If you put the entire Royal Navy and Russian Navy up against each other who would come out on top?
Just purely Navy vs Navy nothing land based is allowed.
Pic is the Russian Slava-class cruiser Moskva (top) and Type 42 destroyer HMS Nottingham
>If you put the entire Royal Navy and Russian Navy up against each other
Run the fucking numbers you donut
Even compared to cancer patient that is VMF, Brits don't have a navy to speak of.
>>28285865
Going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're Argentinian, rather than actually believing that shit.
>>28285795
As always it comes down to the simple questions.
Can the Royal Navy logistically support its full strength to get to and operate within a battlezone that may not be in near vicinity of their home country?
Yes.
Can the Russian Navy logistically support an equivilent force to get to and operate within a battlezone that may not be in near vicinity of their home country?
No.
Can the Royal Navy rely on its ships to be available and functioning well?
Yes.
Can the Russian Navy rely on its ship to be available and functioning well?
No.
Does the Royal Navy have comparitively recent naval warfare experience?
Very yes.
Does the Russian Navy have competitively recent naval warfare experiaAHAHAHAHA
Thread done.
>>28285795
Do aircraft carriers count?
If so, we, the UK are completely fucked.
>>28285894
Russian fucking AIRCRAFT CARRIER has enough firepower to sink entire Bong surface fleet.
They have more active attack subs than royal navy has combat ships.
>>28285987
>Numbers are everything
hokay
get the fuck off wikipedia
>>28285977
At least it's because the QEs are still under construction. Russia only has ONE working carrier and it's so unreliable that it needs a dedicated tug to follow it around full time. They're not exactly ahead in the naval fighter department either, considering they're still rolling with MiG-29s while Britain is set to get F-35s.
>>28285977
>>28285987
>Kuznetsov
>Threat to anyone
It's a complete non-starter for any "scenario". It's either submarine bait owing to Russia's hilariously impotent ASW skills...or it just doesn't get off the starting line period.
>American CBG (or whatever they're called now)
Nimitz, bunch of Ticos, bunch of Arleighs, Los Angeles...
>French CBG
CdG, Horizon, Georges, Rubis...
>Russian CBG
Kuznetsov, smoke, tugboat, home port...
>>28285987
>They have more active attack subs than royal navy has combat ships.
On paper yes, but how many of these subs are actually combat effective?
If there's one thing the RN doesn't skimp on, it's their subs.
>>28285967
>Can the Russian Navy logistically support an equivilent force to get to and operate within a battlezone that may not be in near vicinity of their home country?
what is 2013 Syrian naval standoff?
>Can the Royal Navy rely on its ships to be available and functioning well?
>Yes
when you only have a fleet that small it better be ready at all times.
>Can the Russian Navy rely on its ship to be available and functioning well?
when you have that big of a navy you can always scrape together some force at all times for this dick measuring contest.
>>28285967
>Does the Royal Navy have comparitively recent naval warfare experience?
against whipping boys that are barely above Iraqi tier, Yes. AHAHAHAHAHA.
>>28286032
>what is 2013 Syrian naval standoff?
>when they were operating out of their base in Tartus
>>28286032
Its hard to be a true Vatnik, but you're certainly trying.
>>28286032
>what is 2013 Syrian naval standoff?
>Vatnik's still believe this was a genuine thing
>against whipping boys that are barely above Iraqi tier, Yes. AHAHAHAHAHA.
Facing off against hostile air, an aircraft carrier, submarines and hostile escorts 8,000m from home against an enemy in his own waters and forcing the entire enemy fleet to flee the moment your subs get on the scene. Not to mention decades and decades and decades of persistent handed down experience across enormous naval wars.
Meanwhile Russia's done...what?
Oh yeah. Pic related.
>>28286070
>the tartus """"""""""""""Base""""""""""""""" is a pair of barracks and a supply depot
it's literally a fenced off part of civilian port
you are a fucking idiot
>>28286032
I wouldn't be laughing if the greatest expeditionary achievement of my navy was the Battle of Tsushima
>>28286087
>It doesn't c-count!
>>28286087
Still a place to pick up food, water and fuel. Most navies can operate anywhere they can get those things
>>28285987
Admiral Kuznetsov is a piece of shit carrying outdated aircraft. It would be no threat whatsoever, some Astutes would sink it quickly or launch some missiles and wreck it's flight deck.
Wow what's with the butthurt bongs? The British navy is meme tier it would not survive a big conflict outside their naval bases.
>Slava
Russiaboos in charge of naming ships
>>28286128
Not him, but it can't service large ships. About small frigate size is as big as it can handle.
>>28287524
Know nothing huh?
>>28287571
*spills tea*
>>28285795
russians, simply due to numbers. the rn has a definite qualitive edge, but they're been cut to the bone and would be relying mainly on their subs. which are very good, but they only have 7 of them. which means they can keep limited numbers at sea at any time, which means there would be too many holes that the russians could exploit with their larger numbers and stand off anti-surface capabilites. brit doctrine relies on air power and submarines to sink enemy shipping, we've just covered subs and the british carriers are not operational. old harpoon rounds on limited numbers of ships isn't going to cut it.
i don't see why this would be controversial.
>>28287567
Really does not matter.
The fact that you can have storage of supplies and parts, even if you have to ferry them on a boat without docking, is a big thing. Much like replenishment ships.
>>28287632
Russia can't use those numbers though.
They lack the logistical capability to project such power and their ships are just too old and unreliable for sure sailing with such coordination to a major event.
It's what you can bring. Not what you own. Thats why Russia isn't really regarded as a real threat on the waters, because they have shit tier availability and projection ability. The only thing they can reliably get anywhere is some of their subs, which are going up against massively superior subs and a navy who's amongst the top tier of ASW ability in the world who pretty much spends all year round training at hunting Russian subs passing by.
>>28287632
Russia sub fleet amounts to large amount of rusting steel coffins barely afloat, unfueled, rotting in decaying drydocks
>>28288114
>>28288198
BIDF pls go. We all know that the UK can't rule the waves anymore.
>>28288301
dont have to rule the waves just beat the worst naval power to ever exist, Russia, a country which has been landlocked multiple times in the past, and has only ever really had a defensive naval force because their naval port access is shit.
>>28285795
Russia Navy is nearly two times larger, it's not even fair.
What kind of thread is this?
>>28285795
Russia once lost a naval battle against unarmed british fishing boats. The dogger bank incident.
England has always been known for being an naval power. I think they got this.
>>28288301
"Shit, I don't have any facts to counter him, better just call him a defense force and then say a meme. That'll work for sure!"
>>28288404
the royal navy has no long range maritime patrol aircraft. those coffins are still a threat to the joke that shares the name of what was once
one the greatest military forces on the planet.
>>28285795
Royal Navy for sure.
those subs aint nothin to fuck with, and everyone knows the rooskie navy is a floating scrapheap.
>>28286092
>look up Battle of Tsushima on wiki
>"It was naval history's only decisive sea battle fought by modern steel battleship fleets"
Thanks anon, I learned something interesting today.
>>28287972
That's not how it works.
>>28288693
Someone better tell all the Bluewater navies on the planet they don't know what they're doing, some anon on /k/ knows better than them!
Wiki says the USA has 62 burkes and 22 Ticos. That doesn't seem like very many?
>>28288639
Define long range
is 7,800nmi not enough
>>28288639
They are getting the P-8 Poseidon. But sending an aircraft near the Russians is just suicide. Say what you want about the Russians, but they got AA on lock.
As for OP's scenario, it's kinda useless when you don't specify the circumstances. But Russia would always have the edge just because of sheer numbers, even when like 30% of their fleet is not fully operational and another good portion of the fleet is not oceangoing. They would still be left with a fleet many times the size of the RN, which has 17 ships capable of anti-ship warfare and 10 subs.
>>28288816
How does 84 modern frigates not sound like that many?
>>28288959
Frigates? Frigates?
I think you underestimate burkes and ticos
>>28288819
Define the aircraft
>>28289047
Yeah true more like Cruisers right?
>>28288404
hahahahah your fucking tridents aren't even in a functional state
>source: Wikileaks leak from a fellow who worked on a trident after he discovered the poor security of other sectors of the british navy and fast tracked to a trident and found out it couldnt even bring its weapons to bear in a training scenario.
get fucked limey
>>28285795
>Who would come out on top?
Well, if they're anything like the US Navy, they'd take turns.
>>28289180
more like the Burkes are comparatively cruisers compared to the ruskies and the Ticos are even better.
Russian numbers don't mean shit.
It all falls down to competence, experience, training and reliability.
Britbong victory is guaranteed.
>>28289196
>Believing a guy who's been so unbelievably discredited that his name alone brings submariners to hilarity
He didn't fast-track to shit, he was assigned to it because there's a high chance of it if you're a submariner and are willing to do the harsher deployment patterns. He was a first-deployment newbie who knew precisely jack shit and wanted to give the SNP fuel because he was a massive pro-indy wanker.
It's on a tier with believing Sprey or Kopp.
But then, they're a Vatnik's primary sources, so I suppose anybody should expect it.
>>28288788
Except that has nothing to do with your false claim.
>>28289326
>source: none
you can try and insult people by calling them burger, vatnik, and naziboo but thats not a credibly argument and you're just uncivilized
>>28286032
For all of its existance, the Russian Navy has yet to seize a major victory from a major power. What makes you think it would get any more competant in the past decade, especially after the gutting that occured during the 80s?
It has iron ships ran by plasticine men.
>>28289282
>inb4 50 moskits at each Britbong ship
>>28288816
That's already 760,000 t, which is larger by itself larger than any navy (All ships, support and logistics included) other than the Russian Navy.
>>28288959
what other navy fields 84 cruiser-class vessels?
>>28288114
>to project such power
what power projection. this entire conflict is going to take place in the north sea if it gets beyond giuk. or do you imagine that it will take place in the middle of the pacific?
>>28288198
are you aware of how many destroyers and frigates the royal navy actually has? remember, they only built 7 daring class.
>>28288917
>getting
this is the operative word.
>>28289347
actually this was covered in the telegraph and extensively on The Rum Ration.
and given the amount of actual proof this nigger brought to the actual table, your source is essentially an anectdote.
the guy had barely even got to fleet.
>>28288595
>lost a naval battle against unarmed british fishing boats.
You could choose the even more ancient event, the Crimean War for example. How is Russian naval fuckup a century ago relate with a modern Russian Navy?
>>28289582
>what power projection. this entire conflict is going to take place in the north sea if it gets beyond giuk
And Russia's still not demonstrated any ability to muster any significant force there yet. North Sea is still at a distance they would need to be able to logistically support in the field. It's not right beside their home ports, not by a long shot. (And the ports they would have access to would be overwhelmed because Russia's meant to be more spread out and its naval support is shit tier)
>>28289681
Because it's the only noteworthy naval engagement Russia has to gain any experience from.
Experience is handed down generation to generation from conflict and encounter. It shapes how procedure and knowledge is formed into the next era. It evolves.
Russia has fucking NOTHING. While the UK has one of the most experienced naval combat backgrounds in history.
>>28285795
>Experience
>Century ago
facepalm.jpg
>>28289808
>And Russia's still not demonstrated any ability to muster any significant force there yet.
what do you mean? there is an entire fleet dedicated to that specific area of water. not to mention the baltic sea fleet as well. it's not like it's a massive logistical strain to get down the norwegian coast. russian warships still regularly cruise the north sea and the royal navy has ongoing concerns about their subs being tailed out of faslane, hence the admiralty collectively shitting themselves when nimrod was scrapped.
the royal navy only has about 20 surface combatants in commission at the moment, and has critical manpower shortages especially for the all important engineers. it is in a perilous state.
>>28288404
>worst naval power to ever exist
Russia's up there, but India, nigger.
>>28285795
the answer is that the Russian navy couldn't actually get most of its ships across the world, while the royal navy can
so if they are fighting across a remote area the UK wins easily, but if the UK is attacking russian ports or something its much harder
when they have carrier groups though I give it to them, and thats soon
>>28285795
In a hypothetical fight in the North Sea, Russia would win because of numbers.
The butthurt Brit shills preach about logistics and how Russia's navy is rust, but as someone who actually studies military conditions at Georgetown University, most of the Russian navy is fully active and ready to move.
They culled a huge amount of the old ships and have refurbished most of the remaining active ships during the last decade.
tl;dr Britain would give Russia a run for its money, but inevitably lose.
>>28288788
You should study up on logistics before answering like that.
>>28292288
Projection of force is something everybody forgets about when they talk about country's military capabilities.
Case in point: China
Whose million man army and all their shit is primarily there to squash domestic insurrection and is practically useless outside of where they can walk.
>>28292343
what about when UK has its two carriers
>>28288114
>They lack the logistical capability
>What is Syrian express?
Russia have probably more auxiliary ships that whole Royal navy combined.
>>28292505
the RFA is huge dude
>>28292564
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/the-fighting-arms/royal-fleet-auxiliary
Eeehh. 13?
>>28292582
>>28292505
You know Russia has FIVE active replenishment ships right
>>28292505
You'd be surprised, you see this here? This is Russia's most modern replenishment ship, the Boris Chilikin class fleet oiler, they have five of these, and that's divided between Pacific and Atlantic fleets. Mostly fuel but they carry a small amount of provisions too.
Compare this to the eight replenishment ships the RFA has, to say nothing of the British ports in Gibraltar, Ascension, Falklands, Bahrain, Sembawang and Naples.
Naval warfare has always been primarily a war of technology. If you can outrange, outshoot or outdetect your enemy you can win in really ridculously one sided ways.
As for the actual fight, The Kutzenov's air wing will get BTFO by D class, pointless it leaving port.
Kirov/Udaloys might actually pose a problem. The battle depends almost entirely on how effective Silex/Sunburns/Harpoons actually are. Are there effective countermeasures available? ECM? Chaff? CIWS? Whoever has the edge there wins. If it comes down to an artillery match, i'd imagine the Russians would win, higher caliber faster firing guns.
Submarine wise it's technology > all. The RN win it hands down. The Astutes will clean up the outdated soviet submarine force with no issues. The Russians only have one submarine launched post 2000. They'll get ripped to shreds.
>>28292777
how does Russia plan to get firing solutions for their long range ASM???
![2674184_original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/znvhKhb.jpg "2674184_original[1].jpg")
>>28292715
6 tankers in North fleet, 3 on Black sea fleet. 1 new type 20180 finished 5 days ago.All different types. + they bought turkish civilian ships to add them to Syrian express.
>>28292799
How do they usually do it?
>>28292862
What kind of tankers are they?
>>28285795
>Russians wildly begin to thump their chest at the chance of getting to pretend to be a credible threat once again, and rush out to set sail for the UK
>Some of boats simply turn to dust when touched, half of them sink when they leave harbor and rest of the ships either kill the crew or sink halfway there. The one surviving ship somehow ends up China, having been sold by its crew for a couple bootleg Super Nintendo games and at least ¥30
>>28292881
In russian classification they are all tankers. No such thing as "replacement ship".
Black sea
Ivan Bubnov Large Seagoing Tanker
Iman Seagoing Tanker
Indiga Seagoing Small Tanker
Istra Seagoing Small Tanker
Don Seagoing Small Tanker
VTN-99
Seagoing Small Tanker
Koyda Seagoing Medium Tankeк
VTN-96 Seagoing Small Tanker
http://flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/today_all.htm
>>28293134
Looks like most of them are tiny
>>28293172
MIGHTY ROSSIYA LOGISTIK CATCH MANY FISH FOR MOTHERLAND
![0_12517a_85cb0708_XXL[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/mxhcXgB.jpg "0_12517a_85cb0708_XXL[1].jpg")
>>28293172
Tanker is a tanker. Northen fleet hace his own support too. And don't forged 19 Russians landing ships which can be used for logistic purposes. Along with specialized transport ships. Those who're talking about Russian logistic uncapable to force projection, forgot that Russian are doing it right now in Syria.
>>28293359
>Tanker is a tanker.
Yes I'm sure a PT boat with a jerry can and an oil supertanker fill the same level of strategic replenishment need
>>28293359
>Literally only in Syria to hold on to a naval base
>Force projecting
Yeah, like 50km max. Having a dock to resupply from and projecting into the middle of the atlantic for extended operations are extremely different things.
>>28293444
>Talking like RAF has supertankers
>>28293492
>Comparing fishing boats to actual supply ships
>>28293492
>Missing the point entirely
You're a stupid shit, you know that?
>>28293575
And don't know shit, kek.
>>28293604
are you legitimately russian or just illiterate
Well, how about we break it down, what kind of surface action groupings we could have, in theory, in the empty ocean, if both RN and RuN were teleported there by a mysterious force, but somehow still got strategic support assets (ie sattelites). Such a scenario implies the use of only availiable ships, thus disregarding the ones in dock/repair/reserve, ect
This would mean that Russian Naval grouping would consist of:
- 4 Oscar-II SSGNs. (Voronezh, Smolensk, Omsk, Tver)
- 2 Akula series SSNs. (Panther, Gepard)
- 1 Sierra series SSN, (Nizhny Novgorod)
- 2 Victor-IV submarines (Daniil Moskovsky, Obninsk)
- 1 Lada class. (SPB)
- 12 Kilo class, including 3 06363s. (Rostov on Don, Stary Oskol, Krasnodar, Vladikavkaz, Magnitogorsk, Kaluga, Krasnokamensk, Chita, Mogocha, Ust-Kamchatsk, Usk-Bolshereck, Vyborg).
SAG made out of:
- Kuznetsov with MiG29K/KUB multrioles.
- Peter the Great.
- 2 Slava class. (Varyag and Moscow)
- 3 Sovremeny class. (Admiral Ushakov, Bustry, Nastoichivy)
- 5 Udaloy class. (Severomorsk, Vice-Admiral Kulakov, Marshal Shaposhnikov, Admiral Pantileev, Admiral Vinogradov)
- 3 Steregushy class. (Soobrazitelny, Boiky, Stoiky)
And then the assosiated support assets. By the merit of actually having aviation, space reconosanse, OTH radar set that covers most of north atlantic (not sure if we count that in) for aircraft and ships the Russian Navy would have an informational advantage, as well as the superior firepower (lots and lots of cruise missiles, MiG29K/KUBs with Kh31AD).
>>28293608
>Forgetting the tug(s) for the SAG
I have forgoten a bunch of new Frigates and the Yasen class boat we have got. Now, to the RN, what kind of assets does it actually have availiable for duties?
>>28293619
As well as all the other support assets, such as oilers, arms transports, recon ships and what not.
>>28293608
>>28293621
From the wiki
2xAstute Class SSN
4xTrafalgar class SSN
4xVanguard class SSBN
3xamphibious landing dock/helicopter carriers
6xDaring class Destroyers
13xType 23 Frigates
15xMinesweepers
+ A whole bunch of patrol/Survey vessels.
I'd imagine the SSBNs would sit out unless it was an emergency, the Daring class destroyers and Astute class SSN are in theory incredibly capable platforms though and will provide the RuN with the majority of their problems.
And I don't know if it should be included, but i remember reading something about the French and UK sharing the Charles de Gaulle if the shit hit the fan.
>>28293685
A third Astute would probably be pressed into service as well (it's undergoing sea trials at the moment)
>>28293685
>15xMinesweepers
Why do you take them into ocean? They are literally unarmed practice targets.
>>28285795
>how would X realistically goes if we remove X factors from reality
Gee I dunno, but it sure won't be realistic.
Is the Vatnik this desperate that to win an internet argument it requries set up a scenario that has no basis in reality? It's the millennial challage all over again.
>>28293685
Don't know about sharing De Gualle, we don't have any CATOBAR aircraft to fly from it.
>>28293685
Do you have their readiness status? Are any of the T class SSNs in dock yard/repair?
The problem RN has in this silly hypotheoretical scenario is that it has to rely on Harpoons for strike duties (as getting in range of AK130s is dumb) or torps.
In the same scenario I would use the Steregushy class as counter torps screen for my Kuznetsov (Paket-NK is a hard kill anti torp system, Peter the Great has its Udav).
>>28293699
>Is the Vatnik this desperate
Dude, with ground bases Brits are doomed, because Russian have strategic bombers with kh101 misslies and Brits don't. They can launch them from the fucking North pole.
>>28293697
The minesweepers have pretty incredible sensor suites iirc, they'd make a good anti submarine screen.
>>28293701
As far as I'm aware everything I listed is in active service and ready for action.
I have no idea about reliability of individual weapons systems or the ins and outs of modern naval tactics though.
I'd just imagine that as the Daring class & Astutes were all built in the last 5-10 years and were specifically designed to counter and destroy Russian assets (albeit as part of a NATO task force) they'd hold their own quite well in the face of all that Russian firepower, it would come down to an electronics battle and whoever gets hit with less missiles wins i guess.
Are we taking maintenance and reliability into account? Because RuN doesn't have a great track record there.
>>28293747
I account only the ships availiable for duties. And a lot has changed in the pat 5 years readiness and maintenance wise.
>>28293747
Reliability wise I would only be concerned with the Sovremeny class and the Kuznetsov, as their boilers/turbines set up is far from perfect. I also discount older 1135Ms and 61.
The other problem is that RuN could engage RN from superior range, both in terms of Harpoon coverage (heavy AShMs are longer ranged) and PAAMS coverage (Kh31AD is longer ranged than current Aster30)
Then there are differences in point defenses, both AA and counter torps wise.
In general I would say that RN would have to rely on the Astutes for attrition and avoid engagements with RuN in this silly hypotheoretical scenario.
The reason for this, in my opinion, is that RN is built around carriers, which it does not operate at the moment.
>>28293741
That has nothing to do with what I said.
With the "fleets magically transported and cut off from the rest of the world" takes any real meaning to this discussion out the window.
>>28293747
The vast majority of them are not ready for action.
Unless they are deployed or part of the "Fleet Ready Response Force" they don't loaded weapons or even crews to properly man them.
>>28293811
*Response Force" or whatever the anagram is.
>>28293811
** they don't have loaded weapons
Fuck posting on tablets
>>28293811
>With the "fleets magically transported and cut off from the rest of the world" takes any real meaning to this discussion out the window.
>>28293811
If you say so. If we do pure UK vs Russia scenario in the Arctic it becomes boring, as any RN SAG would be vaporised by a Backfire raid. The logic behind it runs as following:
- each Backfire (Tu22M3) could carry 6-10 Kh15s
- for the 10 missiles/airframe 24 aircraft raid (with refuelling) this would mean 40 super sonic missiles per each T45 RN has.
I know that PAAMS is friendship/magic, but I dont quite feel that Pk is around 1 there, against a supersonic target.
If we go for a conservative 2*kh22N per aircraft kind of raid, then we would need 5 times more sorties to get the job done.
>>28293811
And that pure UK vs Russia scenario is boring, as it is, again, unrealistic and would probably end with nukes everywhere (especially if the sole SSBN on patrol was tailed and sunk).
>>28293845
I thought we weren't using land based assets?
>>28293799
>RN would have to rely on the Astutes for attrition
RN doctrine is that their subs will always be the first line in ship-killing, where the ships themselves are primarily counter-sub or carrier escort.
>>28293697
Teamwork, it gives enemy something else to shoot at.
>>28293863
It's not realistic and Vatnik despare. So, scenario with bases will show how glorious Royal aviators will help to glorious Royal fleet.
>>28293863
We don't as the result would be obvious in a pure UK vs Russia scenario with land based long range aviation.
If the Vanguard on patrol is toast (ie was tailed and sunk) and the others are accounted for, then God save UK, as it now lacks nuclear deterent.
Because RAF does not (atleast to my best knowledge) operate AShMs or ARMs at the moment, it's contribution would come purely in the form of the air defense, which is great for RN, but limits it's area of operations.
Which is also why RN wants carriers and wants them now and wants them with all the fighters it could get.
So QEs would change a lot.
>>28293890
>all the fighters
>F-35B
>>28293864
>RN doctrine is that their subs will always be the first line in ship-killing, where the ships themselves are primarily counter-sub or carrier escort.
A solid idea, the problem here is the reliance on Harpoon and torps. While torps in RN usage are very good, RuN now has operational hard kill counter torp system - Udav on the core combatants (Peter the Great and Kuznetsov) and Paket-NK on more or less all the newly built surface ships (Steregushy class, Gorshkov class, ect).
RN does seek to fix the problem by getting those full strike length mk41s on the T45s, T26s as to increase it's cell capacity, as well as to improve the missiles themselves by getting into supersonics reasearch and considering stealthy/long range LRASM.
RuN on the other hand has a lot, if somewhat elderly strike weapons on the subs and ships, has the active replacement/standardisation program in that field (Yahont in UKSK VLS, with Zircon in the future).
This process creates a number of interesting capabilities, such as the 72 rounds on the Oscar-IIIs, allowing saturation attacks vs RN SAGs, or the 80 round capacity of Kirov class refits.
And regarding the non combat assets, I am not sure if RN (or UK for that matter) has a number of capabilities RuN does, such as the recon ships, deep diving subs, space recon and so on.
I won't touch the matter of patrol aircraft, as it may be a sore point for our British comrades.
>>28293941
>RN not having deep diving subs
>'Space recon' being useful in naval warfare
>>28293953
Well if RN does have deep diving (1000m and below) subs, do tell me about them.
RORSATs, ELINT sats are usefull assets and with OTH radars could be used for targeting. IMINT sats are usefull for a number of missions, for example counting SSBNs at port.
For that matter, does UK operate anything other than comms net in space?
>>28293971
>do tell me about them.
Let me just pull out the information pamphlet on one of the most classified military vehicles
>OTH radars could be used for targeting
LEL
>>28293994
So they don't exist?
Pic related - Losharic deep diving sub, as spoted by Top Gear.
Container radar set in Tatarstan has sufficient accuracy to track ships (and aircraft and cruise missile) to provide targeting for AShMs (against ships) and interceptor guidance for the, well, interceptors.
That capability is not new either,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/210.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1083.htm
For the Container radar, I would reference this material for the export variant, offered back in 2005.
That specific export variant did not offer the ship tracking and had limited ammount of barrier zones.
>>28294035
I'm just curious what part of no land-based assets wasn't clear
also, tracking =/= targeting.
if they were the same function for a radar, VHF would render aircraft a fool's game.
This all you need to know about UK Navy and its capabilities.
Britain calls in French to hunt Russian sub lurking off Scotland
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/12010438/Britain-calls-in-French-to-hunt-Russian-sub-lurking-off-Scotland.html
>>28294066
This all you need to know about Russian Navy and its capabilities.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/
>>28294055
That was me going on a tangent, true. The capabilities of that OTH radar however provide sufficient accuracy for the AShM attack. Because the data is real time, it could be used for targeting.
Still, do space assets count? If so, then how does UK compare?
based Mig-29K\KUB will dominate UK skies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2rR7lpxxlE
>>28294007
That has been debunked, the pic is not Losharik. Forgot the class but it's in Russian forums that it's not Losharik.
>>28294055
Targeting is unneeded. Kh-35 sensor has 60km range, it can start getting active once launched. Just point it at the general direction of the target.
>>28294101
Yes thank you for describing the capability of non shit-tier AShMs to us. Still isn't targeting.
>>28294055
>also, tracking =/= targeting.
>>28294133
Did you even read that, you stupid slav fuck?
>at a target located by some external sensor
So does the Royal Navy have shit hot fancy magic ECM vs all this 40 year old Russian cold war shit or is it going to be a blowout?
>>28294142
Such as satellite, dumbass
>>28294097
Really? Would be nice to have a link then. Still, the image was there to illustrate that RuN has the capability, I can find other relevant photos.
Does RN have such capabilities?
>>28294124
Real time datalink coupled with real time, sufficiently accurate data source means targeting.
The targeting type (initial, mid course update or continuous all the way through) can ofc differ dependent on data source.
Considering the missile types (Granit, Basalt, Yahont) in question all the way or even mid course update is not required at typical ranges.
I think it's being overlooked quite a bit here, that britain has dogshit for antiship missiles.
Maybe if we all stopped memeing a bit less and actually compared systems a bit more.
>>28294163
RN doctrine is to have the subs do all the grunt work.
Russians have dogshit subs and anti sub warfare capability.
RN wins
>>28294167
>RN wins
Even if we disregard the land based aviation (ie that Russia actually has patrol aircraft) we would notice that Russia has a fine ASW in the form of:
- Akula series (and other 3rd gen) SSNs, as well as the Severodvinsk and Victors-IVs (compatable to 3rd gen subs such as LA series).
- ship based helicopters (same as RN), ASW missiles (lots of, RN lacks that capability all together), hard kill counter torps (again, RN doesn't have the capability, USN is getting it for it's carriers).
- various type of deployed active and passive sonar (same for the both sides).
You are welcome though to provide detailed system to system comparisons though, using authorative sources to prove that RN ASW capabilies are superior to that of RuN even without the land based assets.
A note about the space assets. If the Kanopus-ST did not fail to separate from the tug, we would be talking about a space borne sub detection and tracking capability.
>>28294142
>>28294154
>Only thing I said was that OTH radars couldn't be used for targeting
>sperging over datalinks and LOAL
lel
On "readines" argument. In the comparison I have used the availiable boats, which accounts for the fleet readiness.
An example here could be the Akula series readiness. Out of the fleet of 10 (11 if you count the boat that is expected to be leased out to India in the future):
- 2 availiable for duties.
- 5 in mid life repair and extensive refit.
- 3 in short term repair.
The reason for this repair and refit spree is that only 5 years ago we got the authorisation for the Navy rebuilding, hence the Navy entering the maintenance/repair/refit cycle.
>>28294183
Well, then why can't the OTH radar be used for targeting?
>>28294167
Active
Rus Akula-Class: 9
UK Astute-Class: 3
Max Speed
Akula-Class: 35 knots
Astute-Class: 30 knots
Test Depth:
Akula-Class 480-600m
Astute-Class 300m
Weapons:
Akula-Class: 40 torpedos 8 tubes, 1-3 AA missiles, RK-55 Cruise missiles.
Astute-Class: 38 torpedos 6 tubes, Tomehawk land attack version cruise missiles.
Crew Needed:
Akula-Class: 73-62
Astute-Class: 98
2010 British submarines are worse in every way compared to 1984 soviet submarines, they are also outnumbered multiple times.
>>28294202
I would think thats obvious to any non-slav at this point
Oh look, here's one
>>28294205
>>28294208
Then enlighten me.
>>28294182
Those countermeasures only work if you maintain them, Ivan.
Also:
>Akula/Victors
>Implying 30 year old ex-soviet designs are anything but trash
The developed world has been through two iterations of attack sub since then, Igor. They'll get utterly demolished.
Basically:
>Implying Russian electronics and sonar aren't meme tier.
>2015
Land based aviation doesn't come into it in the slightest because you'd be a moron to do anything near land based aviation without air cover.
>>28294213
Udav is well maintained and is used on exercises. Paket-NK is new and, again, used on exercises. While exercises may not precisely represent the rigours of combat, they are still better than nothing.
Subs in question are younger than the T boats RN operates and in performance Victors-IIIs (and IVs) are generally compared to LAs.
Akulas are more capable than T-boats due to superior fire power (8 internal tubes, extra external tubes on later mods), superior dive depth/speed, compatable or better signature reduction/sensor package.
Astutes are another story though - after all they are a true 4th gen, with large side mounted sonar apertures.
>>28289808
>While the UK has one of the most experienced naval combat backgrounds in history.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but most of this experience is already dead. The last naval war the UK had was in the 1980s.
No naval force in existence today know how to fight another naval force. If that's the case, it's all drills and practice "experience" which means literally nothing until they are proven.
Why are people today resting on their fucking laurels for shit people did over 25 years ago?
UK would get crushed without our support anyway (like the rest of Europe fucking hippies), especially after your "Conservatives" wrecked your fucking defense budget..
>>28294208
>Performance statistics = slavaboo
British nationalists are truely the worst shitposters.
>>28294236
>Akula carries more torpedos so it would beat an Astute despite being 30 years older and having comparatively shit tier electronics and acoustics.
>Seriously
>>28292288
>>28292395
Force projection ONLY matters if it's very far away.
The fucking NORTH SEA is not that far from Russia's Baltic and Arctic ports. For example, Russia to North Sea is like 1k mile away.
In comparison, our east coast is 3.8k away. We literally NEED force projection. Because we're fucking far from Eurasia. Can't people into fucking maps anymore?
>>28294241
Yea, Astute, as I have said, has a nice sensor package. The side arrays Astute has have large apertures, leading to good sensor performance.
The idea however is not new by itself, apart from Victor-IIIs and Victor-IVs there are Akulas (the "cheeks") and Yasens.
For the USN examples you could look for the LA refits, Sea Wolfs and Virginias. The role USN appears to use the arrays is different though, close in ranging rather detection and tracking.
>>28294230
Falklands taught everyone one thing with missiles.
If your shit works everything is fine.
If your shit doesn't work, you die.
Who knows which way it would go.
Royal Navy ECMs work, all of the Russian AShMs go haywire and miss.
Royal Navy ECMs don't work, Royal Navy loses in 20 minutes.
Russian ECMs work, Harpoons all miss
Russian ECMs don't work, Russian Navy loses in 20 minutes, assuming the tories didn't sell all the ammo while they were gutting the navy.
Neither ECM works, everyobody loses and all that's left is three Astutes wandering around plinking Akulas that can't see or shoot at them.
That is, if you could real projects only. In general side arrays are considered standard for 4th gen submarines and select 3rd gen ones (especially post refit - that is what USN did with LAs).
And then there are many, many paper projects, such as this one:
>>28294251
>Yea, Astute, as I have said, has a nice sensor package.
No, actually what you said, you slav fuck, was
>2010 British submarines are worse in every way compared to 1984 soviet submarines
>>28294269
Actually that wasn't me, it was another anon. From what I see I think there are atleast 3 pro Russian Navy posters here, giving you the full spectrum package from civil discussion to trolling.
I do sometimes post several messages in a row though, maybe that was what has confused you?
>>28294274
People are actually posting here seriously?
I was just about to break out my Space Battleship Hood routine.
>Be floating inna space
>explode
>>28294280
>>explode
Well I was qued in here by a friend of mine. I tend not to post on /k/
>>28294262
>If your shit works everything is fine.
Yeah. Thanks for the lesson, Capt. Obvious.
That said, I just read this fucking thread, and I'm amazed at the nationalist fanwanking on both sides. While I don't think nationalism is a bad thing, that shit completely ruins any objective analyses of weapons systems, numbers, and all other factors in a question like OP said.
>>28293905
It -is- a fighter you dipshit. When will this meme end
>>28294288
>any objective analyses
Then again, who am I kidding? This is /k/.
>.45 is better than 9mm because muh stopping powah
Regarding the submarine age, you could compare Akulas and Victors to T-boats using those links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar-class_submarine
http://russianships.info/eng/submarines/project_971.htm
http://russianships.info/eng/submarines/project_671rtm.htm
You could notice that the last batch of Victors (ie Victor-IVs still in service, you could find the list compiled by me above) as well as Akulas still in service are younger than the T-boats still in service.
>>28294296
To be fair to all, the age of weapons are more highly reliant on maintenance levels than chronological years tho.
Is the question about UK v Russia this simple?
A small and downsized quality navy vs a large but economically challenged navy?
Any nuance left or what?
>>28294302
>To be fair to all, the age of weapons are more highly reliant on maintenance levels than chronological years tho.
That is true. Which is why I have mentioned the refits and repairs spree.
For example, Akulas wise (2 availiable for duties):
- Panther went through a repair in 2012.
- Gepard just got out of the repair (which was done in 2013-2015).
Two more Akulas are expected to exit repairs -imminently- (Kuzbas and Magodan).
>>28285967
go back to reddit you fucking tipper
With the Panther going into repair cycle and one Sierra class boat also coming out of repairs (Pskov) early next year (maybe before the 2015-2016 New Year, but I am not sure) I would expect the following 3rg gen subs status:
- Gepard, Magadan, Kuzbas Akula series subs, fresh from repairs.
- Pskov (fresh out of repairs) and Nizhny Novgorod (2013, dock repairs) Sierra-IIs.
- Voronezh (2011 repairs), Smolensk (2013 repairs), Tomsk (fresh out of repairs) Oscar-IIs, possibly Tver (2012 dock repairs) and Omsk (2013 dock repairs).
This gives RuN 5 3rd gen SSNs, 3-5 (Tver and Omsk status is less well known) SSGNs, 2 transitionary SSNs (Victor-IVs) in good maintenance condition, 1 4th gen SSGN - Severodvinsk.
This compares ok to 4 refit T-boats and 2-3 Astutes, because we have compatable quantity of SSNs (though of average worse of quality, due to the RN being ahead in the shift to 4th gen submarines), but it also gives us the SSGN capability.
In future, with Yasen class and extensive refits of akulas/oscars going online, I would argue that RuN would have an overall superior force, both in numbers (Yasens alone would be the same in number to the Astutes, then there are 3rd gen subs from extensive refits) and capabilities (lots of big, bad AShMs).
Note that UK has lost a number of important industrial capabilities in this field, namely the reactor desighn and production.
>>28286075
Oh my god that's incredible.
>>28294288
I'd say it it is less nationalistic and more of:
>half smart people say dumb shit
>smart people not bothering to correct because there's little point in this shit thread
>trolls pretending to be either side
But stop with any pretence that anything decent could have come out of OP retarded question.
The Russia navy and Royal navy have extremely different requirements to each other. To compare them like this is like to compare two different breed of dogs in a weird, arbitrary scenario that favors a generalist breed of dog as opposed to a specialist breed that neither of them would be regardless.
>>28294421
It is still an amusing thing to do and is one of the ways to learn about each other's capabilities.
>>28294241
Please post the technical specs for the current Akula and Astute Sensor packages insted of shitposting britbong.
>>28294490
Neither are publically available.
Much like the actual specs for either.
>>28294513
I guess saying "muh british is much better" is just shitposting eh.
>>28294528
Much like saying the PAK-FA isn't a poorly designed piece of shit, the Russian Navy isn't a rusting hulk of poor combat availability, and OTH radars can be used for fire control.
But who gives a shit on here?
>>28294538
People who don't shitpost, i actually come on /k/ discuss weapons, why don't you jerk off to your nationalism on /pol/ where you belong?
I remember at the height of their power in 1980 the Island-niggers had to use container ships to transport their supplies and troops, which proved hilariously vulnerable to any surface missiles, their combat vessels couldn't repel air strikes and protect the landing force and the Harriers had terrible range.
They're only lucky Argentina is a third world shithole and was flying A-4 Skyraiders nigger-rigged to carry missiles tied to the pylons with chicken wire.
>>28294555
>i actually come on /k/ discuss weapons
well thats misguided of you considering how much /k/ is an unending font of misinformation and ignorance on that exact topic
>>28294580
According to nationalist shitposters.
>>28294595
Not him but that's a fairly well accepted statement.
This board (and site) is a never ending source of ignorance and half baked opinions.
>>28294613
It's also a wealth of information occasionally, i like to take everything with a grain of salt, but I have gotten quite a lot of historical documents through /k/ which has been very interesting.
When you filter out the meme posting, arrogant tripfags and shitposting nationalists, this place isn't that bad.
>>28294623
Agreed -- somewhat.
But I put most of the nationalistic shitposting is just trolling.
>>28294648
I sadly really don't think it is
Well, I mean there is data availiable on select Russian systems, specifically those desighned for export, such as the Kilo class sonar suit.
While that data is hard to find, it is there (in the catalog). The problem (atleast from my perspective) is finding usefull data on the western systems (ie data you could actually use in comparisons).
>>28294781
Some things are pretty hard to hide, these things are often public because they know they will be released anyway. Some western things are pretty easy to find aswell now, because their specs are discussed in parliamentary groups for hilarious reasons.
The British shitpost in this thread is immense, Jesus christ.
Is this how the citizens of failed empires behave?
>>28294847
If you want to see real shitposting about ships, try point out that most US aircraft carriers in the cold war were Essex Class WW2 ships. And that they would have been absolutely rekt by the soviet navy since they had basically no anti ship missiles and no CIWS until the 1980s. While the soviets had several missile cruisers and destroyers already in the mid 1960s.
>>28294881
I'm grabbing popcorn
>>28294881
Don't forget that the soviets had some 400 OSA class missile boats, they could litterally have fired several anti ship missiles for every single US ship in the world at the same time.
Why even come here, just a bunch of retards beating their chests at eachother, letting their hatred of 'Bongs' or 'Vatniks' give them misconceptions of the whole topic in this thread. People pulling stats out of their asses about subs when those details are obviously classified, and actually trying to argue those points is beyond me. /k/ really is a shithole.
>>28294847
You seem to have ignored the blatant slavposting. Or does it fit your narrative, and you actually enjoy seeing retarded shit being spouted, but only aslong as it is against bongs? Grow up.
>>28295245
Someone isn't a slav poster just because they think a former superpower who specialised in submarines might still be better at submarines than britfags.
