air and surface targets (periscopes) ? lol
the point you keep missing for some reason is that Russian subs can launch missiles from underwater, and lets pretend the AWACS spotted the Russian submarine but the Russian submarine has the CSG group on its target scope as well....Not trying to be funny but which do you think is faster? Tomahawks trying to get to the Russian Sub or Zircons getting to the CSG group? Just for the fun of it I will probably calculate the timeframe when Zircons hit CSGs to see what time the tomohawks will reach a Russian submarine to see if it can submerge again underwater and change locations. The AWACS in the air going to have to find land nearby next.
I mean it's not like Russia is good at hiding anything, from officers killed in Ukraine to Moskva everyone knows how good are their OPSEC and EMCON.
heard a fire boke among other mixed reports? even for the sake your starting a OPSEC argument we dont even know if any other NATO country would be better fighting Ukraine with what they are receiving?
As if they forgot that ASBM has its own limitations and many of those are not yet proven and/or matured. The Chinese unveiled the DF-21D ASBM back in 2011 and guess what, this is the 2020s and we recently figured out that China is still testing those ASBM in their ranges, moral of the story ? announcements =/= it works.

ASBM hasits achilless heel, that is its kill chain. The biggest issue here is actually the simplest of things, looking for what they're firing at. There are thousands of ships sailing the modern ocean and onboard ASBM sensors has no way to tell what they are seeing. Coastal systems (radars) has no way to tell if the ships they're looking at are tankers or aircraft carriers.:ROFLMAO:, that is unless you believe the usual physics defying explanations that comes from the same members again and again.
The Chinese are the Chinese, but nowhere near where Russia is in missile technology. ASBM sensors can identify ships is all it needs unless you forget again that HARMONY or satellite information would pinpoint which ships to target?

And because there's no way for radars to know if what its looking at is a tanker or a warships, the US navy could easily rigged any barges at sea to spoof radar based surveillance system.

Spoofing not only adding complexity to shore based radars, it will definetly add an even more significant hurdles and stress to ASBMs equipped with radar seekers, which because of the size and shape limitations could only accommodate radars with a tiny fraction than than land based system.

I mean the US can use EW systems but nowadays the latest ship missiles come with both active/passive homing, you can use EW but we sort of know how ARMs work which I don't think have to elaborate that for you?

So forgot the "ASBM can manuver" shit, you can't even tell what you're shooting at. And this is a bigger hurdles for a country that fails to kill a SINGLE Ukrainian HIMARS.
Satellites can tell where a CSG is, and the missile sensor will do the rest for that location, HIMARs isnt really helping Ukraine push Russia out of Bakhmut.

During the 1971 Indo-Pak war, the Indian navy modifies its frigates to emit radio chatter of that of an aircraft carrier, fooling an incoming PAF air attack. So what's the chance here that the even more sophisticated US military spoof a barge with radio and IR signature from that of an aircraft carrier. Or even active electronic attacks and decoy.
satellite SAR resolution will see if it's a decoy or a ship.

1673107637023.png


it's not like adversaries use their satellites to monitor US Naval ports than follow their movements at all.

Did Pakistan have any satellites at all or how many during that 1971 timeframe?
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Yeah satellites could totally took picture from above no problem, the problem is if the intended object can and will move . All satellite orbit was already known, unlike a tanker ship. A US aircraft carrier commander will be noticed in advanced by the US military if there's any unwanted extraterrestrial object about to pass way above its ships. And because we're talking ships, ships are known to change course AT WILL.

At 30+ knots the ship could be anywhere in the vast ocean. It could by its whims move north at one moment and an hour later they're 55km away heading south west. All the while satellites has limited time on orbit and swap area. In other words, there will or could be some contacts, but there ain't gonna be a CONTINUOUS tracking. So save your "manouvreable" glide vehicles for later.:ROFLMAO: The US doesn't even need ASAT to deal with one. I mean just imagine trying to do a lot of sh*t (like tracking a CVN) while passing at 5 miles per second.:ROFLMAO:


The Ukraine war is nearing its 1st anniversary and no HIMARS has been destroyed, there's the "what air defense doing?" but nobody asks "what satellite doing ?. Why on earth there hasn't been a single HIMARS destroyed in a country with area less than a 1/4th the Mediterranean ocean. How come ? LOL

It's more humiliating consider that the area those HIMARS operate is less than 1/5th of that Ukraine LOL

Now try find a CVN in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, in the middle of a busy shipping.

I mean it would be more hillarious than the Libyans attempting to launch the Styx from a makeshift truck with no sensors

In Tom Clancy's book (iirc red storm rising), the Soviets sent their MPA, SIGINT and ELINT planes to achieve steady detection and track of a patrolling US CSG in the Atlantic. In real life 2023, the only plane flying in those airspace will be the US only.

So no, the Russian navy is impressive in its own class and weight. But its mostly a brown water second rate navy going up against the golden standard of a 21st century naval power. Only the Chinese came close to the US in a non-Western country.
 

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,307
Reactions
7 749
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
@Gary

1st i like to start off is that your one of the few users on this forum that I have alot of respect for, most users here go Russia sucks LMAO, but you atleast make an effort to give an explanation about it and to some degree read my threads based on your strong reaction response which is something I like seeing. I do love our discussions and I am sure you might have more to say on my other threads which is why I made the Russia vs XYZ thread. Also a hint of advice I want to hear your own words than using some Indian user's opinion that clearly has beef with Russia. Based on your country flag among other users here I am assuming based on Ottoman times your country was pretty close to Turkey but never liked Russia because of the war they had with your brother country? Or is it the media that makes most Indonesian users hate Russia? I honestly do get asshurt in my attempts to make azeris, turks, albanians and Indonesians become friends(slavic and baltic countries are beyond saving here) with Russia than I do hearing them have negative opinions which Is why I like to socialize on this forum.

Yeah satellites could totally took picture from above no problem, the problem is if the intended object can and will move . All satellite orbit was already known, unlike a tanker ship. A US aircraft carrier commander will be noticed in advanced by the US military if there's any unwanted extraterrestrial object about to pass way above its ships. And because we're talking ships, ships are known to change course AT WILL.

At 30+ knots the ship could be anywhere in the vast ocean. It could by its whims move north at one moment and an hour later they're 55km away heading south west. All the while satellites has limited time on orbit and swap area. In other words, there will or could be some contacts, but there ain't gonna be a CONTINUOUS tracking. So save your "manouvreable" glide vehicles for later.:ROFLMAO: The US doesn't even need ASAT to deal with one. I mean just imagine trying to do a lot of sh*t (like tracking a CVN) while passing at 5 miles per second.:ROFLMAO:
I take it that you read what I said that missiles can hit moving targets like ships but dont believe me. Here you go.


The Tomahawk Block V is the latest version, and is an upgraded Tomahawk Block IV, which has a data link that enables the missile to switch targets while in flight. It can loiter for hours and change course instantly on command.

The Tomahawk Block V is a recertified and modernized missile with upgraded navigation and communications. The Block Va can strike moving targets at sea, while the Block Vb has a multi-effects warhead that can hit diverse land targets. Tomahawk's most recent use was in 2018 when U.S. Navy surface warships and submarines launched 66 Tomahawk missiles at Syrian chemical weapon facilities.



The concerns of the so-called Western partners may significantly expand and deepen following the expansion of the scope of application of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system. The fact is that the servicemen of the Southern Military District (Southern Military District) conducted the first maneuvers in which the Iskander OTRK was used against moving surface targets. Previously, this military equipment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was used to strike primarily at land targets.


The Ministry of Defense emphasizes that the tactical exercises were accompanied, among other things, by electronic launches of ISKANDER-M OTRK missiles. At the same time, it was added that all targets were successfully hit.

The destruction of moving sea targets became possible after the expansion of the capabilities of the OTRK through the use of a new type of homing heads of iskander-M missiles.


These are 2018 articles, so I am assuming you might have been a little out of date not knowing such a thing was possible? Which is also probably why you were in disbelief about ASBMs and immediately dismissed their development as a useless attempt to deal with the USN but I dont think the idea is useless if at least 2 countries are pursuing ASBM projects in the 1st place. Russia keeps sending more and more satellites into orbit and more than enough to keep constant footprints around the globe.

The Ukraine war is nearing its 1st anniversary and no HIMARS has been destroyed, there's the "what air defense doing?" but nobody asks "what satellite doing ?. Why on earth there hasn't been a single HIMARS destroyed in a country with area less than a 1/4th the Mediterranean ocean. How come ? LOL

It's more humiliating consider that the area those HIMARS operate is less than 1/5th of that Ukraine LOL

Now try find a CVN in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific, in the middle of a busy shipping.

I mean it would be more hillarious than the Libyans attempting to launch the Styx from a makeshift truck with no sensors
Ukrainians were screwing around trying to take out a bridge these past months which I am assuming they are not much of a threat priority than soviet MRLS systems Ukrainians use in the front to do more damage and they use HIMARs around civilian populated areas such as there was video of HIMARs next to a bunch of cars on a road from a tweet I saw but of course you among other users will dismiss the Russia is fighting humanely as possible in this war claim.

In Tom Clancy's book (iirc red storm rising), the Soviets sent their MPA, SIGINT and ELINT planes to achieve steady detection and track of a patrolling US CSG in the Atlantic. In real life 2023, the only plane flying in those airspace will be the US only.

So no, the Russian navy is impressive in its own class and weight. But its mostly a brown water second rate navy going up against the golden standard of a 21st century naval power. Only the Chinese came close to the US in a non-Western country.
I take it the reason you might have been really upset with the shit I have said is that view it as some sick joke If I told you a Russian corvette can waste an entire CSG if the CSG is within a 1000km radius from the corvette, or that Russia can strike any ship across the globe with ASBMs without the need of having to go nuclear armageddon. Because basically this would be Europe Vs Russia and China if a major war happened because the U.S. would be completely cut off from Europe. I am under the impression that most users here underestimate Russia's capabilities which is what I view as very scary. I believe there are users here with an open mind and are in fact serious about other countries that might pose a threat to their own country which is why I shared my ideas here the best I can to represent Russia's military capabilities and these users are free to dismiss my ideas, challenge them, take them seriously, etc. But I want the forum to at least know that there was a user or someone that shared ideas of the full extent of their capabilities so they can develop their ideas in how to counter new threats or what ways their country will have to take for new geopolitical steps in choosing allies or adversaries.

I am a pretty open guy, even I admit Russia sucks in some areas like MMIC technology.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Also a hint of advice I want to hear your own words than using some Indian user's opinion that clearly has beef with Russia. Based on your country flag among other users here I am assuming based on Ottoman times your country was pretty close to Turkey but never liked Russia because of the war they had with your brother country? Or is it the media that makes most Indonesian users hate Russia? I honestly do get asshurt in my attempts to make azeris, turks, albanians and Indonesians become friends(slavic and baltic countries are beyond saving here) with Russia than I do hearing them have negative opinions which Is why I like to socialize on this forum.

  1. The Indian here Mr. Abhirup may or may not have any beef with Russia but his writing is good enough he's authored writings in Navalpost and Aviationgeekclub. So I think that's some legit credential, certainly more than us two here.
  2. I'm not anti Russians in fact, if you dig deep enough some of my post are by chance defending your country (It's not that I'm aligning with Russia's foreign policy or anything, but just by mere chance). So don't know what is my post has anything to do with "brother country" lol. My post doesn't have one liners like "Russian tank are sh*t or jun*. I'm not here to do suck ups.
  3. Indonesian defence forumers "generally" prefer Western. Indonesian public folks on the other hands are quite pro Russia.

I take it that you read what I said that missiles can hit moving targets like ships but dont believe me. Here you go.

When did I said missiles can't hit moving ships ? My post underlines the why mobility affects the kill chain.

Basically yes you can kill ships while on the move.
Falklands%20-%20Atlantic%20Conveyor%20afire%20after%20being%20hit%20by%20an%20Argentine%20missile%2025%20May%201982.jpg

picture: MV Atlantic Conveyor 1982

But what if the intended object, not only knows the ins and outs of the kill chain, happens to move very fast, very unpredictable and armed to the teeth ? Which is basically the idea of a carrier strike group.

Since the Imperial Japanese navy defeat in WW2, no countries has the luxury to operate carriers in a sufficient capacity to challenge the USN due to monetary, industrial and institutional knowledge constraints and most of the remaining carrier operators happens to be US allies. Gorshkov's Soviet navy tries to do catch up with limited success before the SU fall. That means since 1945 most non Western countries doesn't really know how aircraft carrier works, let alone how the Americans are using them. They simply don't know how to face aircraft carriers the same way some European barbarians can't face the Roman legions because they don't know how a Roman legion fights. How do you even develop countermeasures for a thing that you have insufficient knowledge of ?

The SU of the time experimented with the idea of supersonic heavy bombers with anti ship missile, the concept stays untested to this day.
Modern China tries BM based solution, again with no guarantee of success. What they did is shooting ASBMs at static and moving objects with no countermeasures and defense and that's it.

So how on earth could Russia outdo China, while China's own effort is in question ? Which is what the text below tried to convince readers.
👇👇👇



The concerns of the so-called Western partners may significantly expand and deepen following the expansion of the scope of application of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system. The fact is that the servicemen of the Southern Military District (Southern Military District) conducted the first maneuvers in which the Iskander OTRK was used against moving surface targets. Previously, this military equipment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation was used to strike primarily at land targets.


The Ministry of Defense emphasizes that the tactical exercises were accompanied, among other things, by electronic launches of ISKANDER-M OTRK missiles. At the same time, it was added that all targets were successfully hit.

The destruction of moving sea targets became possible after the expansion of the capabilities of the OTRK through the use of a new type of homing heads of iskander-M missiles.


These are 2018 articles, so I am assuming you might have been a little out of date not knowing such a thing was possible? Which is also probably why you were in disbelief about ASBMs and immediately dismissed their development as a useless attempt to deal with the USN but I dont think the idea is useless if at least 2 countries are pursuing ASBM projects in the 1st place. Russia keeps sending more and more satellites into orbit and more than enough to keep constant footprints around the globe.

=====================================
I take it the reason you might have been really upset with the shit I have said is that view it as some sick joke If I told you a Russian corvette can waste an entire CSG if the CSG is within a 1000km radius from the corvette, or that Russia can strike any ship across the globe with ASBMs without the need of having to go nuclear armageddon. Because basically this would be Europe Vs Russia and China if a major war happened because the U.S. would be completely cut off from Europe. I am under the impression that most users here underestimate Russia's capabilities which is what I view as very scary. I believe there are users here with an open mind and are in fact serious about other countries that might pose a threat to their own country which is why I shared my ideas here the best I can to represent Russia's military capabilities and these users are free to dismiss my ideas, challenge them, take them seriously, etc. But I want the forum to at least know that there was a user or someone that shared ideas of the full extent of their capabilities so they can develop their ideas in how to counter new threats or what ways their country will have to take for new geopolitical steps in choosing allies or adversaries.

I am a pretty open guy, even I admit Russia sucks in some areas like MMIC technology.

I'm not upset. I'm just amused.

Ships size determine the constraint limit of design, corvettes are the lowest level of seagoing ships. It doesn't have sufficient fuel, sufficient power and sufficient ammo dump to face anything other than a corvette the same size.

"Theoretically" using small ships with big guns to fight big ships is not new. This is the Jeune Ecole school of naval thought. Which suggest that you can fight an armada on the cheap.

The Japanese were one of the early captivated with the concept. They ordered 3 protected cruisers from the French in the late 1880s. Colloquially called the Matsushima class. With big guns in a slim and tiny hull. Just like the modern Russian navy emphasis.

Japanese_cruiser_Hashidate.jpg

While in theory it's brilliant, practical use of the ship is horrible as the recoil from the huge cannon was too much for vessels of such small displacement, and reloading time on the cannon was impractically long.

After the war, the Japanese imperial navy completely ditch this concept and goes all in on all or nothing concept battleships, this new all or nothing concept is the one that annihilate Nebogatov's Russian fleet in the Tsushima.

Big punch in a small hull is not a Russian only thing and its effectiveness had been proven minimal since that day. So why on earth should I believe Russian corvette could sink a heavily armed CSG from 1000km away. I mean yeah you TECHNICALLY can do that, if the carrier, its air wing and its escort just sit there and done nothing.

Which begs us the question why is Jeune Ecole Russian navy has the confidence to "completely cut" the US from Europe ? Is this a Russian navy official belief or is it YOURS only ?
 
Last edited:

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,307
Reactions
7 749
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
  1. The Indian here Mr. Abhirup may or may not have any beef with Russia but his writing is good enough he's authored writings in Navalpost and Aviationgeekclub. So I think that's some legit credential, certainly more than us two here.
  2. I'm not anti Russians in fact, if you dig deep enough some of my post are by chance defending your country (It's not that I'm aligning with Russia's foreign policy or anything, but just by mere chance). So don't know what is my post has anything to do with "brother country" lol. My post doesn't have one liners like "Russian tank are sh*t or jun*. I'm not here to do suck ups.
  3. Indonesian defence forumers "generally" prefer Western. Indonesian public folks on the other hands are quite pro Russia.
1. Anyone that thinks .0001m2 is the average RCS of the F-22 and not the frontal RCS from the earliest sources already ousts themselves as a complete moron(assuming you were the moderator that deleted my post for mocking his stupidity?) or using outdated pictures of a Su-57. I know you like to clearly reference the dude alot but come on lets hear what you have to say as well your a human and not a drone. I am sure that you think Julian Ropcke was a very trusty credible user that writes articles himself like your boy but would piss off many pro-ukraine users as of lately at the russo-ukraine war thread because he has been doom posting alot on twitter lately and even he has fucked up multiple times mistaking russian with ukrainian equipment being destroyed and Abhirup has a serious stick up his ass involving anything Russian related which is why I ask you to give me your own opinions and not someone elses.

2. thats a surprise to me compared to most of the conversations i had with you in the russo-ukraine war

3. thanks, we did have Indonesian users in our forum as well like stealthflanker and this guy
1673199818264.png

Thats why I have been very curious about alot of Indonesian users on military forums, therefore have an interest in your country's own geopolitical views if that has influenced you guys in anyway compared to some of my experiences here.

But what if the intended object, not only knows the ins and outs of the kill chain, happens to move very fast, very unpredictable and armed to the teeth ? Which is basically the idea of a carrier strike group.

Since the Imperial Japanese navy defeat in WW2, no countries has the luxury to operate carriers in a sufficient capacity to challenge the USN due to monetary, industrial and institutional knowledge constraints and most of the remaining carrier operators happens to be US allies. Gorshkov's Soviet navy tries to do catch up with limited success before the SU fall. That means since 1945 most non Western countries doesn't really know how aircraft carrier works, let alone how the Americans are using them. They simply don't know how to face aircraft carriers the same way some European barbarians can't face the Roman legions because they don't know how a Roman legion fights. How do you even develop countermeasures for a thing that you have insufficient knowledge of ?

The SU of the time experimented with the idea of supersonic heavy bombers with anti ship missile, the concept stays untested to this day.
Modern China tries BM based solution, again with no guarantee of success. What they did is shooting ASBMs at static and moving objects with no countermeasures and defense and that's it.

So how on earth could Russia outdo China, while China's own effort is in question ? Which is what the text below tried to convince readers.
ships do not move as fast as ekranoplanes(Russia is attempting again continuiing projects in this area) As long as there is satellite keep track of where the ship is evading any missiles intended for ships will get updated via datalinks, even the onyx missiles go update each other in terms of which targets to choose using swarming like one flying high to see ships further away while telling the other missiles to fly low below the ships radar horizon to give them less time to intercept them. As you might know Russia does have an aircraft carrier which of course is a soviet one so I really dont follow what you mean that non-soviet countries dont know how aircraft carriers work? Russia of course is broke as hell to build a huge shipyard than build carriers but I would not dismiss them becoming possibly rich again with trades in the east and mining for arctic oil. The chinese are still not at the advanced stage of missile technology which they should not be comparable to Russia or the U.S., If China increases the living standards to support billions of people than I will view them as a threat in military technology because the highest income white family in the U.S. scores higher academically than an asian in a low income family according to studies but asians with higher income family will of course score higher than the white ones. The Chinese are going to have to fix their living standards if I am to take the country as serious as U.S. Russia and Turkey.

most of the reason why supersonic heavy bombers are untested is when it will be WW3 because most countries in this world dont even have Navies and those countries get into conflict with bigger countries that usually do have a Navy and usually bigger countries dont want conflicts with each other where everyone dies. Basically I am saying yeah no shit it is untested but I am just explaining the obvious reason for that.

While in theory it's brilliant, practical use of the ship is horrible as the recoil from the huge cannon was too much for vessels of such small displacement, and reloading time on the cannon was impractically long.

After the war, the Japanese imperial navy completely ditch this concept and goes all in on all or nothing concept battleships, this new all or nothing concept is the one that annihilate Nebogatov's Russian fleet in the Tsushima.

Big punch in a small hull is not a Russian only thing and its effectiveness had been proven minimal since that day. So why on earth should I believe Russian corvette could sink a heavily armed CSG from 1000km away. I mean yeah you TECHNICALLY can do that, if the carrier, its air wing and its escort just sit there and done nothing.

Which begs us the question why is Jeune Ecole Russian navy has the confidence to "completely cut" the US from Europe ? Is this a Russian navy official belief or is it YOURS only ?
My own belief is simple because if the technology is finished and acquired with enough production numbers of ASBMs the idea of dealing with bigger navies can be done but at a lower cost, thus if there are enough missiles that work as intended or slightly more produced you basically can cut any navy off from supporting their allies, which is why i like some ideas here on how the west will deal with these emerging threats such as intercepting high G maneuverable missiles or intercepting scramjets before Russia has some kind of different threat being made later on? I also think corvettes are vulnerable and can be dealt with by overwhelming their ship air defenses with tomahawks as long as those ships stay away from that 1000km killzone is what i refer it as.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,405
Reactions
69 8,183
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
So how would a hostile submarine fare against a US CSG for example ? not pretty I must say, the US holds an unchallenged accoustic supremacy ecer since the Cold War. Gorshkov's Soviet navy tries to catch up and had some success in narrowing the gap with the Akula class being very close to a 688i Los Angeles class but the cold war ended in Soviet defeat and while its successor the Russian navy declines and stagnates for a while, the USN keep walking ahead with the Virginia's and Seawolfs. The gap has once more widen.

acousticc%2Bsignatures%2BUS%2Bv%2BRussia.jpg


Any submarines that is not actively hunted by the CSG extensive ASW assets like the MH-60R would be under constant danger with some Seawolfs or Virginia's up their ass. You fire your Kalibr ? good luck getting triangulated by US military vast sensors. Basically you fire some , and then you die. A CSG will not fight on its own, depending on the geography. USAF and USN specialized assets like the P-8 Poseidon will be there flying unopposed adding to the fleet already powerful ASW wing.
I think you are kind of overestimating USN ASW capability when it comes to protecting its carriers.
Yes, USN ASW capability is definitely unmatched in the world. However, that doesnt mean sonar systems can break the law of physics, no matter how advanced it is.
And this is particularly true when it comes to active detection. there are severe limitation imposed by the nature of ocean itself.
And Russian Yasen class submarine seems be very quiet and capable.

personally, i think it has good potential to penetrate CSGs sub surface security screen.

And also it is unlikely that, Virginia or Seawolf will pick up a Yassen at an effective range. it seems to be too quiet for that.
I mean we know what happens when two very quiet sub out there. They usually dont hear each other coming.
For example, Anglo French sub collision in 2008.
Virginia or Seawolf may pick up a Yasen. but it is likely to be at very close range.

It is no secret that, in multiple exercises Swedish Gotland, German type212 and British Astute did penetrate CSGs security screen.

Here is a quote from admiral Hyman G. Rickover who also happens to be called father of the Nuclear Navy.
In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover's response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.
Of course, the circumstances has change a lot today. But still, CSGs greatest threat does not comes from the above. It comes from subsurface domain.
 
Last edited:

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Yes, USN ASW capability is definitely unmatched in the world. However, that doesnt mean sonar systems can break the law of physics, no matter how advanced it is.
And this is particularly true when it comes to active detection. there are severe limitation imposed by the nature of ocean itself.
And Russian Yasen class submarine seems be very quiet and capable.
No physical laws are broken, the US has tailed Russian submarine ever since the cold war.

personally, i think it has good potential to penetrate CSGs sub surface security screen.

And also it is unlikely that, Virginia or Seawolf will pick up a Yassen at an effective range. it seems to be too quiet for that.
I mean we know what happens when two very quiet sub out there. They usually dont hear each other coming.
For example, Anglo French sub collision in 2008.
This statements actually broke the laws of physics, because to penetrate a CSG security screen and goes near a carrier, a sub must at least match the speed of the intended target. This is not possible. A submarine going fast or as fast as surface vessel would defeat the entire raison d'etre of a submarine which is the retention of underwater stealth.

The Anglo-French collision happens while both are running very slow, we know this.

So what are the chance an SSN able to penetrate an incoming CSG groupings ? most likely just getting lucky that a CVN is coming your way.

Virginia or Seawolf may pick up a Yasen. but it is likely to be at very close range.
This we don't know. The Yasen are silent, but once they fire, the transient sound will be easily detected.
It is no secret that, in multiple exercises Swedish Gotland, German type212 and British Astute did penetrate CSGs security screen.
You know in the game cold waters, which I played, I regularly sneaked into the inside ring of Soviet/Chinese ships but unable to fire due to threats of a swift ASW helo coming my way or some depth charge raining down on me once a transient launch has been detected by the escorts.


I believe, most real life sub commanders would face the same situation, only this time in a war, unlike me, they are faced with a death or life situation.

In exercise like where the Gotlands, 212s and many are credited with sinking US carriers, no one knows what kind of limitations and game rules are enforced. I'm not saying that its impossible to sneak and sink a carrier, but if it's that VULNERABLE, the US would have stopped the development of carriers and carrier operations long time ago.
 
Last edited:

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,405
Reactions
69 8,183
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
No physical laws are broken, the US has tailed Russian submarine ever since the cold war.
Because they were super noisy, Yasen is not.
And I am talking here about active detection from the surface ships and ASW aircrafts.
This statements actually broke the laws of physics, because to penetrate a CSG security screen and goes near a carrier, a sub must at least match the speed of the intended target. This is not possible. A submarine going fast or as fast as surface vessel would defeat the entire raison d'etre of a submarine which is the retention of underwater stealth.
It didn't, I never suggested to chase down a carrier strike group!
I'm not saying that its impossible to sneak and sink a carrier, but if it's that VULNERABLE, the US would have stopped the development of carriers and carrier operations long time ago.
Obviously, any sneaker would be super vulnerable. But if the commander is brave as me he should sacrifice himself and the sub to sink a carrier.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
8,257
Reactions
22 12,776
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Because they were super noisy, Yasen is not.
The Soviet SSBN that U.S navy tailed in the cold war were probably the best the Soviet could came with in that particular era. Remember SSBN are suppose to be part of the nuclear triad. their safety is paramount, until at least the ICBM loads are launched.

Yasen is an impressive class of subs no question but need to remember here that if your progress is one step and everybody else does two, it's irrelevant. The Yasen and the Nerpa before it offers the Soviet a leap in noise reduction, but its not enough. Please remember that the Yasen 885 original model ( Severodvinsk) were constructed in the early 1990s... and finished in the mid 2010s. It took the Russians 20 years to build that particular ships. In that 20 years period, the US has produced the Seawolfs and continued with the even stealthier Virginia's which itself is now entering its 4th iteration. The US not only maintain its acoustic superiority, it once more widen the gap as its is the case in the 60s.

U.S submarines like the 688i might have some problems detecting the Yasen, but Seawolfs and Virginias has a totally new and different sets of sensors (BQQ-5D and BQQ-10) that is more sensitive and able to identify contacts faster than what a typical late cold war subs can do. Sensors are getting more sensitive and computers processing power are getting exponentially powerful and this is a more truthful case with the US than it is with Russia.

In those 20 year period, while Russian navy languish due to the lack of funds and some literally left to rot and rust. The US doesn't stop its training and development of its ASW. The P-8 Poseidon crew will find it as capable in detecting submarines as their predecessors in a P-3s even though its adversaries are increasing their level of stealth simply because its sensors were kept up to date.

As you might know Russia does have an aircraft carrier which of course is a soviet one so I really dont follow what you mean that non-soviet countries dont know how aircraft carriers work?
Read again, I said "aircraft carriers in sufficient capacity to challenge the USN" and this is no more true in the case of the Soviet navy.

The Soviet navy during the period of Kiev and Kuznetsov class development are in a stage similar to the navies of US, Britain and Japan in the 20s. Not meaning any insult, but at that point the Soviet navy is the stage of which a baby figuring out how to crawl and walk. Simply put your experience in those era are experimental by nature. And while the Soviet navy and naval aviators are busy just starting and experimenting, the Soviet union collapses and key people like for example Toktar Aubakirov here were left with not much to do.

330px-Stamp_of_Kazakhstan_276.jpg

MiG-29K test pilot. Toktar Aubakirov

The USN on the other hands are rich in the operational arts of a carrier naval aviation, going back to their war in the Pacific against other countries carriers, then followed by Korea, Vietnam, Persian gulf etc and still continue developing to this day. The Russian navy aren't even close when it comes to the institutional knowledge of how an aircraft carrier work, let alone how the USN operate its carriers. The fall of the Soviet union really dashed many progress of the 70s and 80s to the bin.

Now that the Russian navy don't even completed their study on aircraft carriers, how the hell are they even be able to develop a countermeasure ?

which is why i like some ideas here on how the west will deal with these emerging threats such as intercepting high G maneuverable missiles or intercepting scramjets before Russia has some kind of different threat being made later on?
The SM-6 are able to intercept hypersonic maneuvering vehicle
US Navy Vice Adm. Jon Hill, the head of the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), recently said that the multi-purpose SM-6 missile is the only weapon in the country’s inventory that can bring down highly maneuverable hypersonic threats
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hypersonic-weapons-missile-defense-chief-says

and there's now a running program to develop an even more potent one
 

blackjack

Contributor
Russia Correspondent
Messages
1,307
Reactions
7 749
Nation of residence
United States of America
Nation of origin
Russia
For gods sake Gary there is no way we have top secret clearances from both the U.S. and Russia to know what their noise levels are as much as we can't predict the future on the production of ASBMs in regards to your response to Afif.

The SM-6 are able to intercept hypersonic maneuvering vehicle
US Navy Vice Adm. Jon Hill, the head of the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA), recently said that the multi-purpose SM-6 missile is the only weapon in the country’s inventory that can bring down highly maneuverable hypersonic threatshttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hypersonic-weapons-missile-defense-chief-says

and there's now a running program to develop an even more potent one
1. they still have yet to test interception against HGVs, and the HGV projects the U.S. has not on the same level by that I mean the U.S. does not have mach 20+ HGVs like Avangard and they even quit running tests on the HTV-2 since it kept getting destroyed 1/3rds of the flight to its intended target. The HGV projects the U.S. is currently pursuing AFAIK has lower speeds and speed might be a difference in terms of difficulties in interceptions.

2, Scramjets are on a different level from HGVs. Well 1st the U.S. i thinks needs to have operational scramjets in its arsenal, the plasma properties that reduce radar cross section, also the reason they put a plasma generator on one of the ramjet projects meteorit was to reduce the RCS by 100 times but it got abandoned because the generator did not offer enough power to create a thicker plasma sheath but that wont be a problem because calculations have shown that mach 9-10 on 40km altitudes offer plasma sheaths that can deal with fire control frequencies that they trie to track and intercept them. In case you want to start a argument of how can Zircon get updated with information via frequency to the Zircon if the Zircon is covered by a thick plasma sheath, here will be your answer. https://www.technologyreview.com/20...black-out-problem-for-re-entering-spacecraft/ .... Scramjets fly at lower altitudes than HGVs thus giving radars less tracking time. Also unlike BMs and HGVs the scramjet engines will keep on running not losing speed as they descend to targets because the engines will always run until they hit their targets and of course they might have higher G overload manuevers than HGVs based on the previous readings I have gotten on Russia's ramjet projects. JUST dont compare HGVs to scramjets.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
4,405
Reactions
69 8,183
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
The Soviet SSBN that U.S navy tailed in the cold war were probably the best the Soviet could came with in that particular era. Remember SSBN are suppose to be part of the nuclear triad. their safety is paramount, until at least the ICBM loads are launched.
AFAIK, Russian nuclear triad kind of different.
Yasen is an impressive class of subs no question but need to remember here that if your progress is one step and everybody else does two, it's irrelevant. The Yasen and the Nerpa before it offers the Soviet a leap in noise reduction, but its not enough. Please remember that the Yasen 885 original model ( Severodvinsk) were constructed in the early 1990s... and finished in the mid 2010s. It took the Russians 20 years to build that particular ships. In that 20 years period, the US has produced the Seawolfs and continued with the even stealthier Virginia's which itself is now entering its 4th iteration. The US not only maintain its acoustic superiority, it once more widen the gap as its is the case in the 60s.
I think we should not forget that, Yasen also gone trough design modification and updates in that period.
iirc, the second boat in the class kazan has new sensor suite and more stealthier features.
 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
The Russian frigate of project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" armed with hypersonic missiles "Zirkon" is sent on a long voyage. The frigate will go on a trip across the Atlantic and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. The Zircon hypersonic missile was developed by NPO Mashinostroyeniya. Its exact characteristics are not disclosed, however, during tests in November 2020, the Zircon rocket accelerated to 9.5 thousand km / h. The missile is capable of hitting sea and ground targets at a distance of 1,000 to 1,500 km. The weight of the rocket warhead is 300-400 kg. At the moment, apart from the S-500 air defense system, there are no air defense systems capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. As reported, during the campaign, the crew of the ship will work out the use of Zircon hypersonic missiles.

 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
Russia as manufactured the first Poseidon nuclear super torpedo ammunition for the Belgorod special-purpose nuclear submarine. As part of the tests, the crew of the Belgorod nuclear submarine of project 09852 conducted a series of tests of the Poseidon in order to check the launch system and the behavior of the submarine after launch at various depths. The nuclear power plant of the torpedoes was also tested. The Poseidon is the largest and heaviest torpedo in the world and is often used as an unmanned underwater system. With a diameter of around 2 meters and a length of 24 meters, it can dive to a depth of 1000 meters. The torpedo is equipped with a warhead with a capacity of up to 100 megatons, an explosion of such power can cause a tsunami up to 500 meters high. Some consider these torpedoes to be doomsday weapons.

 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
The US Coast Guard spotted a Russian Project 864 spy ship near the Hawaiian Islands. The ship was seen refueling from a supply tanker. The appearance of this ship in the United States is explained by the presence in the region of the Pacific missile range Barking Sands, which is used to test Standard Missile 6 anti-missiles. Russian reconnaissance ships of Project 864 Meridian are capable of collecting "noise profiles" of surface and underwater objects, as well as conduct electronic intelligence. On board are the Profile-M, RotorS and Prokhlada radio reconnaissance systems, as well as sonar reconnaissance systems, radio communication systems and other equipment. The ship is armed with AK-306M 30-mm artillery system and Igla MANPADS. At the moment, Russia uses 7 ships of this type.

 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
The crew of the Ka-27 helicopter of the Russian frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" carried out aerial and surface reconnaissance in difficult hydrometeorological conditions. The flight took place at a sea state of up to 3 points and a wind speed of about 15 meters per second. The crew also performed takeoffs and landings on the frigates helipad in order to maintain the level of training of the flight crew. The Russian Project 22350 frigate Admiral Gorshkov is currently on a long-range voyage across the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.

 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
The Russian frigate "Admiral Gorshkov" of project 22350 of the Northern Fleet, in the course of carrying out long-range missions in the southern part of the Atlantic Ocean, conducted training artillery firing at a sea target. The exercises were carried out in preparation for a joint naval exercise with the South African Navy and the Chinese Navy. Shooting was carried out from a 130-mm AK-192M universal naval artillery mount at a sea target at a distance of more than 10 kilometers. The AK-192M artillery mount was created on the basis of the Soviet AK-130, by replacing two barrels with one, which led to a decrease in its weight. Lightening the weight of the A-192M made it possible to use the artillery mount on ships with a small displacement. The firing range of the gun is up to 23 km, the combat crew is 3 people, the rate of fire is up to 30 rounds per minute.

 

Soldier30

Contributor
Messages
1,261
Reactions
8 720
Nation of residence
Russia
Nation of origin
Russia
Naval exercises of Russia, South Africa and China ended in the Indian Ocean. Training took place from 17 to 27 February. Warships of Russia, China and South Africa carried out artillery firing at a sea target, trained to free a captured ship with hostages, to provide assistance to a ship in distress at sea and personnel floating on the water. Russia was represented at the exercise by the frigate Admiral Gorshkov of the Fleet of the Soviet Union and the medium sea tanker Kama of the Northern Fleet. In a number of episodes of the exercise, a Ka-27 helicopter was involved on board the Admiral Gorshkov. The Chinese Navy was represented by the frigate "Rizhao", the destroyer "Huainan" and the supply vessel "Kekesilihu", the South African Navy was represented by the frigate "Mendi".

 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom