A Ruskie vs US Scenario

[Manfred2]

There is one way you could salvage this scenario that just poped into my mind.

Place the action in the North Pacific. If you want to have a purely theoretical scenario, and that seems to bo the case, go there. It is so vast and empty that land-based aircraft have the worst chance to influence the battle.

You gave both sides an equal number of submarines... how often does that happen?

With so many ships, I would have been tempted to set up a seperate surface action group; one surrounded by LA class submarines ready to ambush anything that came close. Risky, and very much against accepted wisdom... but how well has the Russian Navy ever dealt with surprises? (it would be great fun to have an empty old LHA right in the middle of themnfloorl: )

 

[B.Smitty]

The Russians are likely going to lose.

The CVN can sortie Harpoon-armed F/A-18s immediately, as soon as its Hawkeyes see the Russian fleet.

The Russians, on the other hand, have to find the CVBG with just helos, subs and surface radar.

Their best bet, is to run towards friendly air cover as fast as they can, leaving a sub screen behind to possibly do some damage if the CVBG decides to chase.

If the CVN is configured with large numbers of Harpoons, it can sit back and dump 80 at a time from its Hornets, over and over, until the Ruskies run out of SAMs, or enough leakers get through to sink/disable everything.

If it is configured for land attack, then things might be more interesting, as it won't have a huge stockpile of Harpoons.

 

[XaNDeR]

The Russians are likely going to lose.

The CVN can sortie Harpoon-armed F/A-18s immediately, as soon as its Hawkeyes see the Russian fleet.

Thats true they can launch Hornets as soon as they see russians fleet , but Hornets would have a hard time getting trough Kirov's and Slava's air defence , Slava's and Kirov's are specialy designed to have very strong anti air and anti ship defence

The Russians, on the other hand, have to find the CVBG with just helos, subs and surface radar.

Not true , ur forgeting 1 major thing here Russia has sattelites , they know CVG location and speed , so they can send oscars in that direction with no problem , and shipwreck missiles are very advanced , they can fire upon 600km , thermal homing can do the rest . 24 missiles coming at you with evasive manuvering and low trajectory , i doubt the aegis system will stop every single missile .

Their best bet, is to run towards friendly air cover as fast as they can, leaving a sub screen behind to possibly do some damage if the CVBG decides to chase.

If the CVN is configured with large numbers of Harpoons, it can sit back and dump 80 at a time from its Hornets, over and over, until the Ruskies run out of SAMs, or enough leakers get through to sink/disable everything.

Like i said hornets need to get within fire range of harpoons , and for that they need to get trough kirov and slava's anti air defence , pretty damn hard even for 80 + Hornets .




Sorry but I just can't step out of my theory that the easyest way for US navy to defend the CVG would be to turn around and start cruising at about 30 knots , so the oscars would have to follow her , and then set a trap with Los Angeles class SSN's and quietly wait for oscars , at this case its much better to make a trap and set a ambush as russian torpedoes have a far bigger range and could target the US CVG before SSN's could fire upon oscars , and 24 missiles with evasive manuver and low trajectory is hard to stop like i said before 1-2 missiles could be enough for the CVG to be very highly damaged.

 

[B.Smitty]

Thats true they can launch Hornets as soon as they see russians fleet , but Hornets would have a hard time getting trough Kirov's and Slava's air defence , Slava's and Kirov's are specialy designed to have very strong anti air and anti ship defence

The Hornets can launch Harpoons from on the deck, 75nm out. None of the Russian ships will even see them. They can do so again, and again, and again and there isn't a thing the Russians can do about it.

Not true , ur forgeting 1 major thing here Russia has sattelites , they know CVG location and speed , so they can send oscars in that direction with no problem , and shipwreck missiles are very advanced , they can fire upon 600km , thermal homing can do the rest . 24 missiles coming at you with evasive manuvering and low trajectory , i doubt the aegis system will stop every single missile .

Does the Russian sat network allow precise pinpointing of a CVBG fleet at any time, anywhere on the planet? Or can it only find them when overhead?

 

[kato]

The Hornets can launch Harpoons from on the deck, 75nm out.

I really, really doubt safety procedures would permit any aircraft to fire any weapons while parked/taxiing on the deck.

 

[XaNDeR]

Agreed with kato , and besides , do you know the range of the harpoon missile? the fleets are 1000 km away

 

[B.Smitty]

I really, really doubt safety procedures would permit any aircraft to fire any weapons while parked/taxiing on the deck.

Ok, if you prefer, how 'bout, "launch Harpoons from below the radar horizon of the Russian fleet."

 

[XaNDeR]

Ok, if you prefer, how 'bout, "launch Harpoons from below the radar horizon of the Russian fleet."

Your still missing the point , harpoon's rainge is max 300 km

 

[Grand Danois]

Your still missing the point , harpoon's rainge is max 300 km

Yes, but if the Hornets approach at, say a height of 30 m, the Russian fleet will never detect them, as they can only see out to a maximum of 50 km at that height.

http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm

 

[XaNDeR]

Yes, but if the Hornets approach at, say a height of 30 m, the Russian fleet will never detect them, as they can only see out to a maximum of 50 km at that height.

http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm

I think sattelites could see them

 

[Grand Danois]

I think sattelites could see them

Please elaborate how they could that. Particularly how they would get the real time target quality data out of that. Also, for it to work, the Russian fleet would need a CEC equivalent.

No. Sat based radar doesn't work like that.

 

[swerve]

I think sattelites could see them

Only if they are overhead at exactly the right moment, which is very unlikely, & even then, they couldn't give the right sort of targeting data.

 

[XaNDeR]

Thats pretty neat , hornets could easly destroy kirov and slava ,with flying very low

 

[B.Smitty]

Thats pretty neat , that means hornets could easly destroy kirov and slava ,with flying very low

This is assuming the CVN had sufficient stocks of Harpoons. If its magazines were full of LGBs and JDAMs, then it would have more problems.

If, for example, it was only carrying 48, the Kirov and escorts might be able to intercept most or all of them.

 

[Galrahn]

Thats pretty neat , that means hornets could easly destroy kirov and slava ,with flying very low

Uhm, Why do you think I thought this scenario was so stupid? In the end your scenario introduces 5 submarines as actual threats to the US, everything else is a target, and at the end of the day you gave the US 5 submarines to deal with the threats before they actually get close enough to the CVN to be effective.

You should look into playing Harpoon ANW or something, that way you can educate yourself with some scenarios that give you a little better feel for what is real and what is theory in naval warfare.

I have a feeling that if you actually simulated naval warfare, you would be better positioned to research facts that would give you a better idea on actual capabilities, and start separating fact from fiction, FUD from reality.

I'm not saying Harpoon ANW is perfect, far from it in fact, but since you give the impression you are young I figure a sim game is right up your ally, and at least it is more realistic than the nonsense you have here.

 

[Galrahn]

This is assuming the CVN had sufficient stocks of Harpoons. If its magazines were full of LGBs and JDAMs, then it would have more problems.

If, for example, it was only carrying 48, the Kirov and escorts might be able to intercept most or all of them.

No it wouldn't, the Kirov and Slavas are limited by illuninators, so I am unsure how together they are going to track and intercept more than about 12 in the time allocated unless the missiles are fired one at a time with a 5 delay between shots. Saturation overwhelms and becomes an easy win for the US.

Additionally, the EA-6 would be able to hold off lock for a HARM strike, which could be coordinated with a F/A-18E GBU strike, which could be coordinated with a Harpoon strike, all of which would be hard to identify at low and high altitude as close as 20 miles if escorted with heavy EA-6 jamming.. Remember, US Carrier strikes are packages, its the concentration of capability that makes it so incredibly devastating. The EF-18G just makes this even more difficult for ships without air cover to defend against strikes, because it escorts at high speed as opposed to slower speeds of the EA-6.

Kirov has a limitation on illuminaters, so a saturation strike from a US carrier group is going to be difficult after about 12 missiles every 30 seconds are so. Since the strike can be coordinated among multiple vectors, it is even more difficult for the Russians who lack CEC.

A well designed strike would be something like. 3 EA-6 up front, a 24-36 salvo of TACTOMs to join a flight of 8 F/A-18Cs with 2 HARMS per, 8 F/A-18Es with 2 Harpoons and 2 HARMs each, and 4 F/A-18Fs with 2000lb GBUs. This type of strike package would sink the entire strike force in one strike, with all of the HARMS and Harpoons being inside the envelope of intercept within the same 30 seconds. After the strike, only the submarines would be left to deal with.

Penetrating naval task forces is about electronic warfare from multiple vectors with multiple methods of strike coordinated to deliver ordinance at the same time. This is why the plus or minus 20 seconds in coordinated strike training matters, and why when you saw an explosion called "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad a few years ago, it was about 120 major explosions all going off within 20 seconds.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Penetrating naval task forces is about electronic warfare from multiple vectors with multiple methods of strike coordinated to deliver ordinance at the same time.

well said.

 

[XaNDeR]

No it wouldn't, the Kirov and Slavas are limited by illuninators, so I am unsure how together they are going to track and intercept more than about 12 in the time allocated unless the missiles are fired one at a time with a 5 delay between shots. Saturation overwhelms and becomes an easy win for the US.

Additionally, the EA-6 would be able to hold off lock for a HARM strike, which could be coordinated with a F/A-18E GBU strike, which could be coordinated with a Harpoon strike, all of which would be hard to identify at low and high altitude as close as 20 miles if escorted with heavy EA-6 jamming.. Remember, US Carrier strikes are packages, its the concentration of capability that makes it so incredibly devastating. The EF-18G just makes this even more difficult for ships without air cover to defend against strikes, because it escorts at high speed as opposed to slower speeds of the EA-6.

Kirov has a limitation on illuminaters, so a saturation strike from a US carrier group is going to be difficult after about 12 missiles every 30 seconds are so. Since the strike can be coordinated among multiple vectors, it is even more difficult for the Russians who lack CEC.

A well designed strike would be something like. 3 EA-6 up front, a 24-36 salvo of TACTOMs to join a flight of 8 F/A-18Cs with 2 HARMS per, 8 F/A-18Es with 2 Harpoons and 2 HARMs each, and 4 F/A-18Fs with 2000lb GBUs. This type of strike package would sink the entire strike force in one strike, with all of the HARMS and Harpoons being inside the envelope of intercept within the same 30 seconds. After the strike, only the submarines would be left to deal with.

Penetrating naval task forces is about electronic warfare from multiple vectors with multiple methods of strike coordinated to deliver ordinance at the same time. This is why the plus or minus 20 seconds in coordinated strike training matters, and why when you saw an explosion called "Shock and Awe" in Baghdad a few years ago, it was about 120 major explosions all going off within 20 seconds.

Flying low is a very good idea , but i think im gonna agree with B.Smithy on this 1 , its not as easy i belive , lets take for example the Kirov , Kirov may be using a Ka-31 to provide AEW to the battlecruiser, this would allow the vessel to prepare itself and could potentially permit the S-300 to fire missiles in a passive tracking mode similar to the SM-2
Once launched the harpoon(s) have to get through the vessels anti-missile defences, which means if the missile is coming from the side it has to avoid 3 Kashtan combat modules, each equipped with 2 30 mm cannon and 8 missiles with a 10 km range, which means that 3 missiles can be engaged by Kashtan at any one time. In addition to this the Klinok air defence system which is based on the Tor-M1, a air defence complex designed to give protection for ground forces against precision guided missiles and can engage 4 targets at once with 8 missiles, Kirov has one director. The Kirov is also equipped with Gecko allowing another missile to be angaged. Its unlikely the S-300-FM system would be used against such missiles but the AK-130 might also have a shot at trying to shoot down a Harpoon.

So this gives a total of 4 systems excluding ECM and chaff etc and a total of 9 missiles being potentially engaged at any one time with a mix of guns and missiles, quite a formidible defence especially as harpoon is a subsonic missile.

Btw your right im relatively young , and im learning as much as I can , but im no profesional

 

[B.Smitty]

No it wouldn't, the Kirov and Slavas are limited by illuninators, so I am unsure how together they are going to track and intercept more than about 12 in the time allocated unless the missiles are fired one at a time with a 5 delay between shots. Saturation overwhelms and becomes an easy win for the US.

Hmm, yes of course. I hadn't thought about the illuminator problem.

A well designed strike would be something like. 3 EA-6 up front, a 24-36 salvo of TACTOMs to join a flight of 8 F/A-18Cs with 2 HARMS per, 8 F/A-18Es with 2 Harpoons and 2 HARMs each, and 4 F/A-18Fs with 2000lb GBUs. This type of strike package would sink the entire strike force in one strike, with all of the HARMS and Harpoons being inside the envelope of intercept within the same 30 seconds. After the strike, only the submarines would be left to deal with.

Does TACTOM have an anti-shipping mode? I remember hearing talk of adding such a capability, but I wasn't aware if anything had come of it.

Even if it didn't, a salvo of TACTOMs would still be useful as decoys.

Speaking of decoys, another option would be to swap out some of those HARM shooters for F/A-18Cs carrying 6 or more ITALDs each. Two aircraft could saturate the Kirov's illuminators.

 

[B.Smitty]

Flying low is a very good idea , but i think im gonna agree with B.Smithy on this 1 , its not as easy i belive , lets take for example the Kirov , Kirov may be using a Ka-31 to provide AEW to the battlecruiser, this would allow the vessel to prepare itself and could potentially permit the S-300 to fire missiles in a passive tracking mode similar to the SM-2

Any airborne AEW Ka-31 will be AMRAAM bait before it can make a difference. It might see the Hornet that kills it. That's about it.

As Galrahn has pointed out, a well designed strike can likely kill the entire Russian surface fleet in one sortie, even with limited numbers of Harpoons.

The combination of offensive EW, HARM, decoys and AShM saturation, plus the ability to fly home, rearm, and do it all over again until there is nothing left is a killer.