Update on Russian Navy Buildup in the Med. (1 Viewer)

[APACHERAT]

>" On Friday a group of Russian warships passed from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. The group included destroyers, landing ships, frigates and supply ships from the Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific fleets. It was scheduled to replace the current deployment of landing and surveillance ships already in the area, with Russian naval officials carefully noting that it was a “planned rotation” and not a “new” group.

Separately, over the past few days, the Russians also decided to send the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the heavy rocket cruiser Moscow, along with another frigate (the Smetlivy) and landing ship (the Nikolai Filchenkov) to join the “inter-fleet group” patrolling off the coast of Syria. The arrival of those additional ships will temporarily boost the total Russian naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to 11 ships, which is, by Russian standards, a very significant deployment...


The Moscow, by far the most potent asset the Russians are sending, is designed as an anti-ship vessel, carrying 16 SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship cruise missiles in distinctive and easily visible launch tubes (the missiles distinguish the Slava-class cruisers from others and give them their unique silhouette). "<



Russian Ships off Syria Will Likely Do Little | USNI News

 

[Aunt Spiker]

It's tragic, really - how blind most people actually are to what is really going on.

 

[RDS]

It could be evacuation and war. There are about 100,000 Russians living in Syria.

 

[CRUE CAB]

It could be evacuation and war. There are about 100,000 Russians living in Syria.

With any luck, Obama will kill a few thousand with some errant missiles.

 

[APACHERAT]

It could be evacuation and war. There are about 100,000 Russians living in Syria.

100,000 Russians ?

I read some where that there were 30,000 Russian civilian citizens living in Syria.

 

[Redress]

It's tragic, really - how blind most people actually are to what is really going on.

I do not think Aperachat is indicative of most. Most have a better idea. The Russian force is no threat to the assets we have in place. We have a carrier 1 day away from the Med, and within reach of it's aircraft, not to mention ground based assets. Both us and the Russians are doing some major posturing, which is not all that unusual.

 

[MMC]

I doubt the Russians gave up their Military base in Tartus.

 

[Coin]

Russia has updated a lot it's Navy lately and by 2020 they expect to have the largest Navy in their history.

 

[APACHERAT]

I do not think Aperachat is indicative of most. Most have a better idea. The Russian force is no threat to the assets we have in place. We have a carrier 1 day away from the Med, and within reach of it's aircraft, not to mention ground based assets. Both us and the Russians are doing some major posturing, which is not all that unusual.

Always trolling and attacking my credibility. Why not try debating and providing some facts to back up your argument ? Isn't that what the DP is suppose to be about ?

May I suggest you take a trip to your local library and pick up "Janes" because unless your rich you not going to access it on the web.

The Slava class cruiser were designed for one purpose, to attack and destroy an American aircraft carrier and it's escorts while out of range from the carriers aircraft.

It's armed with 16 X SSN/12 anti ship missiles. Each one equal to an Iowa class BB 16" gun projectile. A 2,000 lb. warhead traveling at Mach 2.5.

What is the main CIWS for most American war ships ? The 20 mm Phalanx < USA 20 mm Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) >
Here's the problem, if the Phalanx were to take out an anti ship missile with a 2,000 lb. warhead traveling over 1,200 MPH, the shrapnel from the anti ship missile would take out most of the exposed electronics on the carrier, cruiser or destroyer. Result, unable to conduct air operations and defend itself. This has been brought up numerous times in the USNI "Proceeding" and also studied at the U.S. Naval War College. < U.S. Naval War College | Home >

I could never figure out why we didn't adopt the British CIWS 30 mm "Goal Keeper" ?

While a Nimitz class carrier has three Phalanx CIWS gatling guns, (Arleigh Burke destroyers armed with two) the Ruskies Slava class cruisers have six 30 mm CIWS gatling guns. < Russia / USSR 30 mm/54 (1.2") AK-630 >

BTW: The Slava class cruiser out guns the American Araleigh Burke class destroyer by 4 to 1.

Should also be noted the Slava class cruisers were designed to take out American naval Carrier Battle Groups that were larger than todays Carrier Strike Groups.

Here's how we think the Ruskies would do it if they decided to take out that American CSG in the Red Sea or eliminate our four destroyers we have in the 6th Fleet AOR. Remember, the Ruskies have subs in the Med, so do we, probably two minimum I hope.

>" It was to be a surface-launched missile for both submarines and surface ships. To avoid any counterattack from a carrier group, the missile's range
was to be 500 km, outside the usual operational radius of carrier-protection forces. At the same time, the guidance system and missile survivability were to be greatly improved and in line with evolving tactics. For the first time, it was assumed that any attack on a carrier group would be of a massive character. The tactics of such an attack is described later, but it is worth describing some P-500 Bazalt features beforehand.
The P-500 missile is similar in appearance to the P-6/35 and was powered by a liquid-fuel sustainer and solid-rocket booster. It has a speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.5-1.6 at low altitude. The flight profile of the missile varies from 30 to 7,000 m (low-low or low-high). Guidance is based on a digital INS on a gyro- stabilized platform and an active-radar seeker, which periodically switches to passive mode. For the first time, the missile was equipped with a digital computer (Tsifrova Vichislenna Mashina, "digital computing device"). The guidance system was also equipped with a datalink to communicate between missiles in a salvo, with a salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability."<
SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

 

[APACHERAT]

Russia has updated a lot it's Navy lately and by 2020 they expect to have the largest Navy in their history.

Liberals don't want to hear that.

 

[obvious Child]

100,000 Russians ?

I read some where that there were 30,000 Russian civilian citizens living in Syria.

It's an 100,000 when you account for Syrian spouses and children. 30,000 direct Russian nationals, but the number is way bigger when you account for their families

 

[APACHERAT]

It's an 100,000 when you account for Syrian spouses and children. 30,000 direct Russian nationals, but the number is way bigger when you account for their families

So noted.

 

[obvious Child]

So noted.

We thought getting our people out of Egypt was bad, the Russians have a nightmare on their hands logistically. At least no one was shooting at our planes pulling our people out and the airport was largely secure. But last I checked, the Russians did get a sizable number of people out in the beginning. Wonder how many are left.

 

[Redress]

Always trolling and attacking my credibility. Why not try debating and providing some facts to back up your argument ? Isn't that what the DP is suppose to be about ?

May I suggest you take a trip to your local library and pick up "Janes" because unless your rich you not going to access it on the web.

The Slava class cruiser were designed for one purpose, to attack and destroy an American aircraft carrier and it's escorts while out of range from the carriers aircraft.

It's armed with 16 X SSN/12 anti ship missiles. Each one equal to an Iowa class BB 16" gun projectile. A 2,000 lb. warhead traveling at Mach 2.5.

What is the main CIWS for most American war ships ? The 20 mm Phalanx < USA 20 mm Phalanx Close-in Weapon System (CIWS) >
Here's the problem, if the Phalanx were to take out an anti ship missile with a 2,000 lb. warhead traveling over 1,200 MPH, the shrapnel from the anti ship missile would take out most of the exposed electronics on the carrier, cruiser or destroyer. Result, unable to conduct air operations and defend itself. This has been brought up numerous times in the USNI "Proceeding" and also studied at the U.S. Naval War College. < U.S. Naval War College | Home >

I could never figure out why we didn't adopt the British CIWS 30 mm "Goal Keeper" ?

While a Nimitz class carrier has three Phalanx CIWS gatling guns, (Arleigh Burke destroyers armed with two) the Ruskies Slava class cruisers have six 30 mm CIWS gatling guns. < Russia / USSR 30 mm/54 (1.2") AK-630 >

BTW: The Slava class cruiser out guns the American Araleigh Burke class destroyer by 4 to 1.

Should also be noted the Slava class cruisers were designed to take out American naval Carrier Battle Groups that were larger than todays Carrier Strike Groups.

Here's how we think the Ruskies would do it if they decided to take out that American CSG in the Red Sea or eliminate our four destroyers we have in the 6th Fleet AOR. Remember, the Ruskies have subs in the Med, so do we, probably two minimum I hope.

>" It was to be a surface-launched missile for both submarines and surface ships. To avoid any counterattack from a carrier group, the missile's range
was to be 500 km, outside the usual operational radius of carrier-protection forces. At the same time, the guidance system and missile survivability were to be greatly improved and in line with evolving tactics. For the first time, it was assumed that any attack on a carrier group would be of a massive character. The tactics of such an attack is described later, but it is worth describing some P-500 Bazalt features beforehand.
The P-500 missile is similar in appearance to the P-6/35 and was powered by a liquid-fuel sustainer and solid-rocket booster. It has a speed of Mach 2 at high altitude and Mach 1.5-1.6 at low altitude. The flight profile of the missile varies from 30 to 7,000 m (low-low or low-high). Guidance is based on a digital INS on a gyro- stabilized platform and an active-radar seeker, which periodically switches to passive mode. For the first time, the missile was equipped with a digital computer (Tsifrova Vichislenna Mashina, "digital computing device"). The guidance system was also equipped with a datalink to communicate between missiles in a salvo, with a salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability."<
SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

Why are you not including the aircraft in your assessment? They can strike further, and have more effective anti-ship weaponry. Part of the reason they are not a threat is because of range of aircraft vs range of missiles. This is all common sense stuff that any one should know before eve n beginning a conversation on the topic.

 

[APACHERAT]

We thought getting our people out of Egypt was bad, the Russians have a nightmare on their hands logistically. At least no one was shooting at our planes pulling our people out and the airport was largely secure. But last I checked, the Russians did get a sizable number of people out in the beginning. Wonder how many are left.

From what I heard and it's only from one source, most of the Russians who have been evacuated were evacuated by air. But those who are inland like in and around Damascus would have a problem making their way to Tartus to be evacuated by ship.

As the original post mentions that a couple of Ruskie amphibious ships have entered the Med off of the Syrian coast. No mention if they have Russian Marines onboard or are they empty and are intended to evacuate Russian citizens.

For you and I who are a little more knowledgable just not with current events but with history, to many wars were caused by stupid things. The most stupid war in recent times was WW l. It started in the Balkans and in the beginning the French, British, Germans and Russians weren't even directly involved.

During the Clinton administration when America and the Russians were on the same side in the Balkans, a British general had to intervene because Gen. Wesley Clark almost started WW lll between the U.S. military and the Russian military.

 

[APACHERAT]

Why are you not including the aircraft in your assessment? They can strike further, and have more effective anti-ship weaponry. Part of the reason they are not a threat is because of range of aircraft vs range of missiles. This is all common sense stuff that any one should know before eve n beginning a conversation on the topic.

If you read the links I provided, the Russian anti ship missiles have a longer range than the aircraft on a carrier.

Also there is no aircraft anti ship weapons system comparable to the Russians "Sand Box." What do we have, the Harpoon ? Still never used in combat against a ship. The American anti ship Tomahawk cruise missile is sub sonic.

In my opinion can a Nimitz class carrier be sunk ? No. But it can be knocked out of action.

Unless you can break the keel of a Nimitz class carrier, it will stay afloat. You can knock a Nimitz carrier out of action but not sink her as long as the crew are American sailors. The American sailor is second to none when it comes to combat damage control.

The only way you can break a Nimitz carrier keel is by detonating torpedoes directly under its keel and it would take more than a couple.

Just a couple of months ago DARPA < Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency > announced they will start developing a anti torpedo/torpedo. A torpedo to intercept enemy anti ship torpedoes, Why not ? The Nye-sayers (Star Wars) said you couldn't shoot down a missile with a missile and they were proven wrong. If developed they will deployed on our carriers.

You are aware that it wasn't Al Gore who invented the internet but DARPA and the U.S. military who developed the internet for the U.S. Air Force and it was the profits being made by the military industrial complex during that war that were directed to developing the internet.
Every scientist says that if there was no "Cold War" between the USA and the Soviets there would be no internet. Those who were directly involved in creating the internet say if there was no Vietnam war, no internet.

If you want a link, I provided it above, the DARPA link.
For the leyman, the best source is the book "What's Going On." -> What

 

[SBu]

>" On Friday a group of Russian warships passed from the Black Sea through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. The group included destroyers, landing ships, frigates and supply ships from the Baltic, Black Sea, and Pacific fleets. It was scheduled to replace the current deployment of landing and surveillance ships already in the area, with Russian naval officials carefully noting that it was a “planned rotation” and not a “new” group.

Separately, over the past few days, the Russians also decided to send the flagship of the Black Sea fleet, the heavy rocket cruiser Moscow, along with another frigate (the Smetlivy) and landing ship (the Nikolai Filchenkov) to join the “inter-fleet group” patrolling off the coast of Syria. The arrival of those additional ships will temporarily boost the total Russian naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean to 11 ships, which is, by Russian standards, a very significant deployment...


The Moscow, by far the most potent asset the Russians are sending, is designed as an anti-ship vessel, carrying 16 SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship cruise missiles in distinctive and easily visible launch tubes (the missiles distinguish the Slava-class cruisers from others and give them their unique silhouette). "<

View attachment 67153374

Russian Ships off Syria Will Likely Do Little | USNI News

Wow, amazing what paint can cover up.

 

[Redress]

If you read the links I provided, the Russian anti ship missiles have a longer range than the aircraft on a carrier.

Also there is no aircraft anti ship weapons system comparable to the Russians "Sand Box." What do we have, the Harpoon ? Still never used in combat against a ship. The American anti ship Tomahawk cruise missile is sub sonic.

In my opinion can a Nimitz class carrier be sunk ? No. But it can be knocked out of action.

Unless you can break the keel of a Nimitz class carrier, it will stay afloat. You can knock a Nimitz carrier out of action but not sink her as long as the crew are American sailors. The American sailor is second to none when it comes to combat damage control.

The only way you can break a Nimitz carrier keel is by detonating torpedoes directly under its keel and it would take more than a couple.

Just a couple of months ago DARPA < Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency > announced they will start developing a anti torpedo/torpedo. A torpedo to intercept enemy anti ship torpedoes, Why not ? The Nye-sayers (Star Wars) said you couldn't shoot down a missile with a missile and they were proven wrong. If developed they will deployed on our carriers.

You are aware that it wasn't Al Gore who invented the internet but DARPA and the U.S. military who developed the internet for the U.S. Air Force and it was the profits being made by the military industrial complex during that war that were directed to developing the internet.
Every scientist says that if there was no "Cold War" between the USA and the Soviets there would be no internet. Those who were directly involved in creating the internet say if there was no Vietnam war, no internet.

If you want a link, I provided it above, the DARPA link.
For the leyman, the best source is the book "What's Going On." -> What

And as usual, in your ignorance you overlook the basics. Your source lists a max range of 700km. Minimum combat effective range for an FA-18E is over 700km, assuming no inflight refueling, which is a stupid assumption. Depending on what they would use against the Russian ships, either the Skipper II, which is relatively short range at 25 km, or Harpoons(or SLAM, same thing almost), with a range of over 200 km. Either way, the Russian ships woul;d never be allowed within firing range of the US surface ships. This also assumes no ground based aircraft, which is another silly assumption.

 

[Wiseone]

Russia is not about to start a war with the United States over some pint-size logistics outpost in Syria, and they aren't going to start this war by putting up a couple of destroyers and crusiers against an American carrier group.

 

[APACHERAT]

And as usual, in your ignorance you overlook the basics. Your source lists a max range of 700km. Minimum combat effective range for an FA-18E is over 700km, assuming no inflight refueling, which is a stupid assumption. Depending on what they would use against the Russian ships, either the Skipper II, which is relatively short range at 25 km, or Harpoons(or SLAM, same thing almost), with a range of over 200 km. Either way, the Russian ships woul;d never be allowed within firing range of the US surface ships. This also assumes no ground based aircraft, which is another silly assumption.

And what are those FA-18's going to be armed with ? And are they going to be ablel to deal with the Ruskies ships air defense weapons systems ?

In a real scenario they will launch ASM Harpoons. The Ruskies CIWS hasn't been tested in real combat yet just like the Harpoon hasn't been tested in combat.

But the Ruskie anti ship missiles have been tested in combat and have sunk war ships. No war ship has ever been sunk by an American made anti ship missile.

Redress, the United States Navy has the U.S. Naval War College and the USNI that deals with these "What if's." So dose Great Britain, Russia, Germany, the Frogs (France), Japan, the PRC, etc.

These are the unanswered questions.

Re: Naval carrier aircraft, with the retirement of the A-6 Intruder the Navy no longer has a deep strike attack aircraft. The F-18 F isn't capable of filling the vacuum, it lacks the range.

The Air force experienced the same thing with the deactivation with the F-111. There response was the F-15 F and still not cabale as the F-111 was.

Then you have aircraft like the B-52 that will still be flying when all of the B-1's and B-2's are sitting in the "Bone Yard" in the Arizona desert.

 

[Redress]

And what are those FA-18's going to be armed with ? And are they going to be ablel to deal with the Ruskies ships air defense weapons systems ?

In a real scenario they will launch ASM Harpoons. The Ruskies CIWS hasn't been tested in real combat yet just like the Harpoon hasn't been tested in combat.

But the Ruskie anti ship missiles have been tested in combat and have sunk war ships. No war ship has ever been sunk by an American made anti ship missile.

Redress, the United States Navy has the U.S. Naval War College and the USNI that deals with these "What if's." So dose Great Britain, Russia, Germany, the Frogs (France), Japan, the PRC, etc.

These are the unanswered questions.

Re: Naval carrier aircraft, with the retirement of the A-6 Intruder the Navy no longer has a deep strike attack aircraft. The F-18 F isn't capable of filling the vacuum, it lacks the range.

The Air force experienced the same thing with the deactivation with the F-111. There response was the F-15 F and still not cabale as the F-111 was.

Then you have aircraft like the B-52 that will still be flying when all of the B-1's and B-2's are sitting in the "Bone Yard" in the Arizona desert.

I told you what they would be armed with: Skipper II or Harpoon/SLAM, plus possibly some Mavericks. ECM on FA-18's is superior to anything the Russians can deal with, and the range of both the Skipper II and the Harpoon are long enough SAMs are not an issue. They vwould actually probably launch with centerline droptank, but that leaves room for at least 8 Skipper's or Mavericks, and at least 4 Harpoon/SLAM(do not remember if you can load those on VERs, but probably can, which would double the load of Harpoon/SLAMs, and extend the range of the 19's. With a single inflight refueling and that centerline, range would be well over 200+ km longer than the Russian missile range, plus the range of the missiles themselves, and assuming worse case and each squadron can only launch 6 aircraft(8 is more likely, 9 not out of the question), that is one carrier supplying 24 aircraft, more than enough firepower to take out the Russian ships, in one sortie.

Your idiotic comment about the range of the 18's is just that, idiotic. Inflight refueling has been a major aspect of naval missions since, well, before you or I where born.

 

[APACHERAT]

Your idiotic comment about the range of the 18's is just that, idiotic. Inflight refueling has been a major aspect of naval missions since, well, before you or I where born.

In case you haven't been informed, I'm a little bit older than you.

When I was just a rugrat, one of my uncles was on Gen. Curtis Le May's staff when the U.S. Army Air Forces became the U.S. Air Force and he was directly involved in developing an air tanker to refuel bombers in the air. Without my uncle there would have never been a Boeing 707.

He retired in the 80's with a few stars on his collar. I just talked to him a couple of months ago, he just turned 89 years old and I think he's turning senile. But if you mention Obama's name he swears like a Marine DI.

Get it through your butt Redress, (no pun intended) I'm from a diffrent era than you. Been there and done that and so have my father and uncles and their fathers and uncles. I could go back further but I would turn into a liberal demanding reparations for all of the blood and deaths in my family to free the American black slaves.

 

[MMC]

In case you haven't been informed, I'm a little bit older than you.

When I was just a rugrat, one of my uncles was on Gen. Curtis Le May's staff when the U.S. Army Air Forces became the U.S. Air Force and he was directly involved in developing an air tanker to refuel bombers in the air. Without my uncle there would have never been a Boeing 707.

He retired in the 80's with a few stars on his collar. I just talked to him a couple of months ago, he just turned 89 years old and I think he's turning senile. But if you mention Obama's name he swears like a Marine DI.

Get it through your butt Redress, (no pun intended) I'm from a diffrent era than you. Been there and done that and so have my father and uncles and their fathers and uncles. I could go back further but I would turn into a liberal demanding reparations for all of the blood and deaths in my family to free the American black slaves.

Mornin Apache. Yeah......nothing like having the experience. Especially up close and personal. Which is something that most of these young bucks. Don't know **** about!!!!!