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/257...-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.php?t=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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

[boogiedowndonovan]

back on topic,

i think we're looking at 20th century strategies and tactics.

I'm no expert but why use nukes, when you've got a well trained hackers who can do as much damage without the risk of fallout and massive damage associated with nukes. Unless of course hackers did something to nuclear power plants, chemical plants, refineries, etc. Denial of service attacks against servers to overwhelm and crash them, hacking into networks to do all kinds of mischief, can all cause panic and damage.

Russian hackers were active during the Georgian conflict and also against Estonia. So we know that the capability exists.

Why threaten to launch a conventionally armed ICBM, which can be immediately traced back to its launching point, when a hacker can launch an attack from malware infested computers all over the world while hiding out in his mom's basement?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by boogiedowndonovan

back on topic,

i think we're looking at 20th century strategies and tactics.

I'm no expert but why use nukes, when you've got a well trained hackers who can do as much damage without the risk of fallout and massive damage associated with nukes. Unless of course hackers did something to nuclear power plants, chemical plants, refineries, etc. Denial of service attacks against servers to overwhelm and crash them, hacking into networks to do all kinds of mischief, can all cause panic and damage.

Russian hackers were active during the Georgian conflict and also against Estonia. So we know that the capability exists.

Why threaten to launch a conventionally armed ICBM, which can be immediately traced back to its launching point, when a hacker can launch an attack from malware infested computers all over the world while hiding out in his mom's basement?

I think in the 21st Century most countries are very aware of the threat posed by hacking from hostile governments, security agencies and terrorists. With the amount of cyber-espionage currently practiced by a countries such as China, most countries are well versed in preventing it.

The US Cyber Command is certainly one of the biggest and most experienced. The US Army Cyber Command directs network operations and defense of all Army networks. The 24th Air Force manages cyber for the US Air Force, the Fleet Cyber Command (the US 10th Fleet) delivers cyber capabilities for the Navy and even the US Marine Corps has its own cyber command. The US intelligence community also almost certainly has a very large cyber capability.

Russia officially doesn't have its own cyber command but it has developed capacity in this area and has incorporated the cyber domain into existing doctrines of information warfare. Until 2003, activities within the cyber domain were the responsibility of the Russian SIGINT agency, FAPSI. This agency was abolished and its responsibilities divided between the Defence Ministry and the internal security service (FSB), with the latter having responsibility for investigating cyber crime. Moscow State University’s Institute for Information Security Issues conducts research on technical issues including cryptography and counts the General Staff and the FSB among its clients.

The big three European NATO powers; Britain, France and Germany; each have their own cyber command's. Britain has the UK Defence Cyber Operations Group and MI6 certainly has its own cyber capabilities. France has the Network and Information Security Agency (ANSSI), and Germany has the National Cyber Response Centre, involving Police, Customs, Federal Intelligence Service and the Bunderswehr.

Other countries with known cyber capabilities include Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Netherlands, North Korea, Norway, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan.

[Olefin]

Looks like the Russians may be using those cyber methods already - supposedly they brought down a US drone over the Crimea and captured it intact.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Looks like the Russians may be using those cyber methods already - supposedly they brought down a US drone over the Crimea and captured it intact.

Ooh, someone's going to be pissed.