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

[RN7]

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

NATO still has an ASW capability, but it's a shadow of its former self. Britain had the best of NATO's ASW fleet and it still is, but it's a lot smaller than it used to be. In 1990 there were 3 ASW carrier, 46 escorts, 26 SSN's and SSK's, 30 long ranged patrol aircraft. Today there is only 19 escorts, 7 SSN's and no patrol aircraft. If HMS Illustrious is decommissioned this year there will only be HMS Ocean until the two Queen Elizabeth's come into service in 2017/18.

The Nimrod was the best ASW platform in the world and its gone. This leaves 7SSN's, 13 Type 23 Frigate with 2087 towed sonar and about 40 Merlin helicopters. Its adequate but not a large enough fleet to the job right.

If Russia comes under NATO air attack Putin will do the same to Europe and America.

[Olefin]

except Putin has no stealth bombing capability - and any attack on the continental US will get spotted long before any bombers get close

whereas he will know the B-2's are there when the penetrator crashes into the bunker he is in

[RN7]

except Putin has no stealth bombing capability - and any attack on the continental US will get spotted long before any bombers get close

whereas he will know the B-2's are there when the penetrator crashes into the bunker he is in

SLBM's with conventional warheads in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific oceans

[Olefin]

we were talking bombers - thats why the Stealth bomber is such a terrific capability - the Russians literally dont know its there till the bombs hit - whereas with even an SLBM there is some warning

[Raellus]

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.

True, and, in addition to what you've pointed out here, western Europe is dependent on Russian oil and natural gas exports and so, in all likelihood, will not join in on the stringent economic sanctions which will be necessary to prompt a Russian withdrawal from the Crimea. Putin is a canny fellow, to be sure and he's probably going to get away with annexing the Crimea.

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.

Exactly, so why use a strategic asset like ICBMs to do job for which capable operational-level platforms already exist

As soon as U.S./NATO member spy satellites detect the launch signature of a Russian ICBM, it's game over. We know where nearly all of their fixed launch sites are and we're still watching. We'll be compelled to launch a nuclear counterstrike. It would take an incredible- some would say, suicidal- degree of self restraint not to. "There may or may not be a nuclear weapon or three on the way towards us and/or our allies but let's wait and see before responding." AFAIK, that would go against Cold War nuclear warfare protocols.

Yes, conventional-armed ICBMs are an asset that Putin has at his disposal, but he'd have to be daft to use it in the capacity that you are describing, especially, as you just pointed out, since he has alternative platforms which can serve the same purpose (i.e. deliver conventional warheads on targets in East & Central Europe.)

Also, can an ICBM designed and built to hit targets a continent away even be reconfigured to hit much closer targets I would think not- that's why SRBMs and MRBMs exist, right

[Olefin]

hell if he really wanted to cause chaos with conventional explosives just use good old fashioned truck bombs using intellgence and Special Forces operatives - and leave a conveniently dead Muslim driver to be found - so that no one suspects Putin did it while maximum disruptions occur

[RN7]

we were talking bombers - thats why the Stealth bomber is such a terrific capability - the Russians literally dont know its there till the bombs hit - whereas with even an SLBM there is some warning

Not much!

[RN7]

Exactly, so why use a strategic asset like ICBMs to do job for which capable operational-level platforms already exist

They only have a range of 100-500 km.

As soon as U.S./NATO member spy satellites detect the launch signature of a Russian ICBM, it's game over. We know where nearly all of their fixed launch sites are and we're still watching. We'll be compelled to launch a nuclear counterstrike. It would take an incredible- some would say, suicidal- degree of self restraint not to. "There may or may not be a nuclear weapon or three on the way towards us and/or our allies but let's wait and see before responding." AFAIK, that would go against Cold War nuclear warfare protocols.

What about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines These days Putin doesn't need the hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to contact Obama and let him know his intensions. He could use E-mail, text message, Skype! But seriously if NATO attacked Russia then the gloves would be off wouldn't they as Russia has every right to retaliate. So what about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines

Yes, conventional-armed ICBMs are an asset that Putin has at his disposal, but he'd have to be daft to use it in the capacity that you are describing, especially, as you just pointed out, since he has alternative platforms which can serve the same purpose (i.e. deliver conventional warheads on targets in East & Central Europe.)

What about targets he wants to hit in Western Europe and North America

Also, can an ICBM designed and built to hit targets a continent away even be reconfigured to hit much closer targets I would think not- that's why SRBMs and MRBMs exist, right

On 4 March 2014 Russia test fired an RS-12M Topol (SS-25) Intercontinental Ballistic Missile from Kapustin Yar testing ground near the Caspian Sea, successfully hitting its target at a test ground in Kazakhstan. Although the United States had received advanced notice about the test it had coincided with the crisis in the Ukraine. The SS-25 has an intercontinental range of 10,500 km, but the distance the test missile (non-nuclear) travelled roughly corresponds to the distance from Western Russia to Western European countries such as Britain and France.

And what about targets in North America

[Raellus]

What about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines These days Putin doesn't need the hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to contact Obama and let him know his intensions. He could use E-mail, text message, Skype! But seriously if NATO attacked Russia then the gloves would be off wouldn't they as Russia has every right to retaliate. So what about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines

And Obama is going to take Putin's word that the missiles are armed with conventional warheads I guess I'm just a lot more cynical about this point.

What about targets he wants to hit in Western Europe and North America

I don't know how he'd hit W. European targets. Belarus might allow the Russians military overflight permission. In my understanding, Belarus is still pretty tight with the Russians. The Soviets have some pretty capable strike aircraft but I don't think very many of them could get through NATO's air cover. Assuming the Russians would have taken Ukraine, their SRBMs could at least hit targets in Poland. I feel like I sound like a broken record but I just don't see Putin using conventional weapon-armed ICBMs because it could very well provoke a nuclear response.

As for hitting targets in the U.S., don't the Russians still have some submarine-launched cruise missiles that can carry conventional explosive payloads That would be a safer option because it likely wouldn't set off the same kind of alarms that an SLBM would.

As far as NATO vs. Russia war in Eastern Europe, I think that with all of the Cold War baggage that both the U.S. and Russia still have, neither side is going to want to start slinging ballistic missiles. Now, if the war escalated to a full-blown WWIII-type scenario with fighting spreading across the globe, perhaps that reluctance would diminish. But for a war in Eastern Europe, I don't think so.

[RN7]

And Obama is going to take Putin's word that the missiles are armed with conventional warheads I guess I'm just a lot more cynical about this point.

Putin could also use Facebook or Twitter and if he lies to Obama or becomes abusive he could have his account suspended

I don't know how he'd hit W. European targets. Belarus might allow the Russians military overflight permission. In my understanding, Belarus is still pretty tight with the Russians. The Soviets have some pretty capable strike aircraft but I don't think very many of them could get through NATO's air cover. Assuming the Russians would have taken Ukraine, their SRBMs could at least hit targets in Poland. I feel like I sound like a broken record but I just don't see Putin using conventional weapon-armed ICBMs because it could very well provoke a nuclear response.

As for hitting targets in the U.S., don't the Russians still have some submarine-launched cruise missiles that can carry conventional explosive payloads That would be a safer option because it likely wouldn't set off the same kind of alarms that an SLBM would.

As far as NATO vs. Russia war in Eastern Europe, I think that with all of the Cold War baggage that both the U.S. and Russia still have, neither side is going to want to start slinging ballistic missiles. Now, if the war escalated to a full-blown WWIII-type scenario with fighting spreading across the globe, perhaps that reluctance would diminish. But for a war in Eastern Europe, I don't think so.

Raellus I'm just playing devils advocate here and throwing out a few hypotethical facts. I could not see any of this happening either. But Russia has the capability to hurt Europe and North America if it wanted to without using its nuclear forces and I think most don't realise that fact. In the post-Cold War years we have become used to America blitzing its enemies with its military capabilities, but have forgotten the fact that Russia also remains a formidable military power.

[Raellus]

Russia also remains a formidable military power.

On that, we are in agreement. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few years as the U.S. downsizes its military while Russia continues to modernize and expand its own. I've read that Putin misses the Cold War and would like to see something similar- he's certainly doing his darnedest to bring it back to life!

[stg58fal]

The US has neither the stones nor the endurance for a fight with Russia. Sure, we've got all kinds of technological toys....which have done us a lot of good in Iraq and Afghanistan. And our military is primarily the guinea pigs for whatever social experiments the monkeys in Washington want to try out. The American people don't have the patience for a war of that magnitude, either. They've put up with the Iraq-Afghan wars as long as they have because a) they don't have a choice (no one has seriously listened to anyone who's been against the war for ANY reason, not just the typical loons who protest ANY use of the military), b) the body bags are, for the most part, coming home in twos and threes, not hundreds every day, and c) unlike Vietnam, the Gulf War, and the "We're Winning!" portion of the second war with Iraq, these aren't on the news every night, unless something happens that the media can trumpet about how evil the US military is or how they got their asses handed to them by cave-dwellers with Enfields, the stories don't make the front page of the newspaper.

Our so-called 'leadership' is so weak, if Russia WERE to launch an ICBM at us, they'd sit on their thumbs until after impact, and then protest loudly to the Useless Nitwits.

Russia is making the Ukraine their bitch, and our 'leaders' are asking them nicely to please stop. Not that it's really any of our business in the first place, and I have a real issue with young American men who are too naive to know any better getting their limbs blown off or losing their lives so that a bunch of banksters and speculators won't lose their asses on natural gas futures (follow the money and pipelines in that area of the world) at the behest of a society that considers them to be nothing more than pawns, workhorses, cannon fodder, and ATMs. So this is one time I actually am glad for such weak sisters as we have in Washington right now.

From a purely military standpoint, I wouldn't want to tangle with Russia. Once you factor in the other things that contribute to losing a war, we REALLY need to not mess with Russia.

But you know what At the end of the day, it is, as the Russians would say, "Ne moya problema".

[Targan]

Stg58fal, I completely understand you not wanting to see American troops killed in a war half a world away over a conflict that has little to do with America. Most of the rest of your post seemed like a thinly-veiled rant against the side of American politics that you don't like. Suggesting that any US President, whether they're Democrat or Republican, would wait for an already-launched Russian ICBM to hit American soil before taking any retaliatory action, beggars belief.

Then when you have a little dig at the UN too (having a go at the UN seems to be a pretty popular passtime on this forum), it makes my objective reading of your more reasonable statements that much more difficult. Many forum members have made their disdain for the UN abundantly clear. You don't like the UN, fine. What's the alternative No organisation of its kind Or some new organisation that can somehow magically get set up and funded and have enough global representation to make it something less than a rich players club or a corporate lobby group

I doubt many forum members here think that the US should go head-to-head (militarilly speaking) with Russia over the Crimea, but there are reasons other than prestige and money for the world to try and stop what's happening in the Ukraine. How about knowing when the actions of a major power are fundamentally wrong How about standing up for the oppressed underdog I remember when the US and its allies were into that. I guess money and national interests will always trump knowing right from wrong in this new age of enlightenment huh

[stg58fal]

Stg58fal, I completely understand you not wanting to see American troops killed in a war half a world away over a conflict that has little to do with America. Most of the rest of your post seemed like a thinly-veiled rant against the side of American politics that you don't like.

I didn't think it was veiled at all, I thought I was pretty clear. Let me make it abundantly clear, then: our leadership is a bunch of weak-kneed scumturds who care only about pandering to the parasite classes, because that's what will get them re-elected.

Suggesting that any US President, whether they're Democrat or Republican, would wait for an already-launched Russian ICBM to hit American soil before taking any retaliatory action, beggars belief.

I have a hard time believing that any president since Reagan, and most of CONgress if they were to be elected president, would respond to almost any aggression against this country without first getting a couple of opinion polls, seeing what Wall Street thinks, and asking everyone else for permission. There was a time when we got things done. Now Not so much. Maybe that's a good thing. It could be, I guess, if it means we finally start minding our own business instead of doing things all over the world that make people hate us.

You don't like the UN, fine. What's the alternative No organisation of its kind

Sounds good to me.

I doubt many forum members here think that the US should go head-to-head (militarilly speaking) with Russia over the Crimea, but there are reasons other than prestige and money for the world to try and stop what's happening in the Ukraine. How about knowing when the actions of a major power are fundamentally wrong How about standing up for the oppressed underdog I remember when the US and its allies were into that. I guess money and national interests will always trump knowing right from wrong in this new age of enlightenment huh

Except this is really boiling down to prestige and money. Russia isn't thrilled about the idea of NATO bases on their doorstep, and I can't say that I blame them. Somebody pissed in someone else's Cheerio's about a gas pipeline, and now there's a military conflict going on.

Yeah, we've stood up for the underdog...and what has it gotten us Hated throughout the world, massive debt, out of control spending, and watching our sons get blown to bits in someone else's wars. And for what Ultimately, for what So some fat bastard in Washington can make another million, and some rich bankster can afford a new private jet instead of flying around in one that's a year or two old.

I don't like seeing how the vets of Iraq and Afghanistan are treated. They bleed for this society, and when they ask for something in return, it treats them like uppity slaves. They risk their lives, and come home to find out not only has their wife been sleeping with every guy she could find, she's divorced them while they were gone, and they're making payments to her for the rest of their life, and the court just say "Lulz, datz da LAW". They watch their friends die, and they come home to no jobs and no one gives a crap about the demons that they are dealing with on a daily basis.

I'm glad that I got out when I did. And with all the things I've learned in the past year, I'm ashamed that I was ever stupid enough to volunteer to risk my life for a society that views me as nothing more than a utility and whatever resources someone else can harvest from me.

I don't want to see ANY more young men throw their lives away so someone else can get rich, in the name of a society that views them as nothing. I don't care if they're American, British, German, Russian, Ukrainian, what-have-you. Even Australian.

[Targan]

I didn't think it was veiled at all, I thought I was pretty clear. Let me make it abundantly clear, then: our leadership is a bunch of weak-kneed scumturds who care only about pandering to the parasite classes, because that's what will get them re-elected.

Ok then, let's skip past hints and be clear about this: the admin of this forum has indicated many times in the past that while he'll accept OT discussions about current events, he'd prefer we didn't voice overtly political opinions on domestic politics that are likely to result in bad blood on this forum. We don't have any Russians or Ukrainians on this forum but we do have a majority of American members.

I reckon the UN is fair game though. You can pretty safely put the boot into them