How many submarine-launched ballistic missiles does Russia have with conventional warheads? Probably zero.
My god , i dont mean to be rude but you better stop talking about russia because you prooven that you don't know 1 bit about russian military..
Atm Russia has 9 SSGN , each of them armed with either 21 , or 26 ( depends on cruise missiles ) tubes , that is 9 x 21 or 26 , which is 189 , or 234 cruise missiles..
Post 213 in this thread...
ok? Perhaps you meant TU 160 Blackjack???? They do look very similar...
My sincere apologiez , i did mean Tu-160 Blackjack i have no idea why i wrote B-1 , was confused..
Again it depends on the sircumstances of the deployment. Lets say the Russians were moving down the norwegan coast and the french and british sent an aphibious task force to support the norwegans. Fist of all the russians would have to locate the task force. They have the good old bear D for that with huge endurance, decent ESM and the Big Buldge radar they are capable MPA/maratime ISR assets. I doubt the russians would still have RORSAT's operational (Radar Ocean Reconacence Satelite) so they would be relying on the bears as their primary ISR asset. They could utilise SSN's for the task, which could alert the russians to general location of the task force but this wouldn't be enough for a backfire raid. And i'm pretty sure the russians (or soviet anyway) dectorine was to use airborne sensors for target locations, SSN/SSK are purely intended to attack the target. So they would have to have a few of them out in the north atlantic. The french would have an E2 up over the task force who's emmitions would be detected by the Bear's ESM suite a fair way out, well outside of detection range. But detecting the E2 is no were near enough for a missile shot, let alone a low altitude missile shot. The Backfires would have to use their own search radars which would make them vulnerable for a while. Rafales may have some chance of intercepting the Backfires before they reach launch range but not much. At this range the Backfires could be carrying 2-3 Sunburns, kitchens, Kingfish or whatever AShM's Ivan's using these days depending on their warstocks. With a regiment sized attack your looking at 60~90 incoming AShM's. Thats going to be tough for even Typhe 45's to handle.
But if you move the whole scenario further south into the north sea or mid atlantic, the Backfires can only carry 1 missle each, need to tank twice in the mid atlantic whcih means lots of radio communications that can be detected by ESM and makes the tankers vulnerable to nowegan interception. It also means they have to attack from a single bearing, pretty much due north. With land based E3 cover detection ranges and the radar horizon are greatly increased over just the E2, and Typhoon/Rafale CAP can be positioned "up threat" or north greatly increasing the chance of interception before missle launch range is achieved. And this isn't considering the effect of a reactivation of NAS Keflavik and RAF Typhoons or Tornadoes being stationed there. In such a case any backfire raid or bear D's would have to fight their way into the atlantic and unless Keflavik was eliminated early i dont like their chances. Its a whole different ball game.
As far as a russian balistic missile attack taking out british airfields, its possible i guess, but so is a tomahawk strike against the russian airfields in murmansk. Backfires are more irreplacable than a few typhoons, tornadoes could do the job of bomber killing about as well, badgers on the other hand would be fish in a barell for rafales.
Im glad to see at least 1 guy talking sence here , i agree it would be a completly different up north , and remember that EU navy's have a big quality of training advantage over the russians , the AEGIS system is the best defence system too , the quality of the crew might just make a difference , allthough i would not dismiss the russian sub fleet yet , they could make alot of damage , especialy since anti ship missiles have a bigger range than their west counterparts.
About the Tu-22 Backfire , yes I also agree it would give them problems , the cruise missiles on airfields would hurt europeans but surely they would be enough Eurofighters to give backfires a run for their money , since the missiles from backfires have a range of 440km thats not quite enough to fire before beeing even detected and with mach 1.88 the backfire would find it a hard time escaping eurofighters .. The upgraded Tu-22M3 has a bigger speed though mach 2.2 from my info , and im not sure about the amarment , but i belive the russians could arm them with long range cruise missiles , example Raduga Kh-55 with a range of 3000km , like i said im not sure if they could arm them but they probably could ..
As far as the tomahawk strike , im not aware of any SSGN that europe's navy has , and im sure their ships have no chance of getting nowhere near the distance needed to fire them before they get sunk, if they had SSGN it would be quite possible to sneak up and fire some balistic missiles , but yet again , im not aware of any SSGN from europe's navy , if they have some let me know because im not sure about this.
i didn't think i was making a simple statement??? I do believe i said in general terms if the russians could concentrate and logisticly sustain large operations in a limited conflict i would put my money on the russians, i didnt comment on the taticle employment of either side's forces. It seems you made a simple statement asserting that if the chinese attacked, because of the de facto DMZ the russians would be prepared and therefore would decemate the advancing chinese forces..... Which is kind of at odds with what i was saying.
I agree i was simply beeing objective and pointing out that 38th and 39th group army's could potentialy go deeper than 100 miles in russia , no other , and I dont know if you read the Chinese doctrine , but according to it , they won't go past 100 miles in Russia. But all in all your post was very balanced I was simply pointing out some things you did not mention.
