What would the US Navy be like?

The scenario is this:
2015, the US is now at war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

What would the US Navy's fleet be like for it to be able to defeat the combined Navies of the above four powers at the same time, then support land and air forces in their respective tasks?

Um...the same. The US Navy pretty much owns all those four powers as is. Nothing need change. To be honest the USN is nigh ridiculous in power compared to the rest of the world combined.

Shadow Knight said:

Um...the same. The US Navy pretty much owns all those four powers as is. Nothing need change. To be honest the USN is nigh ridiculous in power compared to the rest of the world combined.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and even if the Americans had to build extra ships to fight the Russians, the Iranians, the North Koreans and the Chinese all at once they have sufficient industrial capacity and sufficiently advanced ship building techniques and infrastructure to make up the difference pretty quickly. Things will happen to Russia, Iran, North Korea and China in TTL, most of which will be very bad.

It should not be assumed from this the USN would not take losses, but the others would be far worse off. In the end the trade off would be two or three aircraft carriers and two dozen other ships in exchange for blue water domination. The only way the other navys refered to here could survive is to remain in their home littorals where they can combine with their air forces to gain some defensive parity.

There is a game called 'Red Dragon Rising' that models modern air/naval combat in the China & Japan seas. It give some perspective on why the Chinese & Korean navies would not survive outside land based air cover.

The United States Navy operates roughly 50% of all naval combat power in the world, and half the rest is composed of American allies.

In other words, no conceivable combination of opponents can even approach the naval power of the United States.

As others have said, the USN would take some hits but the other navies (Of which, only China and maybe Russia pose a significant threat) would be completely obliterated and would consist of a sole rowboat after we were finished with them, if that.

To defeat the fleets mentioned they would need absolutely nothing, although to defeat all of them simultaneously would require at least two more decks (keeping in mind that there are always at least 3 decks in some stage of RCOH or DPIA and that the Ford will not be in commission before late 2016) this leave the Fleet with a max of 8 decks.

There would also be a need for around 14 additional SSN beyond the current total hull number of 50, assuming full availability of the SSN/SSGN force.

You would realistically need a minimum of three CBG to deal with the Russian Northern Fleet (although a better number would be five) with at least 15 SSN for distant escort and interdiction, and one boat per battle group as part of the Group's dedicated escort. Persian Gulf would require at least two decks, simply because of the restricted waters and land based threats, although SSN requirements are much lower. The PRC has multiple major bases, with enough land based air power available that each force would need at least two decks (again more would be better, if available) along with a number of SSN as is the case for the Kola Peninsula force. One or two decks would be able to double up against the DPRK and Russian Pacific Fleet, with a strong SSN screen. Any effort to sortie the Black Sea or Baltic Fleet could be handled by SSN, perhaps back by a SAG and/or a LHA/LHD force set up as sea control ships (out of carriers, so...).

This all assumes that the OPFOR are all operating independently and are not trying to Zerg-rush the U.S. forces(it would be a LOT easier if they did). It also assumes minimal support from USAF or allied forces.

The are not enough USN assets to provide strong air support against four different OPFOR spread across 16 time zones and three oceans. There is no way the U.S. could construct a fleet of that size (of course there is no way the U.S could assemble a land force or air force large enough to engage in full out war In China, Korea, Iran, and Europe simultaneously, so the issue is sort of moot).

Simultaneously that might be a bit tricky, but I think it would be doable, because you have to also throw in the Royal Navy, the French Navy, and the Japanese "water-based force for self defense that totally doesn't have a brand-new carrier".

CalBear said:

You would realistically need a minimum of three CBG to deal with the Russian Northern Fleet (although a better number would be five)

Click to expand...

Three decks to deal with the Northern Fleet? That seems like overkill, though it depends on exactly what that fleet is doing.

In this scenario no way you won't have the ROK, Taiwan, and Japan operating with the US against China & NK. Any situation where the US is at it with Iran you'll have support from the Gulf Arab states, they have a reasonable number of smaller combatants useful in the Persian Gulf. Russia - unless NATO has evaporated it means the NATO navies are in it with the USA (and expect tacit cooperation from "non-aligned {no formal treaty}) countries like Sweden, Finland, Israel.

Naturally the US (and allies) will take casualties but it won't be too long before those 4 navies are reduced to very little indeed - you may see the Russians with SSBNs and some covering forces in "bastion" mode, but as long as nukes aren't about to fly it matters not, and they do nothing to influence the sea war.

What if the Russian Navy and the PLAN adopted a naval bastion strategy? That was Soviet naval strategy in the later part of the Cold War, and something the PLAN seems to be moving towards as well.

caspian88 said:

Three decks to deal with the Northern Fleet? That seems like overkill, though it depends on exactly what that fleet is doing.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but there's the Kuznetzov and the Pyotr Velikiy and plus their escorts, and a shit ton of SSNs and land-based airpower. That's a very cautious amount of overkill that Calbear is suggesting.

caspian88 said:

Three decks to deal with the Northern Fleet? That seems like overkill, though it depends on exactly what that fleet is doing.

Click to expand...

Well, it isn't just the surface force. It is also virtually the entire Russian SSN force, at least one SSGN, a substantial number of SSK, and a substantial number of Tu-22M in addition to the single Russian carrier battle group (including the Pyotr Velikiy).

The Russians put almost their entire combat force into the Northern Fleet, its charged with defending the Russian SSBN force. Unlike Western practices, where SSBN go out into the deep blue and imitate holes in the water for six months, the Russians have continued the Soviet practice of placing their SSBN into large defined, defensible areas (and under the ice) like the Kara Sea. This might change with the introduction of more Borei hulls, but it has been the tactical and strategic plan for a couple generations. Unlike the Western fleets, the Soviet/Russians seem to have decided that it is easier to hid the SSBN force in a protected 100,000 square mile area rather than try to catch up and then pass the huge Western advantage in sensors.

Tough nut to crack, even without trying to penetrate the SSBN patrol areas.

Even tougher without Tomcats and Vikings.

sahaldelta said:

The scenario is this:
2015, the US is now at war with Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

What would the US Navy's fleet be like for it to be able to defeat the combined Navies of the above four powers at the same time, then support land and air forces in their respective tasks?

Click to expand...

I know this isn't the Cold War anymore-but wouldn't a war between Russia and the United States be a world-ending nuclear conflict right out the gate? In which case, would the two navies really have much of a chance to engage each other?

Glass Onion said:

I know this isn't the Cold War anymore-but wouldn't a war between Russia and the United States be a world-ending nuclear conflict right out the gate? In which case, would the two navies really have much of a chance to engage each other?

Click to expand...

When both sides have first-strike-survival capabilities, it is logically possible to keep a war limited.
May not be likely, but it is possible.

North Korea's navy and Iran's navys are jokes, the Russians don't have a fleet much any more, their CBG is a carrier, a BC and maybe a destroyer or two, sure they still have a lot of ships in port but most of them are rusting and being canibalised to keep whats still running in service. The PLAN is a modern force but its still basically a brown water fleet, not a true deep water navy and USN subs would probably do a horrid number on the PLAN.

The USN also has the Ohio SSGN's to spam tomahawk missiles at any Chinese or Sov..Russian navy base or airstrip that's got bombers on it.

Basically there's nothing in the world that could challenge the USN today.

Saphroneth said:

When both sides have first-strike-survival capabilities, it is logically possible to keep a war limited.
May not be likely, but it is possible.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it would be possible if the US was to launch a major offensive against the Northern Fleet. If the Northern Fleet takes big losses it could become a matter of use it or lose it as far as the SSBN force is concerned.

How to trash a fleet

I have been thinking for a while how to take a U.S. Fleet out its common sense realy all you have to is wait until the ships run out of out of anti air/ missiles then there is bugger all to stop you sending them to the bottom, It's like peeling an onion peel the outer layer first then start again first ship to go for would be the replenishment ones planes can't fly with no fuel no refill of missle tubes no anti air.

I would get one used out of date supper tanker and just load it with cheap bog standard anti ship/ air missiles and press fire a bit like the proposed arsenal ship.

Carriers are easy to take out just rebuild the bukanear it always got past American fleet air defence lol.

kaymay said:

I have been thinking for a while how to take a U.S. Fleet out its common sense realy all you have to is wait until the ships run out of out of anti air/ missiles then there is bugger all to stop you sending them to the bottom, It's like peeling an onion peel the outer layer first then start again first ship to go for would be the replenishment ones planes can't fly with no fuel no refill of missle tubes no anti air.

I would get one used out of date supper tanker and just load it with cheap bog standard anti ship/ air missiles and press fire a bit like the proposed arsenal ship.

Carriers are easy to take out just rebuild the bukanear it always got past American fleet air defence lol.

Click to expand...

Problem: Cheap missiles can be decoyed off with ECM. You need something able to get through the enemy ECM, at a minimum, or you're not even forcing them to expend munitions, and I know that modern RN destroyers can punch out 40+ targets at a time so you need several dozen of the things.
Your strategy would undeniably work, assuming that the ship survived long enough against counterfire to exhaust the CBG's anti-missile munitions. But it would cost a vast amount of money.

As for the Buccaneer, that's a function of pilot skill - which, again, is not cheap to build up.
The USN isn't built to be invincible, and it isn't. It is, however, incredibly expensive to fight.



(This is basically the second half of the Cold War, in terms of naval tactics. USSR missile-spam against USN and RN anti-air proliferation. The USN answer was to try to hide, and to cripple the USSR ability to launch their missile-wave by using their fighters as scouts operating from a "dark" carrier location.)

kaymay said:

I have been thinking for a while how to take a U.S. Fleet out its common sense realy all you have to is wait until the ships run out of out of anti air/ missiles then there is bugger all to stop you sending them to the bottom, It's like peeling an onion peel the outer layer first then start again first ship to go for would be the replenishment ones planes can't fly with no fuel no refill of missle tubes no anti air.

Click to expand...

For that to work the defending fleet has to cooperate, putting itself where this can be done, & long enough it can work. It also assumes there are enough aircraft on hand, and that they can be expended in that quantity. What is the point in losing half your air force if all you do is chase the enemy fleet away?

kaymay said:

I would get one used out of date supper tanker and just load it with cheap bog standard anti ship/ air missiles and press fire a bit like the proposed arsenal ship.

Click to expand...

This requires a effective defense from submarines. Without that even the oldest Boomer can make quick work of it.

One point I've seen considered in this thread is that all the battle sites mentioned here are in the range of USAF active bases. That is the USN will not be fighting alone, unless US doctrine and strategy is magically dissolved.