What would the US Navy be like?

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I would get one used out of date supper tanker and just load it with cheap bog standard anti ship/ air missiles and press fire a bit like the proposed arsenal ship.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

I wonder if the USN has thought of this?

I do supect suspect that technology has advanced since the last time a Buccaneer penetrated a Carrier battle groups defences

Phalanx and 40 years of Missile and radar development + CIWS > Buccaneer development over that time (of which there hasn't been any!)

Good plane though

As for attritioning a CBGs stock of ship to air missiles - the first layer would be the air wing - and then thats a lot of AA Missiles.

A good couple of Hundred at least

And then their is the small matter of what it is you are using to attrite them :p

Lets hope that doesn't run out first!

As for your munition ship idea - AA missiles needs Radar and on modern DDGs and CCGs the radar system is often the most expensive part.

With out radar modern missiles are largely unguided expensive rockets
 

Ramontxo

Donor
This would be an scenario in which NATO allies (plus Japan and Australia) would surely come in America side. That means the Charles de Gaulle with its Rafales, the Italian Garibaldi and Cavour and the Spanish Juan Carlos with Harriers. Plus a possible activation of The Queen Elizabeth with marine corps aircrafts...
 
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?

Well, The OP is really a fanciful hypothetical "what if" as described. As others have said, if something remotely like a war between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea vs the USA broke out, in the "real world", the US would certainly have the South Korean, Taiwanese, Japanese, and probably the British and French navies fighting with them also. As to your basic question, there is no reason to imagine that a war involving the USA and Russia would be a "world-ending nuclear conflict". It matters what the war is about, where it is fought, and the war aims of the two powers.
 
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.

it kinda depends on the scale of the war, and what each side is trying to accomplish. The Bastion strategy is great for protecting your boomers... and useless for going out and interdicting enemy shipping. If the war is hovering on the edge of nuclear armaggedon, (which, considering that it's the USA, Russia, and China at war, is reasonable to assume), then the Bastion strategy is a wise move. If it's a totally conventional war, then the Bastions aren't going to do squat to keep the enemy from picking off your merchant ships..
 
it kinda depends on the scale of the war, and what each side is trying to accomplish. The Bastion strategy is great for protecting your boomers... and useless for going out and interdicting enemy shipping. If the war is hovering on the edge of nuclear armaggedon, (which, considering that it's the USA, Russia, and China at war, is reasonable to assume), then the Bastion strategy is a wise move. If it's a totally conventional war, then the Bastions aren't going to do squat to keep the enemy from picking off your merchant ships..

Implying unrestricted naval warfare is acceptable in the 21st century?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Implying unrestricted naval warfare is acceptable in the 21st century?

If the U.S. is engaged full on with Russia or the PRC, much less both?

There'll be a lot of fat trimmed off the ROE on ALL sides.
 
a war involving both the Chinese and the Russians vs the United States is a world war, so yes, unrestricted submarine warfare is a definite. With luck such a war won't go nuclear.

However such a war would certainly involve the British, Japanese, Australian and South Korean Navies, probably that of Taiwan, and of course Canada and probably the Norwegians (which solves that SSN and SSK hulls needed that Calbear mentioned earlier).

It is entirely possible the Indian Navy would join in to help too and there is always the possibility the French, Italians and Germans help out.

The Eurasian powers (easier to than spelling out all four of them) also have lousy maritime geography, with a limited number of choke points they must pass to reach major sea lanes except those leading to Japan and Taiwan.

Even then merchant traffic can be rerouted further offshore, and thus using the Ryukyu Islands as a partial barrier.

I am not entirely uncertain that the Japanese Maritime Self Defense and Air Self Defense forces wouldn't be enough alone to handle anything the Russians could do, and with South Korean help handle the North Koreans too, leaving the Chinese to the USN and Taiwan, with Australian and Indian help

Russia is even more screwed as it has to get through the GIUK gap in the face of the USN, RN, and Norwegians and maybe the French too.

Iran has no blue water capability, and if it attacks shipping it will definitely bring in the Europeans and Japanese, as their primary fuel supply is the Middle East through the Persian Gulf.

As the tanker war showed in the 1980s, it is possible to damage super tankers but sinking them is pretty hard. As long as the USN doesn't stick its head into a meat grinder for the first few days it might even avoid losing a CVN.

The most effective weapon the Eurasians would have is mine warfare, which did very well in every single naval war which saw them used in the 20th Century. That could cause some problems, and certainly makes offensive action high risk for a while, but without other resources to defend them, minefields can eventually be swept.

I bet at most a couple of months of high intensity combat, and then its over

Also, a B52 or B1 with ALCM and Harpoons is a very deadly ship killer, and with GBUs is perfectly capable to taking out ships even in hardened pens and caves.
 
In the case of a fullscale war and assuming both sides shift towards a wartime economy then very little is for certain. We are talking about a situation that has not happened since 1945. How will the public of either side react is completely up in the air. Its one thing for keyboard warriors to claim *insert country* will rise to the challenge and beat the dirty scums of *insert enemy* into the stone ages in a few short months. And another when rationing, conscription, and war time measures are enacted.

In terms of other powers, a notion that India will go to war with Russia is foolish. What incentives does India have to wage a total war against its largest arms supplier or its large northern neighbour? Japan and South Korea are certainly not going to jump onboard a war with China. Like India they have absoultly nothing to gain and much to lose. The EU? Unless Russia does reverse-Barbarossa, the EU has no reason to tangle itself in a costly and bloody war.

In anycase, it would be insane for this Anti-American Pact (Lets called it CIRN) to engage the US navy in a one on one fight in the Pacific/Atlantic Ocean. It is quite clear the United States rule the waves, any attempt to change this will be suicidal. However, it is important to realize that this alliance would be one of great landbase power, the notion that all of the United States allies will jump to fight this war is absurd, unless they are provoked or attacked by CIRN.

In a strictly US vs CIRN war, any notion of challenging US naval dominance will end in a dramatic failure, while any attempt by the US to challenge CIRN on land will also end in a dramtic failure. All in all, what is likely going to happen is any sane Russian/Chinese Admiral will pull back their fleet to their coastal waters and working in conjunction with their aerial and missile forces to deny the USN access to its coastal regions. Iran with Russian and possibly Chinese support will turn the Persian Gulf into a ASM shooting gallery, it would be foolish for the USN to send a carrier battle group inside and chances of a naval battle in the Persian Gulf should be minimal. North Korea out of all Four powers would be the most useless, its navy is unlikely to be any threat to the USN. The challenge for the USN would be to crack the Chinese/Russian coastal regions, an intelligent decision would be not to use its carriers, all it would be is a nice big floating target. Rather the best bet would be to use its nuclear submarine force to pick off targets at minimal cost.

Thats just my two cents.
 
India is very seriously concerned about China, and the notion of the Indian Navy fighting the Chinese Navy is a very real possibility. As for the Russians, I wouldn't worry too much about Indian ships even encountering Russian ships in the Indian Ocean... there simply aren't that many operational Russian ships at this point and aside from the occasional show the flag visit, the Russians are no longer regular visitors to that ocean.
 
What would the fleet composition look like? From what I've gathered, most of you guys feel that it should stay mostly the same.
 
Japan and South Korea are certainly not going to jump onboard a war with China. Like India they have absoultly nothing to gain and much to lose. The EU? Unless Russia does reverse-Barbarossa, the EU has no reason to tangle itself in a costly and bloody war.

.

Both South Korea and Japan have mutual defence treaties with the USA. (As does Australia)

The EU can stay out of it, NATO on the other hand will have to jump in on its members (USA) side .
 

sharlin

Banned
The JMSDF is one of the largest and most well equipped navies in the world. Its got more warships than the British navy and both have no carriers save helo carriers.

The Russian fleet is in a terrible condition, they have at most 6 - 8 Capital ships that they can have active AT ANY TIME, not just one fleet or the other. The rest are rusting in peace. The same goes for their subs, they have far less Akula's available, the Victor III's are obsolete by todays standards and they don't have many of them left either.

The biggest of the 'bad guys' fleets in this is the PLAN but they are still lacking in most areas and are in essence a brown water fleet.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaymay
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.



I wonder if the USN has thought of this?

...

Short answer is yes. Elements like that, and a lot more, were in the US military war games/exercises I observed or was involved in back in the 1980s & 1990s. The few I've read about since had much more advanced or clever enemy techniques than those included. General Ripper managed to defeat the US forces with the Iraqi army in tests of the plans for OIF. A decade ago the Red Team was able to savage USN forces in the East China Sea. Those are two of the few I am familiar with. Our war game or training exercise policy was 'Test it Till it Breaks' and to use possible OpFor actions as well as the likely actions just to be prepared. We never had the infinite time to test every possibility, but tried to prepare for at least some of the worst case situations.
 
...

The biggest of the 'bad guys' fleets in this is the PLAN but they are still lacking in most areas and are in essence a brown water fleet.

The only exception to this seems to be a hope to expend submarines in exchange for a US carrier or two. They seem to think trading off two or three of theirs a good trade for one supper carrier. They might even think it will be a stratigic victory if they can sink two or thee of our carriers.
 
Both South Korea and Japan have mutual defence treaties with the USA. (As does Australia)

The EU can stay out of it, NATO on the other hand will have to jump in on its members (USA) side .

If Japan or South Korea are attacked the US will be forced to defend them. It's a one way deal, Japan and Korea have no obligation or incentive to jump into an American War.

NATO did not fight the North Vietnamese alongside the United States. That was during the Cold War, when the purpose of NATO was to stop the "Communist Empire". Yet NATO did not jump into every war the United States got itself into.

No one wants to fight a nuclear power. There is nothing to be gained, and a whole lot to be lost.
 
Last edited:
India is very seriously concerned about China, and the notion of the Indian Navy fighting the Chinese Navy is a very real possibility. As for the Russians, I wouldn't worry too much about Indian ships even encountering Russian ships in the Indian Ocean... there simply aren't that many operational Russian ships at this point and aside from the occasional show the flag visit, the Russians are no longer regular visitors to that ocean.

Concerned =/= warmongering. If every country that was concerned about its neighbours went to war the instant it could, then the world would have been glassed three times over.

Explain how the Chinese navy will in any shape or form fight the Indian Navy? Neither side is stupid enough to send their fleet to the others coastal regions. You failed to realize that for a fleet to be effective it has to be able to resupply (ammunition, fuel, etc) after an engagement. The only navy that have that capablity at the moment is the USN, to achieve/maintain such a logistcal train is extremely expensive. As a result the Chinese/Russian force is able to fight in the Indian Ocean, and the Indian navy is certainly has no where near the capablity to fight in the South China Sea (unless massive support from neighbouring states, which they will not do).
 
If Japan or South Korea are attacked the US will be forced to defend them. It's a one way deal, Japan and Korea have no obligation or incentive to jump into an American War.

NATO did not fight the North Vietnamese alongside the United States. That was during the Cold War, when the purpose of NATO was to stop the "Communist Empire". Yet NATO did not jump into every war the United States got itself into.

No one wants to fight a nuclear power. There is nothing to be gained, and a whole lot to be lost.

True. But if the US was at war with China, wouldn't the Chinese military try to target American bases in South Korea and Japan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaymay
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.
...except that plan falls apart when your tanker is taken out before it can even get within range.
 
If Japan or South Korea are attacked the US will be forced to defend them. It's a one way deal, Japan and Korea have no obligation or incentive to jump into an American War.

NATO did not fight the North Vietnamese alongside the United States. That was during the Cold War, when the purpose of NATO was to stop the "Communist Empire". Yet NATO did not jump into every war the United States got itself into.

No one wants to fight a nuclear power. There is nothing to be gained, and a whole lot to be lost.

1, As Ctulu said. I dont see how China fights a war without targeting US bases in ROK and Japan. And the Treaty provides for ROK and Japan to intervene in that scenario.

2. The NATO treaty applies only to attacks in Europe and North America and North Atlantic. I fail to see how Russia wages a war against the USA without fighting in the Baltic/Mediterranean/Atlantic or North America.
 
Concerned =/= warmongering. If every country that was concerned about its neighbours went to war the instant it could, then the world would have been glassed three times over.

Explain how the Chinese navy will in any shape or form fight the Indian Navy? Neither side is stupid enough to send their fleet to the others coastal regions. You failed to realize that for a fleet to be effective it has to be able to resupply (ammunition, fuel, etc) after an engagement. The only navy that have that capablity at the moment is the USN, to achieve/maintain such a logistcal train is extremely expensive. As a result the Chinese/Russian force is able to fight in the Indian Ocean, and the Indian navy is certainly has no where near the capablity to fight in the South China Sea (unless massive support from neighbouring states, which they will not do).

Based on what the Indian Navy is saying and planning, they certainly seem to think so.

http://www.fpri.org/geopoliticus/2014/11/chinese-submarines-and-indian-asw-indian-ocean

China has been working on making Mynamar a friendly power for decades, so potentially they could have Karachi (as Pakistan is already a friendly power) and Rangoon to use as bases. They are also working on extending their influence in Africa. China depends on Middle Eastern oil as much as anyone, and it is there lifeline as well.

China is also working on that fleet train and on having a routine presence there. They are already taking part in the anti pirate patrol off Somalia

So yes, combat between the Chinese and Indian Navies are extremely likely possibilities.
 
Top