Slightly OT: What Would a U.S. vs. Russia War Look Like Today?

[Raellus]

This article gives a nice, brief analysis.

http://theweek.com/article/index/257406/what-would-a-us-russia-war-look-like

As many of you old forum hands remember, I'm a late Cold War Soviet military apologist (see http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=897), but I can't really find too much wrong with the arguments presented in the article. The one U.S./NATO strength that I contend is overstated in the piece is overseas military bases. Insofar as a war in Eastern Europe, I this this point is somewhat mooted by Russia's interior lines of communication.

What's your take on the article Is it as cut and dried as all that

[pmulcahy11b]

The Russians also do not have much of a blue water navy these days.

[Olefin]

Plus the Baltic and the Black Sea are definitely not "their" seas as much anymore - not with Romania as a NATO member as well as the three Baltic Republics and Poland

and you know that the Baltics and Poland would not just roll over for the Russians - they would fight them and fight hard - the real issue would be getting our armor over there and our guys

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Do we still have the wherewithal for a "ReForGer" style sealift And do the Russians have the ability to stop said convoys, as we feared they'd do had the balloon gone up

[Badbru]

From what I read of it it appears to be an appropriate enough analysis from my limited knowledge base. What it missed though is what they say in the comedy business, timing is everything.
I get the impression right now that if say China invaded Japan tomorrow all the US would do is wag it's finger and say naughty China, that's a bad China. Too many wars lately, too much lost for too little gain on a whole range of fronts. I just get a sense of conflict burn out, politically, socially, militarily etc, from all facets of America and a) who could blame you guys for that, and b) maybe it's a good thing. I dunno, I'm not trying to make a judgement here, it's just a feeling.

[RN7]

Do we still have the wherewithal for a "ReForGer" style sealift And do the Russians have the ability to stop said convoys, as we feared they'd do had the balloon gone up

Unfortunately the Russians do.

NATO if it had the political will could have an army of 50,000 troops with tanks and artillery in the Ukraine in a week backed by powerful air assets by simply marching through Poland. In a month they could have at least 250,000 troops including heavy US Army forces backed by the brunt of the USAF and NATO naval power. Given the high level of capabilities and technology that NATO could assemble this force would more than hold its own against the Russians despite being out numbered and out gunned. But they won't because of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin won't use or threaten NATO with nuclear weapons as he is not a buffoon and thug like Saddam Hussein, but he also knows that Russia has the capability to hurt NATO anywhere in Europe and North America without using nuclear weapons.

If NATO is planning to attack Russia they will know about it. Russia has 58 active military satellites in orbit including 6 known early warning and reconnaissance systems (1x Kobalt-M ISR, 1x Lotus-S ELINT, 1x Tselina-2 ELINT, 4x Oka EW). They also have 9 major long ranged ground radar stations (The ABM engagement system at Moscow, and radars at St Petersburg, southern Russia, the northwest Arctic, the Urals and eastern Siberia, and leased radar stations in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). They also have a huge air defence network of over 2,000 long ranged SAM launchers (32x SH-11 Gorgon (stored), 68x SH-08 Gazelle, 1,900x S-300, 64x S-400) in addition to nearly 2,000 combat aircraft.

NATO has run down its ASW capabilities over the past 20 years to the point that NATO navies are almost embarrassed to request funding for ASW systems as they can't justify them. Russia on the other hand knew its navy was never going to match the US Navy and NATO, so it kept a smaller but very capable submarine force in service.

Nuclear Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine
3x Kalmar (Delta III) with 16 RSM-50 (SS-N-18 Stingray)
6x Delfin ( Delta IV) with 16 RSM-54 (SS-N-23 Skiff)
2x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve awaiting refit with 40 RSM-52 (SS-N-20 Sturgeon)
1x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve for testing with Bulava (SS-N-X-32)
2x Borey on sea trials with Bulava (SS-N-X-32) (2x vessels in build

Nuclear Attack Submarine
8x Antyey (Oscar II) (of which 3 in reserve) with 3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) (3x in reserve)
2x Schuka-B (Akula II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (one further boat leased to India)
8x Schuka-B (Akula I) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21Sampson) (2x in reserve)
2x Kondor (Sierra II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) SLCM
1x Barracuda (Sierra I) with 3M10 (SS-N-21 Sampson) and RPK-7 (SS-N-16 Stallion)
4x Schuka (Victor III) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (1x in reserve)

Diesel-Electric Submarine
15x Paltus (Kilo)
4x Varshavyanka (Kilo)
1x Lada (2x vessels in build)

This fleet would make mince meat out of any merchant ship or convoy in the Atlantic or elsewhere, and even NATO warships would be under treat. During the Cold War the US Navy didn't devoted enough resources to ASW as it could always rely on its NATO allies such as the British Royal Navy to do the job. Today the British no longer have the capabilities they once had; the VTOL carriers, ASW frigates and Nimrod are gone or are in storage; and other NATO fleets are only a fraction of what they once were. NATO's diesel-electric AIP submarines are good in shallow waters and littoral chock points, but in the open Atlantic and Arctic ocean's they will be outclassed by the bigger, faster, longer ranged and better armed Russians. This will leave the hard work to the US and British (maybe French) nuclear submarines, and the Russian submarine service still remains very good.

The Russians also have 79 long ranged bombers. Their all nuclear capable and armed with long ranged cruise missiles.

Russian Bomber Fleet
16x Tu-160 Blackjack each with up to 12 Kh-55 SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
32x Tu-95MS6 (Bear H-6) each with up to 6 Kh-55/SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
31x Tu-95MS16 (Bear H-16) each with up to 16 Kh-55 (AS-15A Kent) nuclear ALCM

NATO fighters (European) including the Eurofighter are short ranged and would have difficulty intercepting them. Russia also has another 132x Tu-22M/M-3/MR Backfire bombers. The best European NATO long ranged interceptor was Britain's RAF Tornado ADV and its now gone. USAF F-15's and F-22's would be needed.


Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Ground based)
60x RS-20 (SS-18 Satan) (mostly mod 5, 10 MIRV per msl)
120x RS12M (SS-25 Sickle) (mobile single warhead)
40x RS18 (SS-19 Stiletto) (mostly mod 3, 6 MIRV per msl)
52x Topol-M (SS-27) silo-based
18x Topol M (SS-27) road mobile (single warhead)
12x RS-24 (3 MIRV per msl)

The main reason why Russia remains the power that it is. They can hit any location in Europe or North America. Their all nuclear armed, but if I was Putin I'd replace the nuclear warheads on about 50 missiles and replace them with large high explosive warheads. A few of these landing on Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin would unnerve the whole of NATO. Perhaps Putin is already doing it as we speak!

[raketenjagdpanzer]

The minute we picked up these "conventionally armed" ICBMs in flight we'd glass Russia. Oh, we'd get destroyed too, but "sending a message" by firing an ICBM - regardless of whether it's tipped with a nuke, small nuke, HE or whipped cream - at an equally well armed enemy nation is like pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying "Don't laugh, you're next" just before you pull the trigger.

[RN7]

The minute we picked up these "conventionally armed" ICBMs in flight we'd glass Russia. Oh, we'd get destroyed too, but "sending a message" by firing an ICBM - regardless of whether it's tipped with a nuke, small nuke, HE or whipped cream - at an equally well armed enemy nation is like pointing a loaded gun at your head and saying "Don't laugh, you're next" just before you pull the trigger.

Yeah but what will America do if its aimed at a European capital

[Raellus]

No half-way sane world leader would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional payload at his/her rival OR, its allies. It's madness of the highest order. I will endeavour to explain why.

AFAIK, current early warning systems can't differentiate between an ICBM carrying an NBC payload and one carrying a conventional munition. That said, most nuclear-armed nations have early warning systems that can detect the moment of launch. No nuclear-armed power is going to sit around and wait to see what kind of explosion an ICBM's warheads make when they impact. Therefore, according to current doctrine, any ICBM launched must be considered of the former type and an in-kind response delivered. In other words, ANY kind of ICBM launch will be treated as a nuclear attack. This means that before an ICMB-delivered conventional munitions hits its intended target, a responding ICBM armed with a nuclear payloadwill be on the way in the opposite direction. For these reasons, no one in his/her right mind would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead. It's like pointing an airsoft gun at a cop. In either case, it's effectively suicide. I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

[kato13]

I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

Over the last decade there was a lot of discussion of just these types of warheads.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf

Yes targeting them at a foe with ICBMs would be stupid, but I think they were expected to be a counter for those with MRBMs at best (DPRK and Iran). Hoping to catch one of their lower tech missiles while being fueled for example.

edit added wiki link.
Prompt_Global_Strike

[stormlion1]

Right now a first strike is all that's really needed. Something to take an opponent down before they could retaliate. My money would be on a bit of Nuclear Terror with Suitcase Nukes being set off in various citys and locations to wreck infrastructure and use EMP to knock out vital systems like communications and food shipments. Then in the resulting vacuum when every enemy the US has is busy taking advantage of the chaos striking into the Ukraine by force and taking the entire thing. The US would be overstretched in too many directions, dealing with massive damage at home and be forced to act as both peacekeepers and disaster relief at home. I would even expect the US to close down foreign bases and rush home to aid in relief efforts. Europe would have to face the Russians alone at that point as the US would be in no way able to help and various points across the globe would take each other out with no USA to step in. I'd expect Taiwan to be invaded by Mainland China, North Korea and South Korea to duke it out, etc, etc.

[RN7]

No half-way sane world leader would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional payload at his/her rival OR, its allies. It's madness of the highest order. I will endeavour to explain why.

AFAIK, current early warning systems can't differentiate between an ICBM carrying an NBC payload and one carrying a conventional munition. That said, most nuclear-armed nations have early warning systems that can detect the moment of launch. No nuclear-armed power is going to sit around and wait to see what kind of explosion an ICBM's warheads make when they impact. Therefore, according to current doctrine, any ICBM launched must be considered of the former type and an in-kind response delivered. In other words, ANY kind of ICBM launch will be treated as a nuclear attack. This means that before an ICMB-delivered conventional munitions hits its intended target, a responding ICBM armed with a nuclear payloadwill be on the way in the opposite direction. For these reasons, no one in his/her right mind would ever launch an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead. It's like pointing an airsoft gun at a cop. In either case, it's effectively suicide. I would be very surprised if actual conventional payloads for ICBMs exist in any significant numbers at all. I doubt it.

There are no treaties binding Russia or anyone else to not develop conventional warheads for long ranged missiles. The Russians could use the same HE warheads that were on the Scud tactical missile and they could take out a city block or two. The Chinese have a whole load of conventional payload SRBM and MRBM's aimed at Taiwan, maybe Russia too.

If it got to the stage that Russia is duking it out with NATO in the Ukraine and NATO crosses into Russia Putin could just make a poker faced live broadcast on Russian TV and say: Russian ICBM with non-nuclear payload will be launched on NATO capitals of Berlin, London and Paris at noon tomorrow. Flight time 5 minutes from Urals, evacuate your government buildings!

[Olefin]

Unfortunately the Russians do.

NATO if it had the political will could have an army of 50,000 troops with tanks and artillery in the Ukraine in a week backed by powerful air assets by simply marching through Poland. In a month they could have at least 250,000 troops including heavy US Army forces backed by the brunt of the USAF and NATO naval power. Given the high level of capabilities and technology that NATO could assemble this force would more than hold its own against the Russians despite being out numbered and out gunned. But they won't because of Russia's nuclear arsenal. Putin won't use or threaten NATO with nuclear weapons as he is not a buffoon and thug like Saddam Hussein, but he also knows that Russia has the capability to hurt NATO anywhere in Europe and North America without using nuclear weapons.

If NATO is planning to attack Russia they will know about it. Russia has 58 active military satellites in orbit including 6 known early warning and reconnaissance systems (1x Kobalt-M ISR, 1x Lotus-S ELINT, 1x Tselina-2 ELINT, 4x Oka EW). They also have 9 major long ranged ground radar stations (The ABM engagement system at Moscow, and radars at St Petersburg, southern Russia, the northwest Arctic, the Urals and eastern Siberia, and leased radar stations in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan). They also have a huge air defence network of over 2,000 long ranged SAM launchers (32x SH-11 Gorgon (stored), 68x SH-08 Gazelle, 1,900x S-300, 64x S-400) in addition to nearly 2,000 combat aircraft.

NATO has run down its ASW capabilities over the past 20 years to the point that NATO navies are almost embarrassed to request funding for ASW systems as they can't justify them. Russia on the other hand knew its navy was never going to match the US Navy and NATO, so it kept a smaller but very capable submarine force in service.

Nuclear Strategic Ballistic Missile Submarine
3x Kalmar (Delta III) with 16 RSM-50 (SS-N-18 Stingray)
6x Delfin ( Delta IV) with 16 RSM-54 (SS-N-23 Skiff)
2x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve awaiting refit with 40 RSM-52 (SS-N-20 Sturgeon)
1x Akula ( Typhoon) in reserve for testing with Bulava (SS-N-X-32)
2x Borey on sea trials with Bulava (SS-N-X-32) (2x vessels in build

Nuclear Attack Submarine
8x Antyey (Oscar II) (of which 3 in reserve) with 3M45 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) (3x in reserve)
2x Schuka-B (Akula II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (one further boat leased to India)
8x Schuka-B (Akula I) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21Sampson) (2x in reserve)
2x Kondor (Sierra II) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) SLCM
1x Barracuda (Sierra I) with 3M10 (SS-N-21 Sampson) and RPK-7 (SS-N-16 Stallion)
4x Schuka (Victor III) with 3M10 Granat (SS-N-21 Sampson) (1x in reserve)

Diesel-Electric Submarine
15x Paltus (Kilo)
4x Varshavyanka (Kilo)
1x Lada (2x vessels in build)

This fleet would make mince meat out of any merchant ship or convoy in the Atlantic or elsewhere, and even NATO warships would be under treat. During the Cold War the US Navy didn't devoted enough resources to ASW as it could always rely on its NATO allies such as the British Royal Navy to do the job. Today the British no longer have the capabilities they once had; the VTOL carriers, ASW frigates and Nimrod are gone or are in storage; and other NATO fleets are only a fraction of what they once were. NATO's diesel-electric AIP submarines are good in shallow waters and littoral chock points, but in the open Atlantic and Arctic ocean's they will be outclassed by the bigger, faster, longer ranged and better armed Russians. This will leave the hard work to the US and British (maybe French) nuclear submarines, and the Russian submarine service still remains very good.

The Russians also have 79 long ranged bombers. Their all nuclear capable and armed with long ranged cruise missiles.

Russian Bomber Fleet
16x Tu-160 Blackjack each with up to 12 Kh-55 SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
32x Tu-95MS6 (Bear H-6) each with up to 6 Kh-55/SM (AS-15A/B Kent) nuclear ALCM
31x Tu-95MS16 (Bear H-16) each with up to 16 Kh-55 (AS-15A Kent) nuclear ALCM

NATO fighters (European) including the Eurofighter are short ranged and would have difficulty intercepting them. Russia also has another 132x Tu-22M/M-3/MR Backfire bombers. The best European NATO long ranged interceptor was Britain's RAF Tornado ADV and its now gone. USAF F-15's and F-22's would be needed.


Russian Strategic Missile Forces (Ground based)
60x RS-20 (SS-18 Satan) (mostly mod 5, 10 MIRV per msl)
120x RS12M (SS-25 Sickle) (mobile single warhead)
40x RS18 (SS-19 Stiletto) (mostly mod 3, 6 MIRV per msl)
52x Topol-M (SS-27) silo-based
18x Topol M (SS-27) road mobile (single warhead)
12x RS-24 (3 MIRV per msl)

The main reason why Russia remains the power that it is. They can hit any location in Europe or North America. Their all nuclear armed, but if I was Putin I'd replace the nuclear warheads on about 50 missiles and replace them with large high explosive warheads. A few of these landing on Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris and Berlin would unnerve the whole of NATO. Perhaps Putin is already doing it as we speak!

Its not quite as bad as that

the RN still has seven nuke boats in service - 5 Trafalgars and 2 Astute's that would definitely take their toll of any Russian subs in a war - and given the worsening situation could probably put Turbulent back into shape and ready to deploy if need be.

the French have the six Rubis class SSN's as well

As for ASW the British still have Illustrious and Ocean that could be used as baby carriers for ASW, and they still have thirteen Type 23 ASW ships - you could see the RN delaying decommissioning Illustrious and hurrying up Ocean's refit if things continue to get worse

So its not quite as bad for the Europeans as has been painted here

And if Putin wants to start hitting US cities with conventional warheads then i cant wait to see whats left of Moscow after 20 or so B-2's drop their payloads of conventional bombs and blow the heart out of Moscow - or instead take out every AA site along the way and clear the way for a B-1 strike with F-15 and F-22 escorts to do the same

[Raellus]

SRBMs and MRBMs are a different game. They have different launch signatures and trajectories than ICBMs. They wouldn't necessarily elicit the same sort of nuclear response.

In your scenario, would NATO take Putin's warning at face value and just wait around to see what happens I doubt it. Why wouldn't Russia use SRBMs for the sort of strike you're describing It's been done before, many times, my a few nations, in anger. Using an ICBM would provoke a nuclear response- it's doctrine. The potential risk is too great and the potential response likely devastating.

[RN7]

SRBMs and MRBMs are a different game. They have different launch signatures and trajectories than ICBMs. They wouldn't necessarily elicit the same sort of nuclear response.

In your scenario, would NATO take Putin's warning at face value and just wait around to see what happens I doubt it. Why wouldn't Russia use SRBMs for the sort of strike you're describing It's been done before, many times, my a few nations, in anger. Using an ICBM would provoke a nuclear response- it's doctrine. The potential risk is too great and the potential response likely devastating.

Putin is a calculating and ruthless individual, and I think you have to be to become Russian president and stay there. He is not going to go nuclear and the Americans know it, but he is not going to allow America/NATO push Russia around on its own door step. The world is looking at what Putin is doing, but Putin is more interested in what the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, the Serbs, Iranians and all the other dictatorships and Russian arms buyers think rather than what the Western and democratic parts of the world are thinking, and he wants to put on a good show for them. China would just love to have the military capabilities that Russia has at its disposal to rub America's nose in it in the Far East and Pacific.

The Russians still have 200 active OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21) and an unknown number of the newer 9K720 Iskander-M (SS-26) mobile SRBM with conventional HE and fragmentation payloads (and nuclear). Their designed for tactical precision strike against hostile artillery and air defence launchers, air fields, command and communications centers and troops concentrations and critical civilian infrastructure facilities, and the SS-26 was specifically designed to neutralize NATO missile defence systems. The SS-26 can be launched within 4 minutes to an altitude of 50km at a speed of Mach 6-7. But it only has a range of 500 km which means if it is launched from western regions of Russia it will barely reach the German-Polish border. They could easily use them on NATO bases and military installations in the Ukraine, Poland, the Baltic states and maybe parts of Turkey to the south, but to hit Western Europe they would need bombers and ICBM's with conventional warheads. The Soviets/Russians developed a series of conventional fragmentation HE and submunition warheads for the FROG, Scud, SS-21, SS-23 and SS-26 SRBM's, and I think it could be quite easy for them to retrofit an ICBM and maybe even a naval SLBM with a conventional warhead. Russian SLBM's with conventional warheads would really complicate things for NATO.

SRBMs and MRBMs have a different launch signatures and trajectories to an ICBM as an ICBM enters low Earth orbit, but the flight path and trajectory of an ICBM launched from Russia towards Western Europe would be different to one launched at North America. Also didn't the Soviets develop the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) to confuse American detection systems. It was phased out in 1983 as part of SALT II, but with all the effort that America and NATO has put into ABM systems over the past 15 years wouldn't it occur to Russia to secretly reactivate it for non-nuclear use if it was surrounded by anti-ballistic missile systems