AShM doctorine

[Chrom]

We are talking about the 1980's, so it is Falklands type environment we're discussing.


It would be reasonable to think that the weight difference is made up by the booster giving the same range for the two missiles. The weight difference is in the ballpark. Further check out the physical appearance of the two missiles and it can be seen the difference is the booster.

So it will be reasonable to think they will have the same range when launched under the same circumstances and that if launched at altitude, the range will increase.

Its not resonable, first becouse booster is exactly for that - gaining speed, and second becouse you are insisting what Harpoon will be launched behind radar horizont.

Actually that upgrade did go ahead.

"Maximum range for surface launches is around 140 km (75 nm)."

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-84.html

Some of the current versions have a 220 km range. But not really relevant for what we're discussing.

Thats right, not relevant.

I understand the combat radius of the F/A-18A to be similar of that of the C, which is 575 nm or 1,065 km.

Nope, its was slightly increased. But 1065km for it sound more like half ferry range. The range of 290m was given for a typical hi-lo-lo-hi profile. The same source mentions typical max interdiction range of 150nm.
An example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18. These number are generally accepted and quoted in most sources.

They don't need speed. They just need to have the appropriate avionics and then carry the missile at low altitudes. They do this very well. If they fly below 200 m the Soviet surface group will never see them.

Maximum cruising speed is 426 mph or 682 km/h. This is more than adequate.

Hmm, you should already set you mind - do you planning launching harpoons from 10km height so the can fly farther or from 200m height so soviet cruisers will not see them?

I used 2 Harpoons in my example. That's good enough.
The trick is that it will never come to that, as the cruiser is dead before getting into firing range.

Yes, you right about that trick. But soviet also know that trick and will try to avoid getting close to USA CBG outside of bad weather or maritime air support.

The role of the USN carriers would clearly be to engage Soviet surface action groups. And to defend itself from enemy subs/air. The ASW groups will do the subhunting. Smaller soviet squadrons or single ships will be hunted down using air power from smaller carriers and land based air. They are sitting ducks.

Hmm, doubt it pretty much. Sub is very, very hard to find, whereas CBG is easely found with sattelites. Soviet cruisers will simply avoid USA CBG while trying to intercept USA suply lines. In fact, i'm sure what its CBG will be sitting ducks against soviet SSN's. You cant really compare the difficulties to find and destroy a sub cruising 500m underwater and a big battle group of surface ships.

The NATO surface groups won't engage and stay clear of powerful Soviet surface groups, they will focus on sub hunting. The Soviet surface groups are to be interdicted by carrier aviation before getting anywhere near the supply lines; who also can displace according to threat.

NATO surface groups couldnt do anything on they own without a carrier, they are literaly slaved to it. Even in hypothetical situation where soviet SSN is alone against USA ASW vessel all my bets would be on SSN as it have much longer ranged missiles.

Then the CVN commander will have to look in the weather forecast and avoid getting ito such a situation. The carrier aviation makes it possible for the CVN to choose when to fight and on what terms.

Ya, and soviet cruiser commander will also "have to look in the weather forecast and avoid getting ito such a situation". So, it will be down to commander skill and survivalnce assets.

Better stay in port then, all the while NATO hunts down the SSN and SSBN.

Ya, they will hunt each other as you see.

 

[abramsteve]

Another thing to remember when talking about soviet v western naval strategy is that the US fleet had a much larger number of surface units and more carriers than it does today....

Great discussion though!

 

[Grand Danois]

Its not resonable, first becouse booster is exactly for that - gaining speed, and second becouse you are insisting what Harpoon will be launched behind radar horizont.

It is reasonable. The booster helps the missile clear the ship and get to speed. At the air launch it clears the aircraft on its own and is already at speed. So no need for boosters.

Yes, low ingress, below radar horizon is optimal. However, there may be the odd case where range is significant. 90 (+) km is more than adequate.

Nope, its was slightly increased. But 1065km for it sound more like half ferry range. The range of 290m was given for a typical hi-lo-lo-hi profile. The same source mentions typical max interdiction range of 150nm.
An example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-18. These number are generally accepted and quoted in most sources.

It is not my impression it is generally accepted. Examples:

* Ferrying 2,700km (without refuelling)
* Interdiction over 1,000km
* Combat radius 740km

http://www.defence.gov.au/RAAF/aircraft/hornet.htm

Range: Combat: 1,089 nautical miles (1252.4 miles/2,003 km), clean plus two AIM-9s. Ferry: 1,546 nautical miles (1777.9 miles/2,844 km), two AIM-9s plus three 330 gallon tanks.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

Combat radius: 500+ nm (900+ km)

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18/index.htm

Sea-based forces are projecting power over longer distances and with far greater precision than in the past. For example, the F/A-18 C/D, the current workhorse of the fleet, has an unrefueled operational mission radius of approximately 500 mile

http://www.usni.org/Proceedings/Articles03/PROseabasing01.htm

I'd suggest that the 290 nm (532 km) is in the very, very low end with multiple bombs and an unfavourable flight profile. Otherwise, in flight refueling is the answer. Also, the S-3B are much better suited and the mainstay at the time, so no delivery platform issues.

Hmm, you should already set you mind - do you planning launching harpoons from 10km height so the can fly farther or from 200m height so soviet cruisers will not see them?

Below radar is fine. That is what I was initially thinking of, but or discussion got muddled up.

Yes, you right about that trick. But soviet also know that trick and will try to avoid getting close to USA CBG outside of bad weather or maritime air support.

Fortunately the weather reports should allow the carrier to be able to launch and recover aircraft except under rare circumstances. The Soviet surface group can't hide.

Hmm, doubt it pretty much. Sub is very, very hard to find,

Yes.

Luckily there would be plenty of USN, RN, perhaps MN SSN out there looking for them, together with 6-7 ASW groups and convoy escorts. Nimrods, Orions, other MPA. The Soviet Navy can't provide cover in the mid-Atlantic.

whereas CBG is easely found with sattelites. Soviet cruisers will simply avoid USA CBG while trying to intercept USA suply lines.

You see, this is where Murmansk enters the picture again. The Soviet surface group can't get past the US carriers. It will get intercepted. Look at a map. The mission of the Soviet surface fleet was not to interdict shipping; it was to gloriously die while defending the patrol areas of the Soviet SSBN.

In fact, i'm sure what its CBG will be sitting ducks against soviet SSN's. You cant really compare the difficulties to find and destroy a sub cruising 500m underwater and a big battle group of surface ships.

Luckily there are NATO SSN and ASW frigates/destroyers attached to the CBG and lots of organic ASW air. It's the other way around.

NATO surface groups couldnt do anything on they own without a carrier, they are literaly slaved to it.

They have: Outside range of Soviet land based air; under cover from a CV in the area; cover from land based air; own air defence (SA missiles or light carriers).

Even in hypothetical situation where soviet SSN is alone against USA ASW vessel all my bets would be on SSN as it have much longer ranged missiles.

I think I'd agree to that. But ASW groups.

Ya, and soviet cruiser commander will also "have to look in the weather forecast and avoid getting ito such a situation". So, it will be down to commander skill and survivalnce assets.

How? He can't prevent getting attacked by hiding in bad weather.

Ya, they will hunt each other as you see.

It will be bloody under the water, but the surface missile part is decided.

 

[Chrom]

Fortunately the weather reports should allow the carrier to be able to launch and recover aircraft except under rare circumstances. The Soviet surface group can't hide.

But even more so USA CBG. In bad weather they will be at mercy of soviet missile cruisers. The roles will revert and now the hunter will be hunted.

Yes.

Luckily there would be plenty of USN, RN, perhaps MN SSN out there looking for them, together with 6-7 ASW groups and convoy escorts. Nimrods, Orions, other MPA. The Soviet Navy can't provide cover in the mid-Atlantic.

ASW groups alone cant compete with soviet missile cruisers. Plus, they are still vulnerable to big long-range P-500 missiles.

You see, this is where Murmansk enters the picture again. The Soviet surface group can't get past the US carriers. It will get intercepted. Look at a map. The mission of the Soviet surface fleet was not to interdict shipping; it was to gloriously die while defending the patrol areas of the Soviet SSBN.

Partially, thats true. But only in light of all-around nuclear war. That is also one of the main reason why soviets didnt concerned THAT much about USA CBG's - each of carriers require only 1 P-500 with nuclear warhead. In conventinal war USSR cruisers role would be different and they could be relocated to other ports. Of course by carefull placing USA CBG could lock Murmansk port. But that will require at least several CBG, and they still will be at great risk doing so. Remember the big range of T-22M, USA CBG will be forced to operate outside they range. Also, again, Murmanks while being important port is by far NOT the only ones. There are many other ports suitable for SSBN's around. There are simply not enouth CBG's to lock them all (even if we assume what standing 3000km from the port can be named "locking")

Luckily there are NATO SSN and ASW frigates/destroyers attached to the CBG and lots of organic ASW air. It's the other way around.

Ya, a lot. Still they chances to find a sub in 1000x1000 area before it get 600km from the carrier and launch a salvo of 20 P-500 missiles are quite slim. And again remember, NATO ASW assets cant operate alone, they are centered around carrier.

They have: Outside range of Soviet land based air; under cover from a CV in the area; cover from land based air; own air defence (SA missiles or light carriers).

So USSR can successfully defend its surrounding waters and mainlaind from USA CBG, while posing a threat to CBG's by SSN's or also by cruisers in bad weather, and threating supply lines by frigates & cruisers in the places where USA dont have carriers. Whats more you want from Soviet Navy?

It will be bloody under the water, but the surface missile part is decided.

What you meant here, i dont understand?

 

[Chrom]

I think we centered too much on USA vs USSR. Its not good as this scenario is too heavely influenced by WMD, somewhat covering true supersonic vs subsonic issue. I suggest better looking at USSR-Japan scenario, China-Taiwan, India-Pakistan, USSR - Germany/France/GB, etc.

 

[Grand Danois]

But even more so USA CBG. In bad weather they will be at mercy of soviet missile cruisers. The roles will revert and now the hunter will be hunted.

That's why a weather forecast helps avoid this will happen. And if so - keep distance to the Soviet surface group.

ASW groups alone cant compete with soviet missile cruisers. Plus, they are still vulnerable to big long-range P-500 missiles.

The ASW group are tasked with hunting subs, not Soviet surface groups.

Partially, thats true. But only in light of all-around nuclear war. That is also one of the main reason why soviets didnt concerned THAT much about USA CBG's - each of carriers require only 1 P-500 with nuclear warhead.

If it can get close enough to fire - see.

In conventinal war USSR cruisers role would be different and they could be relocated to other ports. Of course by carefull placing USA CBG could lock Murmansk port. But that will require at least several CBG, and they still will be at great risk doing so.

Take a look at a map again. This time, assume the enemy is not stupid.

Remember the big range of T-22M, USA CBG will be forced to operate outside they range.

Remember the 600 nm CAP zone and the AWACS, etc. Long range MPA or bomber types are shot down at distance by F-14.

Also, again, Murmanks while being important port is by far NOT the only ones. There are many other ports suitable for SSBN's around. There are simply not enouth CBG's to lock them all (even if we assume what standing 3000km from the port can be named "locking")

For the SSBN it is not the port itself - it is the patrol area. For the SSN and surface groups - they have to run G-I-UK. Hence it is insane to push south. The role of the surface units was mainly to defend the SSBN patrol area.

Ya, a lot. Still they chances to find a sub in 1000x1000 area before it get 600km from the carrier and launch a salvo of 20 P-500 missiles are quite slim.

Yeah, the USN will run the risk of losing a carrier. However, this is so much more difficult than what you describe. It is also sooo easy to hide a carrier on an ocean. Just see how hard it is for the Chinese in this century.

And again remember, NATO ASW assets cant operate alone, they are centered around carrier.

Oh yes they can. Did and do.

So USSR can successfully defend its surrounding waters and mainlaind from USA CBG, while posing a threat to CBG's by SSN's or also by cruisers in bad weather, and threating supply lines by frigates & cruisers in the places where USA dont have carriers. Whats more you want from Soviet Navy?

The Soviet Navy has to come out and play or it loses per default. No. Bad weather not that significant. No, carriers do mainforce. You don't need the carrier to kill single cruisers and destroyer, there are plenty of ways to do that. Since they are single they are a) SSN fodder, b) landbased airpower fodder. Because the Soviet vessel are operating without air cover.

What you meant here, i dont understand?

I'm saying the NATO navies will prevail. They will defend REFORGER, though I don't think it will influence the battle in Europe. The NATO navies will get bloodied, but they will win the battle.

 

[Chrom]

That's why a weather forecast helps avoid this will happen. And if so - keep distance to the Soviet surface group.

But the same argument is also true for USSR cruisers - dont you think? They also can forecast weather, dont they?

The ASW group are tasked with hunting subs, not Soviet surface groups.

Again, ASW groups cant do that without carrier supporting them. Or, better to say, it would be very dungerous task for them as the are much worse armed than USSR frigs/cruisers.

Take a look at a map again. This time, assume the enemy is not stupid.

Well, and now assume what the OTHER enemy also not stupid and actually have some airforce and sattellites? And again, WHY you are so centered around Murmansk???

Remember the 600 nm CAP zone and the AWACS, etc. Long range MPA or bomber types are shot down at distance by F-14.

They wouldnt have enouth time to take-off before supersonic Tu-22M get in distance. Besides, at least 1500km from russian airbases Tu-22M can be protected by friendly fighters.

For the SSBN it is not the port itself - it is the patrol area. For the SSN and surface groups - they have to run G-I-UK. Hence it is insane to push south. The role of the surface units was mainly to defend the SSBN patrol area.

Than its even better. Do you realise how BIG is this patrol area? Do you realise what they doing it under North Pole ice also? Do you realise what if Murmansk port semi-locked they can resupply&repair from Vladivostok, Sevastopol, or half dozen other ports? Or what in emergency case they can function at least 1 year without special port maintaince only changing crew and food?

Yeah, the USN will run the risk of losing a carrier. However, this is so much more difficult than what you describe. It is also sooo easy to hide a carrier on an ocean. Just see how hard it is for the Chinese in this century.

Nope, i dont realise that. USSR had extencive sattelite network. CBG's couldnt hide even in bad weather as some of sattelites was radar ones.

Oh yes they can. Did and do.

Hmm?? what is the last time they attacked SSN? What is the last time they got attacked by russian missile cruiser?

The Soviet Navy has to come out and play or it loses per default. No. Bad weather not that significant. No, carriers do mainforce. You don't need the carrier to kill single cruisers and destroyer, there are plenty of ways to do that. Since they are single they are a) SSN fodder, b) landbased airpower fodder. Because the Soviet vessel are operating without air cover.

But, again, very same (and even more) also true for NATO vessels outside CBG groups cover. That is what i was impliyng.

I'm saying the NATO navies will prevail. They will defend REFORGER, though I don't think it will influence the battle in Europe. The NATO navies will get bloodied, but they will win the battle.

Of course they will win. After all they had much more powerfull navy. But the time and resources they commited to that task is so big what is fully pays of for USSR to maintain missille cruisers. Besides, even after such win USA still wouldnt gained much as USSR dont depend on sea lines, and still would be able to protect close waters and mainlaind.

 

[Waylander]

They would gain a successfull REFORGER.
Nobody needs to destroy the naval threats in Sovjet home waters but NATO needed to secure the REFORGER ships.

If the destruction of these ships is not done by Sovjet forces than one of two main goals failed (The other being to defend the SSBNs).

 

[Grand Danois]

But the same argument is also true for USSR cruisers - dont you think? They also can forecast weather, dont they?

Yes they do. It just not a disadvantage to the carrier. Example; Battle of Midway. During the night the US CVs sailed in the opposite direction of where they thought the enemy to be, due to the enemy superior surface firepower. When the Japanese carriers were gone, they could work the surface units who had to flee not to get destroyed.

Again, ASW groups cant do that without carrier supporting them. Or, better to say, it would be very dungerous task for them as the are much worse armed than USSR frigs/cruisers.

Why? They shouldn't run much risk of running into a heavy Soviet surface group, and the Soviet air threat is small. They just need to be good at hunting subs. And do so in groups supported by landbased MPA and light carriers. And no, 500 km range of the Bazalt is of no use to you. And no, SSN where not silent when running faster than 5-8 kts, and no etc.

Well, and now assume what the OTHER enemy also not stupid and actually have some airforce and sattellites? And again, WHY you are so centered around Murmansk???

Of course they do. They are just so *massively* disadvantaged by geography, that I so much going to take advantage of it. Think the German navy WW1 and WW2. Think of the death of Bismarck, think that as soon as the Soviet Navy moves south out of the arctic seas it is surrounded by hostile coasts. Norway, Island, UK etc. It is a killing zone.

They wouldnt have enouth time to take-off before supersonic Tu-22M get in distance. Besides, at least 1500km from russian airbases Tu-22M can be protected by friendly fighters.

Yes, Soviet fighters could escort bombers, but not persistently. Luckily F-14's carried many missiles and could engage way before any bomber would get close. This was their specialty.

Than its even better. Do you realise how BIG is this patrol area? Do you realise what they doing it under North Pole ice also?

Yes. Under the ice is the work for SSN. The open (and critical) waters is what the Soviet Navy has to defend.

Do you realise what if Murmansk port semi-locked they can resupply&repair from Vladivostok, Sevastopol, or half dozen other ports? Or what in emergency case they can function at least 1 year without special port maintaince only changing crew and food?

Well, if the Soviet navy doesn't come out and play, then it'll lose its SSBN. Other than that, I can't fathom what this is for. Btw, Sevastopol in the Black Sea?

Nope, i dont realise that. USSR had extencive sattelite network. CBG's couldnt hide even in bad weather as some of sattelites was radar ones.

Any SSN has to have external data to target OTH missiles. In the case of a sub, OTH means anything beyond a few tens of km. This means it will have to patrol on pericscope depth to get time critical info. MPA fodder. Also, the info has to be accurate, and timely before being transmitted. Hard criteria.

Hmm?? what is the last time they attacked SSN? What is the last time they got attacked by russian missile cruiser?

I thought we were talking advantages and disadvantages of certain doctrine.

But, again, very same (and even more) also true for NATO vessels outside CBG groups cover. That is what i was impliyng.

You're somewhat right. You just overemphasize the threat outside CV cover. There are also landbased air and light carriers.

Of course they will win. After all they had much more powerfull navy. But the time and resources they commited to that task is so big what is fully pays of for USSR to maintain missille cruisers.

Yes, the missile cruiser works well for asymmetry, but is not an outcome changer.

Besides, even after such win USA still wouldnt gained much as USSR dont depend on sea lines, and still would be able to protect close waters and mainlaind.

And REFORGER goes ahead and the hunting season for SSBN starts.


I am just highlighting the strengths of the NATO doctrine, which has the resources and technology to match. And the geographic advantage.

 

[Chrom]

I thought we were talking advantages and disadvantages of certain doctrine.

.

Yes, and you brought your imaginable "all the time". NATO ASW forces cant do anything "all the time" becouse there is no war currently (and never was post-WW2). Besides, i said all i wanted. Lets better diskuss more intersting on-topic scenarios what's better reflect supersonic vs subsonic - i.e. Taiwan, China, Japan, India, and other "lesser" naval powers what dont resort to WMD in they defence plans. As much as say considerable amount of P-500 was armed with nuclear missiles, same as Tu-22M and Tu-95 missiles. You cant get these consideration out of context when diskussing possible USA vs USSR naval scenarios and still mention the need to protect SSBN's and SSN's. So, as i said, lets better diskuss lesser scale conflicts.

 

[Grand Danois]

Those tactical nuclear scenarios are totally indiscussable.

 

[Chrom]

Those tactical nuclear scenarios are totally indiscussable.

But thats what we are doing all the time trying to figure so-called "USSR vs USA doctrine". How you expect to understand said doctrine without tactical nuclear weapon? Thats why i suggested to get back on-topic and discuss supersonic vs subsonic AShM's on the example of possible lesser scaled conflicts like USSR vs Japan or India vs Pakistan & China vs Taiwan.

 

[Grand Danois]

You mean like country X has a Sovremenny at $1B and country Y has eight F-16 with Harpoons for M250$?

 

[Chrom]

You mean like country X has a Sovremenny at $1B and country Y has eight F-16 with Harpoons for M250$?

Something like it. Or country X have Su-30 with Moskit/Yahont/Kh-31 and country Y F-16.. Or Country X have Sovremenny and country Y another NATO fregate with Harpoons.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

That was a great discussion boys, i dont care if it was off topic. i should have started a thread called NATO navy doctorine vs SOVIET navy doctorine.

 

[tphuang]

Something like it. Or country X have Su-30 with Moskit/Yahont/Kh-31 and country Y F-16.. Or Country X have Sovremenny and country Y another NATO fregate with Harpoons.

you do realize that air launched Moskit is not in service anywhere, right?

 

[kilo]

Japan vs. Russia would be different a very different situation due to the close proximity of the two. land-based aircraft would be a factor for both sides. I think the war could be ended by raiding Japanese commerce and forcing the government's hand to end the war so Russia would have two goals defend the Kuril islands and damage Japanese merchant fleet. The Russian submarine base at Petropavlovsk would be well situated for subs to move into the North Pacific. The russian fleet at Vladivostok would then sortie to attack Japanese forces in the Sea of Japan.

Are the sub pens at Petropavlovsk well Protected from air attack?

 

[Grand Danois]

Japan vs. Russia would be different a very different situation due to the close proximity of the two. land-based aircraft would be a factor for both sides. I think the war could be ended by raiding Japanese commerce and forcing the government's hand to end the war so Russia would have two goals defend the Kuril islands and damage Japanese merchant fleet. The Russian submarine base at Petropavlovsk would be well situated for subs to move into the North Pacific. The russian fleet at Vladivostok would then sortie to attack Japanese forces in the Sea of Japan.

Are the sub pens at Petropavlovsk well Protected from air attack?

You mean today? With the Japanese Navy as strong as during the Cold War with ASW as its specialty, against the current Russian Pacific navy? Japan is an island nation. Protection of commerce is a natural focus. Also, the US carriers are probably built into their doctrine, otherwise they would build their own.

 

[Rich]

Most of you have probably read this book http://www.amazon.com/THIRD-WORLD-WAR-AUGUST-1985/dp/0025471600

I lost my copy years ago but its a real gem and it deals quite extensively with reforger and the scenarios we are talking about. The actual book was published in 1978 and it was so far ahead of its time it accurately portrayed a new conservative Yank President in control at the time of hostilities. It also described initial attacks on Soviet command and control by a Yank fighter bomber that was invisible to radar. Hackett called the plane the "Frisbee".

At the time Hackett was considered by others to be overly optimistic about the Wests chances. However he was a strong believer in the power of better technology. So who had the last laugh?

I haven't read this book in decades but I heartedly recommend it to any of you. Its a fascinating study, most of all when considering the time it was written. I was a GI in NATO myself when I first read the book and at the time I thought I'd never live to see the end of the Soviet Empire. It is a testament to the power of Alliances between free peoples.

Time, Tides, and Life, are strange arent they?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Theres another ood book, i know its Tom Clancy:shudder, but its the only one of his i liked. Its called Red Storm Rising, and is baced around a conventional soviet assault into germany, to cover a push to the arabian oil fields. Its a work of fiction, so it reads like one (like iceland falls in the inital stages to civi barge carrier carrying elements of a soviet airborne division, the rest come in by parra assault, and therefore GIUK with it, USS nimitz in crippled by a backfire raid, the "frisbee" is prominent in this one too its called the F19). So its gotta follow an interesting story line but its a great read. Covers an OHP, an LA class SSN, a naval intel anylist who was also on nimitz, a soviet major general, an abrams tank commander, and a guy behins the lines in iceland.