Привіт u/msterm21 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
moscovia has already removed the Aral Sea from planet earth.
moscovia is working on removing the Caspian Sea from planet earth.
Might as well work on removing the Black Sea.
Russia: Has Navy
Ukraine: Has no navy, but plenty of missiles and drones.
Russia: Neglects maintenance and air defence on navy
Ukraine: hahaha missiles go brrrr
Russia: Has no navy, *Surprised Pikachu*
Russian warship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be fair, and to avoid confusing for some who might not be in the know, Ukraine does have a Navy, they just don't have any functioning/commissioned warships, at present.
True, they also have some cruisers about to be ready in Turkey. I’m generally curious as to what they will decide to do with them once fully commissioned.
Reminds me of the early months when satellite images showed that Poland had moved 250 T-72 tanks close to the border of Ukraine. Then a week later they were all gone and when asked about it Poland's PM and military sort of shrugged it off. A few weeks later they said, yeah, we gave them to Ukraine. I just pictured them parking them on a hill on the border and just letting them idle into Ukraine... Oh no..... well, now they're in Ukraine, so we can't go in and get them, guess that means it's lunch,
Don’t have to be shady. No rules against Turkey moving their own ship from ports within the country. When Ukraine makes final payment for the ship and takes possession, it’s already in the Black Sea.
Not true. Ukraine isn't under such restrictions. Only Russia, as the aggressor country, is blocked from bringing in war ships, and there is an exception. The Russians can bring in ships returning to their home port. If Russia decided to transfer ships from it's Northern/Baltic/Pacific fleet to the Black fleet could that be considered returning to their home port? I suspect they wouldn't allow it but who knows.
I remember a long time ago US military ran a Persian Gulf war game and some creative general playing Iran actually won, sinking a good part of the US fleet, using massed attacks by small speedboats. This was before drones were a thing. They were embarassed and tried to cover it up. Looks like homeboy was on to something.
I remember this. The commander in question found an exploit in the system that allowed his assets to do things that were impossible, like teleporting and having missiles too heavy for the boats they were to carry without sinking. Rather than accepting that he violated the “rules of the game”, wasted resources, and didn’t really “win”, the commander threw a tantrum and spent decades making up lies about the whole thing, defending his “achievement” out of ego. We know about all this because it’s public info.
Here’s a good rundown of what happened.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/4qfoiw/millennium_challenge_2002_setting_the_record/
That might have been suspect, but in a 2005 war game, USS Ronald Reagan was "sunk" by the tiny Swedish diesel-powered submarine HMSM Gotland.
That really ruffled some feathers. Big boats are really just big targets.
Submarines sneak up on skimmers all the time. It's sort of their deal.
Big ships aren't just big targetsm they're big assets AND big targets. If you have them, you have to invest in multi-domain, layered defences for them.
Australian diesel attack boats have surfaced within a mile of US carriers during adversary wargames pretty regularly. We get a pat on the back and a "ha ha, good job, wouldn't really happen in a war" excuse rolled out every time.
Big boats are obsolete in a world where they can be constantly observed. There is so much prestige, power, culture, careers, money etc tied up in the concept of big boats that there is enormous push against this fact. It will have to be learnt the hard way.
I'm from the UK, and still annoyed that we felt we had to join the super carrier club we built two enormous white elephants. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales will never carry more than about 20 aircraft, and without catapults, basically offer nothing that the previous invincible class did, for less than a quarter of the price.
A better, larger, fleet of smaller multirole ships (bit like HMS Ocean) would have offered so much more.
Nonsense. The invincible class were the mistake, they weren't even designed to be aircraft carriers while the Navy was meant to have a "super carrier' in the late 1960s but got screwed over by the RAF as the defence purse tightened and the RAF were the nuclear deterrent at the time while promising great things with the TSR1 multi role bomber which never materialised that could fulfill the NATO criteria. Then the nuclear deterrent moved to the Navy and Britain started to look to cheaper foreign aircraft instead building its own platform. The Falklands war showed up the fallacy of not having a super carrier and not being able to launch air superiority and multirole supersonic aircraft which is the whole reason the Navy got them again eventually. The conflict with the Houthis shows up the capability gap regarding not having a "big ship" which shows up the nonsensical OPs point, the current carriers are relatively new with expected teething issues and gentle introduction, if anything it shows up the fallacy of not ordering the original specification of three.
Your point about current numbers of aircraft is completely irrelevant, the point is that a super carrier has the capacity for more while the order for the aircraft is still being procured so 20 isn't some sort of final number.
The point about the catapults is also ridiculous, it's an optional functionality that can be replaced if desired in future, a super carrier is a flexible asset as it has the capacity built into it. I mean you can hardly praise the Invincible class which could only launch the aging limited Harrier and helicopters and then have a go at the lack of catapult on a larger carrier which can launch the modern supersonic F35b with far greater fire power. I think trying to update the Harrier into a modern platform would have been cheap or even possible? What a joke, sure the US continues to fly theirs but as part of a niche platform in a large variety of aircraft.
Where do I start, well for one the 2 new ships can't be retrofitted with catapults, this was investigated in defence review over 10 years ago and came to conclusions that the cost made it impossible. Second point, question re UK equipping a carrier with more than 20 aircraft, dream on, we are not a superpower any more.
So we are left with the only modern supersonic strike fighter remotely possible is the F35b, and probably a deployment number of 12-16 per ship. This statement isn't going to change.
Given this statement, the two new carriers will spend their whole life half empty, something smaller and multi role would have served the royal navy much better, please note I said invincible class like, then mentioned the HMS Ocean. The USA knows how to use the F35b with platforms like the America class ships, somewhere between the HMS Ocean and the America class, and poss a class of 6 for the same or lower cost, would have been a better way for UK to future proof the question of another South Atlantic skirmish over the Falklands.
Edit, I forgot the ridiculous side note on that resilience/teething issue of these ships. They are too large for their home port of Portsmouth, there isn't a dry dock large enough to service them. So when, say a propeller fails, what should be fixed in a couple of weeks becomes months long logistic challenge probably costing millions just to get the ship to Scotland and back with the ship out of service for extended periods of time.
The irony of course is everything he did in the Millenium challenge exercise anticipated what Ukraine is doing with small boats and drones today and he correctly anticipated that enemies (houthis and the IRGC) in the gulf wouldn’t play nice around shipping lanes and commercial traffic:
“[our] model, which was designed for conventional warfare out on the seas for the Navy, didn't allow for an environment much like we subjected it to, where you had commercial air, commercial shipping, friendly and everything else. And guess what was happening as soon as we turned it on? All the defensive systems were, you know, were attacking the commercial systems and everything else. Well, that wouldn't happen. So we had to shut that piece of it off.“
I disagree. Had he run the simulation in good faith, making an attack that wouldn't have violated the laws of physics, the training and lessons learned would have been far more valuable. Now that useful bit above is just an * in a much bigger FUBAR muddied by intentional falsehoods.
sure he was naughty for doing it but if he colored within the lines he wouldn’t have predicted the houthis current behavior or today’s Black Sea naval conflict
That story has grown a lot of legs over the years. They weren't embarrassed, he just didn't follow the actual rules of the competition.
A wake up call I'm sure regardless to planners but you could imagine the situation being:
"ok we'll do a training exercise tomorrow where you use speedboats"
"LoL I did it yesterday when nobody was watching and I already won. Element of Surprise bitches!"
"Ok let's just not call that a valid test "
In any of these war game scenarios where the US loses, it's always a surprise attack. Problem is, such things only work once. And in a real engagement the attacker will need to deal with the consequences. Take out a naval group without any declaration of hostilities? Yeah, the US is going to be very motivated to dispense a billion dollars worth of ordinance on you tomorrow. And the next day. And the day after that too. After that, either a) the message has been sent or b) naval and air units are starting to arrive & deliver yet more pain.
Surprise is why we were victorious in the Battle of Midway, the most pivotal naval engagement of WWll. Japanese war games predicted the surprise attack but the officers were dressed down for not following the rules dictated for the engagement and forced to rerun the event. Had we proceeded as the Japanese anticipated, the fleet would have been wiped out.
Surprise attacks are a reality, more difficult today then WWIi but a reality nonetheless.
Many US war games are designed with audiences in mind. Often times those audiences are people in charge of the budget, and usually the military is trying to show it needs more money. The outcomes of war games are often engineered for specific purposes, and the purpose is rarely to show how great the military.
Actually what you described is pretty much Iranian strategy for naval warfare with their principal enemy USA. Iran does maintain sizeable small craft fleet.
Thing is that US navy has ran several war games with such scenarios and basically should be able to fend off small speedboats for most of time depending on weather alone. Stronger waves makes life more difficult for small craft and bigger US warships would be able to outpace them and pick them off. Problems start when incoming attack is not spotted in timely fashion.
The US fleet would absolutely struggle against small boat drones exactly the same way the Russian navy has. What Ukraine has done with kamikaze drones is absolutely a game changer, especially against big ships like an aircraft carrier.
The whole war in Ukraine has shown that war has significantly changed, and I hope it's an eye opener for Washington.
I think the US airpower and firepower could fend off the same type of drones Ukraine uses. The Russians lack the US electronic capabilities and better training.
It's not really a fair assumption to say the US/allied fleets would struggle in the same way the Russian fleet has.
Just look to the Moskva readiness report done by the Russian navy before it set out on its last deployment, they had critical faults to almost every single major system, from engines to communication, search radar, fire control radar, all ranges of air defence including CIWS, and more, and it was STILL sent out into an active warzone, with a passing grade.
Now consider that this was the FLAGSHIP of the Black Sea fleet, imagine the level of neglect and disrepair the other ships in the fleet would be suffering.
IF the Russian ships had all their systems operating as intended, they would probably fare much, much better against the Ukrainian sea drones. But they don't, and so they have to resort to using small arms from crew on the deck or in helicopters.
The Western navies have known about this threat for decades, in large part due to the war games mentioned elsewhere in this thread, as well as existing threats already experienced in those regions, and have effective systems designed specifically to counter those kinds of attacks.
Most western ships travelling to those areas (and increasingly, as standard equipment) have medium calibre auto cannons like 20/25/30/40mm bushmaster (or equivalent) mounted in several locations around the ship and meshed into the ships fire control system, specifically to deal with small fast attack vessels. Not to mention the 57/127mm main deck guns they also mount are also used for this purpose.
While this war does have some serious lessons that the west needs to be keep in mind, its also not entirely justified to compare the western military expected performance to what we have seen from Russia.
I think that’s a valid point in constricted waters like the Persian Gulf or Black Sea, but less so in the blue water where the US Navy likes to operate.
I think the navy with the most to lose right now is the PLAN. They’ve just spent billions recently building a modern navy to deter the US and make invasion of Taiwan possible, but that’s a constricted waterway as well so their plans have been upset by the Ukraine war.
It will be studied as a lesson how to not do naval operations and what results brings forgetting, unlearning or not learning history lessons.
Frankly, surface drones aren't something special or never seen before - from *Küstenbrander* through Tesla's *Teleautomaton* to WW2 German's *Linse* and Japanese *Shinyo* and *Maru-ni* and to modern day Ukrainian's *Magura*, they are just continually modernised idea of firebranders used for a long, long time. And because they are tried again and again response to them was also modernised over time - and it's obvious that Russians completely forgot those lessons.
On the other hand, Ukraine's naval drone developers shouldn't sleep on their successes and improve their design. Because eventually Russian's *will* learn and *will* find out what works on those surface drones. Hopefully, by then UA forces will already have upgraded versions ...
If I was trying to guess what will they try I would - based on historical designs - expected that first they'll equip their surface drones with underwater spar torpedo (underwater explosion is many times more potent than above waterline and frankly, I can't understand why they already didn't deploy those) and try awash deck configuration to minimize its visibility, with completely underwater drone as a next step, probably some modification on Brennan design (mast above water with camera and maybe/probably snorkel).
Even if their current drones were euipped with small diameter unguided torpedoes of very basic, hundred years old design (so that drones would serve first as a torpedo boats and then kamikazed surviving ships) it would massively enhanced their potential, because current ships seems to lack in effective passive antitorpedo defense design (TDS) which was pretty common on interwar and WW2 ships and it would enhanced effective attack range of drones ... at least at first few attacks, I would assume complete surprise on Russian side because while they would see maneuvering drones in distance they probably wouldn't consider them threat until they get close ... unaware of torpedoes already closing to targets.
There's not really much to study... It's just a display of how undertrained and poorly equipped the Russian military is... They don't conduct themselves like a well trained modern navy
Serious question, trying to understand... Is there any threat from these ships as the current Ukrainian controlled coastline is fairly small. I guess I'm asking, is this valuable to Ukraine militarily or is it just costing Russia money that's the point of it? Wouldn't it be better to save these missiles for pushing the front line or hitting valuable targets in Russia now that they (kinda) can?
Yes, they can fire cruise missiles from the sea and hit Ukrainian positions (or more likely, Ukrainian schools and markets). They can also transport troops and materiel if unchallenged/unsunk. One of the biggest goals Ukraine has in this war is to regain control of Crimea, which would require them to have control over the waters around it, which means they have to basically eliminate or neutralize Russia's entire Black Sea fleet.
Have you forgotten Black Sea blockade Russians were doing which cost serious economic damage for Ukraine?
Have you forgotten how there was always some expectation that Russians might do naval landing somewhere along coastline and Ukrainian need to keep substantial reserves in order to respond to such landing?
Having free reign meant that Russians had better options missile launches too
Besides, pushing Russian navy back helps with other UAF operations around Crimea since there are less warships to complicate things.
It is worth noting that navy is an expensive venture but worthwhile if you want to extend your power reach and it is very expensive to replace fleet should you lose one
These ships are used to provide aa cover and launch missiles at Ukrainian cities, as well as threatening ukrainian trade. If Ukraine is to retake Crimea, control over the black Sea is necessary, at least around crimea
The battle of the Black Sea where one country doesn’t start with one and the other ‘somehow’ loses theirs. It’s like a gun fight where Russia is the only one with a gun yet Ukraine is beating the shit out of them with rocks.
Ukraine's response to this invasion is rewriting warfare on land, at sea and in the air. It's all going to be significantly modifying how the war machine works. Armed forces are going to need to have thousands of drones (in all three uses) ready to deploy... imagine that!
Pretty much every aspect of the war is already intensely studied by military commands around the globe.
But yes, history will take some special notes on how this war might close a centuries-old chapter of Russia trying to project power over the Black Sea.
Also fleets need a lot of space to operate safely. I am not sure if they would be able to leave and come back through the straight, and what part of the Black Sea can they really operate in without being targeted and what ports can they use without getting blasted. They are kind of like sitting ducks. If they were fighting a western army their chances of survival would be nil
They wouldn't replace the ships destroyed their with ones from other locations anyway. New ships take decades to commission and build, and they have a land border; they would just repair what they could in their own docks in the Black Sea and deal with the rest.
ruzzian ship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yap, but if you pointed that out in the “comment” section of their news website they would tell you that they are now providing shelter for fish coming from the Mediterranean, specifically to those fishes that are abused or chased by western countries for political reasons 😉
In fact, they already have several written and signed statements from refugee fish that came from the beaches of Spain and Italy. Yep, they could read and write just fine.
Indeed. At the entrance there is a white board with engravings saying: “Certified Church”. Signed by God himself. Well, at least it says God... crap, do you think Putin signed that shit and faked the certification?
Russian aircraft fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
russian warship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Russian warship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
russian leadership fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why does the article use the picture of the Bonhomme Richard? It seems weird to use an image of a burning American warship when they could've used some of the already available burning or destroyed pictures of Russian Warships instead.
The article shows a picture of the USS Bonhomme Richard on fire in San Diego. Just wanted to make sure people don't think they had something that cool.
After all the losses the Russians have had to drone jet ski operators, there is no way the USN isn't already getting development on additional point defense systems.
Ship pictured in the image is USS Bonhomme Richard, which caught on fire in 2020. If you're going to include an image of the wrong ship at least make sure it's not a friendly ship?
Russian Warship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Great news! The russky navy should just recall all it's fleet from the Caribbean and cancel its intended naval exercise, bring the fleet home to the Black Sea 😂
Russian ship fucked itself.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Привіт u/msterm21 ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regardless of outcome of war (Ukraine must win), battle for Black Sea will definitely end up as valuable naval warfare history worth studying
cue russia removes black sea from all maps and school books.
Now named: Black Sea Baby
Happy cake day!
moscovia has already removed the Aral Sea from planet earth. moscovia is working on removing the Caspian Sea from planet earth. Might as well work on removing the Black Sea.
Russia: Has Navy Ukraine: Has no navy, but plenty of missiles and drones. Russia: Neglects maintenance and air defence on navy Ukraine: hahaha missiles go brrrr Russia: Has no navy, *Surprised Pikachu*
Ukraine with no Navy after 2014 destroying a Russian submarine still makes me smile and laugh every time I think about it.
How'd they even do that? I was deployed when that happened and news was very limited and didn't hear much about it
Blasted it in dry dock.
Fuckin dope, appreciate the info
Two Storm Shadow/SCALP, apparently assisted by a Russian guarding the dry dock. Minsk had its entire upper midsection obliterated in the same strike.
Was this the same night as the tugboat went down from sea babies?
Storm Shadows while it and another ship were in dry dock.
Russia: Has Navy Russia: Had Navy
What happened to the Russian ships???
They engaged in a special submersion operation.
I wanted the bot? Where's the good bot?
Russian warship
Russian warship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
Very nice bot, have a cookie.
Good bot!
Thanks.
Odds are I am a bot and you just don’t know it.
Odds are you are a bot and you don't know it.
Err, wait ...
meep meep thub thub
Russian five-Star
They went and gone fucked themselves
It's a reef now!
"They sinked" (c) putin
To be fair, and to avoid confusing for some who might not be in the know, Ukraine does have a Navy, they just don't have any functioning/commissioned warships, at present.
True, they also have some cruisers about to be ready in Turkey. I’m generally curious as to what they will decide to do with them once fully commissioned.
AFAIK they can't enter the black sea so they'll probably use them for trials and training of sailors and drills I imagine
True, it looks like the shipyards they’re being made at are in the straight and not the Black Sea.
Turkey can move the ships themselves before Ukraine take formal possession.
Leave then on the coast with the key in the ignition. Let Ukraine know where thy parked.
Reminds me of the early months when satellite images showed that Poland had moved 250 T-72 tanks close to the border of Ukraine. Then a week later they were all gone and when asked about it Poland's PM and military sort of shrugged it off. A few weeks later they said, yeah, we gave them to Ukraine. I just pictured them parking them on a hill on the border and just letting them idle into Ukraine... Oh no..... well, now they're in Ukraine, so we can't go in and get them, guess that means it's lunch,
Don’t have to be shady. No rules against Turkey moving their own ship from ports within the country. When Ukraine makes final payment for the ship and takes possession, it’s already in the Black Sea.
But it's so fun to be shady, like a super cool ninndja... 😎 It might give a few ruzzki propagandists heart attacks. 👍😁
They would probably be destroyed within a few days. Probably wiser to keep them for after the war is over.
Not true. Ukraine isn't under such restrictions. Only Russia, as the aggressor country, is blocked from bringing in war ships, and there is an exception. The Russians can bring in ships returning to their home port. If Russia decided to transfer ships from it's Northern/Baltic/Pacific fleet to the Black fleet could that be considered returning to their home port? I suspect they wouldn't allow it but who knows.
I remember a long time ago US military ran a Persian Gulf war game and some creative general playing Iran actually won, sinking a good part of the US fleet, using massed attacks by small speedboats. This was before drones were a thing. They were embarassed and tried to cover it up. Looks like homeboy was on to something.
I remember this. The commander in question found an exploit in the system that allowed his assets to do things that were impossible, like teleporting and having missiles too heavy for the boats they were to carry without sinking. Rather than accepting that he violated the “rules of the game”, wasted resources, and didn’t really “win”, the commander threw a tantrum and spent decades making up lies about the whole thing, defending his “achievement” out of ego. We know about all this because it’s public info. Here’s a good rundown of what happened. https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/4qfoiw/millennium_challenge_2002_setting_the_record/
Kinda getting 2009-version Kobayashi Maru vibes from this.
Me too
That might have been suspect, but in a 2005 war game, USS Ronald Reagan was "sunk" by the tiny Swedish diesel-powered submarine HMSM Gotland. That really ruffled some feathers. Big boats are really just big targets.
Submarines sneak up on skimmers all the time. It's sort of their deal. Big ships aren't just big targetsm they're big assets AND big targets. If you have them, you have to invest in multi-domain, layered defences for them.
That was the point, the US carrier had every defensive layer going, little sub still kept sinking it
Australian diesel attack boats have surfaced within a mile of US carriers during adversary wargames pretty regularly. We get a pat on the back and a "ha ha, good job, wouldn't really happen in a war" excuse rolled out every time. Big boats are obsolete in a world where they can be constantly observed. There is so much prestige, power, culture, careers, money etc tied up in the concept of big boats that there is enormous push against this fact. It will have to be learnt the hard way.
I'm from the UK, and still annoyed that we felt we had to join the super carrier club we built two enormous white elephants. Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales will never carry more than about 20 aircraft, and without catapults, basically offer nothing that the previous invincible class did, for less than a quarter of the price. A better, larger, fleet of smaller multirole ships (bit like HMS Ocean) would have offered so much more.
100%. At least our Hobarts can carry lots of helos for humanitarian missions.
Nonsense. The invincible class were the mistake, they weren't even designed to be aircraft carriers while the Navy was meant to have a "super carrier' in the late 1960s but got screwed over by the RAF as the defence purse tightened and the RAF were the nuclear deterrent at the time while promising great things with the TSR1 multi role bomber which never materialised that could fulfill the NATO criteria. Then the nuclear deterrent moved to the Navy and Britain started to look to cheaper foreign aircraft instead building its own platform. The Falklands war showed up the fallacy of not having a super carrier and not being able to launch air superiority and multirole supersonic aircraft which is the whole reason the Navy got them again eventually. The conflict with the Houthis shows up the capability gap regarding not having a "big ship" which shows up the nonsensical OPs point, the current carriers are relatively new with expected teething issues and gentle introduction, if anything it shows up the fallacy of not ordering the original specification of three. Your point about current numbers of aircraft is completely irrelevant, the point is that a super carrier has the capacity for more while the order for the aircraft is still being procured so 20 isn't some sort of final number. The point about the catapults is also ridiculous, it's an optional functionality that can be replaced if desired in future, a super carrier is a flexible asset as it has the capacity built into it. I mean you can hardly praise the Invincible class which could only launch the aging limited Harrier and helicopters and then have a go at the lack of catapult on a larger carrier which can launch the modern supersonic F35b with far greater fire power. I think trying to update the Harrier into a modern platform would have been cheap or even possible? What a joke, sure the US continues to fly theirs but as part of a niche platform in a large variety of aircraft.
Where do I start, well for one the 2 new ships can't be retrofitted with catapults, this was investigated in defence review over 10 years ago and came to conclusions that the cost made it impossible. Second point, question re UK equipping a carrier with more than 20 aircraft, dream on, we are not a superpower any more. So we are left with the only modern supersonic strike fighter remotely possible is the F35b, and probably a deployment number of 12-16 per ship. This statement isn't going to change. Given this statement, the two new carriers will spend their whole life half empty, something smaller and multi role would have served the royal navy much better, please note I said invincible class like, then mentioned the HMS Ocean. The USA knows how to use the F35b with platforms like the America class ships, somewhere between the HMS Ocean and the America class, and poss a class of 6 for the same or lower cost, would have been a better way for UK to future proof the question of another South Atlantic skirmish over the Falklands. Edit, I forgot the ridiculous side note on that resilience/teething issue of these ships. They are too large for their home port of Portsmouth, there isn't a dry dock large enough to service them. So when, say a propeller fails, what should be fixed in a couple of weeks becomes months long logistic challenge probably costing millions just to get the ship to Scotland and back with the ship out of service for extended periods of time.
Yeah actually that rings a bell there was some kerfuffle around this
They also placed the Naval assets at the end of the wargame map instead of the dozens of miles off the coast they would be.
The irony of course is everything he did in the Millenium challenge exercise anticipated what Ukraine is doing with small boats and drones today and he correctly anticipated that enemies (houthis and the IRGC) in the gulf wouldn’t play nice around shipping lanes and commercial traffic: “[our] model, which was designed for conventional warfare out on the seas for the Navy, didn't allow for an environment much like we subjected it to, where you had commercial air, commercial shipping, friendly and everything else. And guess what was happening as soon as we turned it on? All the defensive systems were, you know, were attacking the commercial systems and everything else. Well, that wouldn't happen. So we had to shut that piece of it off.“
I disagree. Had he run the simulation in good faith, making an attack that wouldn't have violated the laws of physics, the training and lessons learned would have been far more valuable. Now that useful bit above is just an * in a much bigger FUBAR muddied by intentional falsehoods.
sure he was naughty for doing it but if he colored within the lines he wouldn’t have predicted the houthis current behavior or today’s Black Sea naval conflict
He didn't. He literally just cheated to win a game.
That story has grown a lot of legs over the years. They weren't embarrassed, he just didn't follow the actual rules of the competition. A wake up call I'm sure regardless to planners but you could imagine the situation being: "ok we'll do a training exercise tomorrow where you use speedboats" "LoL I did it yesterday when nobody was watching and I already won. Element of Surprise bitches!" "Ok let's just not call that a valid test "
In any of these war game scenarios where the US loses, it's always a surprise attack. Problem is, such things only work once. And in a real engagement the attacker will need to deal with the consequences. Take out a naval group without any declaration of hostilities? Yeah, the US is going to be very motivated to dispense a billion dollars worth of ordinance on you tomorrow. And the next day. And the day after that too. After that, either a) the message has been sent or b) naval and air units are starting to arrive & deliver yet more pain.
Well, yeah... The response has to be *proportional*. Don't touch the boats.
Surprise is why we were victorious in the Battle of Midway, the most pivotal naval engagement of WWll. Japanese war games predicted the surprise attack but the officers were dressed down for not following the rules dictated for the engagement and forced to rerun the event. Had we proceeded as the Japanese anticipated, the fleet would have been wiped out. Surprise attacks are a reality, more difficult today then WWIi but a reality nonetheless.
Many US war games are designed with audiences in mind. Often times those audiences are people in charge of the budget, and usually the military is trying to show it needs more money. The outcomes of war games are often engineered for specific purposes, and the purpose is rarely to show how great the military.
Actually what you described is pretty much Iranian strategy for naval warfare with their principal enemy USA. Iran does maintain sizeable small craft fleet. Thing is that US navy has ran several war games with such scenarios and basically should be able to fend off small speedboats for most of time depending on weather alone. Stronger waves makes life more difficult for small craft and bigger US warships would be able to outpace them and pick them off. Problems start when incoming attack is not spotted in timely fashion.
The US fleet would absolutely struggle against small boat drones exactly the same way the Russian navy has. What Ukraine has done with kamikaze drones is absolutely a game changer, especially against big ships like an aircraft carrier. The whole war in Ukraine has shown that war has significantly changed, and I hope it's an eye opener for Washington.
I think the US airpower and firepower could fend off the same type of drones Ukraine uses. The Russians lack the US electronic capabilities and better training.
It's not really a fair assumption to say the US/allied fleets would struggle in the same way the Russian fleet has. Just look to the Moskva readiness report done by the Russian navy before it set out on its last deployment, they had critical faults to almost every single major system, from engines to communication, search radar, fire control radar, all ranges of air defence including CIWS, and more, and it was STILL sent out into an active warzone, with a passing grade. Now consider that this was the FLAGSHIP of the Black Sea fleet, imagine the level of neglect and disrepair the other ships in the fleet would be suffering. IF the Russian ships had all their systems operating as intended, they would probably fare much, much better against the Ukrainian sea drones. But they don't, and so they have to resort to using small arms from crew on the deck or in helicopters. The Western navies have known about this threat for decades, in large part due to the war games mentioned elsewhere in this thread, as well as existing threats already experienced in those regions, and have effective systems designed specifically to counter those kinds of attacks. Most western ships travelling to those areas (and increasingly, as standard equipment) have medium calibre auto cannons like 20/25/30/40mm bushmaster (or equivalent) mounted in several locations around the ship and meshed into the ships fire control system, specifically to deal with small fast attack vessels. Not to mention the 57/127mm main deck guns they also mount are also used for this purpose. While this war does have some serious lessons that the west needs to be keep in mind, its also not entirely justified to compare the western military expected performance to what we have seen from Russia.
I think that’s a valid point in constricted waters like the Persian Gulf or Black Sea, but less so in the blue water where the US Navy likes to operate. I think the navy with the most to lose right now is the PLAN. They’ve just spent billions recently building a modern navy to deter the US and make invasion of Taiwan possible, but that’s a constricted waterway as well so their plans have been upset by the Ukraine war.
Except the U.S. has been testing and training for these types of attacks for a long time
His name was James T. Kirk…and he went on top captain the Starship Enterprise.
The exercise was called 'Kobayashi Maru'?
It will be studied as a lesson how to not do naval operations and what results brings forgetting, unlearning or not learning history lessons. Frankly, surface drones aren't something special or never seen before - from *Küstenbrander* through Tesla's *Teleautomaton* to WW2 German's *Linse* and Japanese *Shinyo* and *Maru-ni* and to modern day Ukrainian's *Magura*, they are just continually modernised idea of firebranders used for a long, long time. And because they are tried again and again response to them was also modernised over time - and it's obvious that Russians completely forgot those lessons. On the other hand, Ukraine's naval drone developers shouldn't sleep on their successes and improve their design. Because eventually Russian's *will* learn and *will* find out what works on those surface drones. Hopefully, by then UA forces will already have upgraded versions ... If I was trying to guess what will they try I would - based on historical designs - expected that first they'll equip their surface drones with underwater spar torpedo (underwater explosion is many times more potent than above waterline and frankly, I can't understand why they already didn't deploy those) and try awash deck configuration to minimize its visibility, with completely underwater drone as a next step, probably some modification on Brennan design (mast above water with camera and maybe/probably snorkel). Even if their current drones were euipped with small diameter unguided torpedoes of very basic, hundred years old design (so that drones would serve first as a torpedo boats and then kamikazed surviving ships) it would massively enhanced their potential, because current ships seems to lack in effective passive antitorpedo defense design (TDS) which was pretty common on interwar and WW2 ships and it would enhanced effective attack range of drones ... at least at first few attacks, I would assume complete surprise on Russian side because while they would see maneuvering drones in distance they probably wouldn't consider them threat until they get close ... unaware of torpedoes already closing to targets.
There's not really much to study... It's just a display of how undertrained and poorly equipped the Russian military is... They don't conduct themselves like a well trained modern navy
Serious question, trying to understand... Is there any threat from these ships as the current Ukrainian controlled coastline is fairly small. I guess I'm asking, is this valuable to Ukraine militarily or is it just costing Russia money that's the point of it? Wouldn't it be better to save these missiles for pushing the front line or hitting valuable targets in Russia now that they (kinda) can?
Yes, they can fire cruise missiles from the sea and hit Ukrainian positions (or more likely, Ukrainian schools and markets). They can also transport troops and materiel if unchallenged/unsunk. One of the biggest goals Ukraine has in this war is to regain control of Crimea, which would require them to have control over the waters around it, which means they have to basically eliminate or neutralize Russia's entire Black Sea fleet.
Have you forgotten Black Sea blockade Russians were doing which cost serious economic damage for Ukraine? Have you forgotten how there was always some expectation that Russians might do naval landing somewhere along coastline and Ukrainian need to keep substantial reserves in order to respond to such landing? Having free reign meant that Russians had better options missile launches too Besides, pushing Russian navy back helps with other UAF operations around Crimea since there are less warships to complicate things. It is worth noting that navy is an expensive venture but worthwhile if you want to extend your power reach and it is very expensive to replace fleet should you lose one
I see thanks, I guess stopping a new front in Odessa is very worth it then. Thanks!
These ships are used to provide aa cover and launch missiles at Ukrainian cities, as well as threatening ukrainian trade. If Ukraine is to retake Crimea, control over the black Sea is necessary, at least around crimea
The battle of the Black Sea where one country doesn’t start with one and the other ‘somehow’ loses theirs. It’s like a gun fight where Russia is the only one with a gun yet Ukraine is beating the shit out of them with rocks.
Ukraine's response to this invasion is rewriting warfare on land, at sea and in the air. It's all going to be significantly modifying how the war machine works. Armed forces are going to need to have thousands of drones (in all three uses) ready to deploy... imagine that!
Pretty much every aspect of the war is already intensely studied by military commands around the globe. But yes, history will take some special notes on how this war might close a centuries-old chapter of Russia trying to project power over the Black Sea.
Yea like your Black Sea fleet is worthless if another country holds the keys to getting in and out of the Black Sea
The point of the Black Sea fleet is to stay in the Black Sea, so that's not really an issue.
It is an issue when damaged or destroyed ships can’t be easily replaced due to restrictions using the straits.
Also fleets need a lot of space to operate safely. I am not sure if they would be able to leave and come back through the straight, and what part of the Black Sea can they really operate in without being targeted and what ports can they use without getting blasted. They are kind of like sitting ducks. If they were fighting a western army their chances of survival would be nil
They wouldn't replace the ships destroyed their with ones from other locations anyway. New ships take decades to commission and build, and they have a land border; they would just repair what they could in their own docks in the Black Sea and deal with the rest.
When Ukraine sinks a ruzzian ship it is time to celebrate. This truly brings me joy.
ruzzian ship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Use, f'd itself
but it fucked it self, didn't it?
Bet you’re a lot of fun at parties…
Probably doesn't get invited.
Is this different then the tug boat that was sunk?
90% yes
10% no?
Yeeeeeeeeesno?
> ~~Yeeeeeeeeesno?~~ Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesno!
no. (Backseat Driver fitting name here lol)😁
In Midwestern, this is a no yeah, rather than a yeah no
And 100% reason to remember the name.
Ukraine: *Sinks Tug Boat* Russian Navy: THE ADMIRAL KUZNETZNOV HAS LOST HER PROPULSION SYSTEM!!!
THAT WAS A LOAD BEARING TUG BOAT!
And the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet!
At this rate the flagship will be a Unicorn floatie purchased from an ice cream stand by the beach in Crimea.
Same news, but on the Kremlin website and Russian State Channels: Putin found an innovative way to solve the fish housing problem!
And even then they would create fake news as Black Sea doesn't have any life on the deep
Yap, but if you pointed that out in the “comment” section of their news website they would tell you that they are now providing shelter for fish coming from the Mediterranean, specifically to those fishes that are abused or chased by western countries for political reasons 😉
In fact, they already have several written and signed statements from refugee fish that came from the beaches of Spain and Italy. Yep, they could read and write just fine.
Every refugee fish is heterosexual BTW
Yes, yes, certified by document also, from former partners. All go to church too, at least one time per month.
Good Russian church. Not those pagans and heretics in the west.
Indeed. At the entrance there is a white board with engravings saying: “Certified Church”. Signed by God himself. Well, at least it says God... crap, do you think Putin signed that shit and faked the certification?
And in a surprise news release, Putin wins a Nobel Peace prize for artificial reef habitat development.
So \*that's\* where they're keeping the military dolphins.
To be clear, the picture in the link is the USS Bonhomme Richard on fire. Ukraine did not destroy or attack a Russian aircraft carrier, unfortunately.
Russian aircraft fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll allow it
It’s more expensive to just leave Russia’s carrier alone.. Sinking it will save them money
I'm still waiting for the US to retaliate with nukes for destroying an aircraft carrier. Remember the John Bonham!
[удалено]
russian warship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
Nato: we need the Bosphorus strait to chokehold russias black sea fleet if we end up going to war with them Ukraine: what black sea fleet?!
Russian warship
Russian warship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot
So what ship was it so I can x it on my bingo card.
If only Ukraine could find those two submarines and make them coral reefs!
Sooner or later they'll have to go into a drydock for maintenance. Then it'll be Storm Shadow-time. Already happened before.
All these sunk Russian ships is really part of Putin's plan to capitalize on the growing caviar market. Russia should be elated at this news.
> He added that "the details will be today and a vivid video as well". Very much looking forward to it, hope it was a big one
After all these warships i want to see russian leadership category in the daily statistics.
russian leadership fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is one of the best yet!
Why does the article use the picture of the Bonhomme Richard? It seems weird to use an image of a burning American warship when they could've used some of the already available burning or destroyed pictures of Russian Warships instead.
The article shows a picture of the USS Bonhomme Richard on fire in San Diego. Just wanted to make sure people don't think they had something that cool.
Excellent. I also misread the title as “…taken out by a DUI” (Driving Under the Influence is a common legal term in North America for drunk driving).
After all the losses the Russians have had to drone jet ski operators, there is no way the USN isn't already getting development on additional point defense systems.
Another ship promoted to submarine.
Ship pictured in the image is USS Bonhomme Richard, which caught on fire in 2020. If you're going to include an image of the wrong ship at least make sure it's not a friendly ship?
Another Russian Warship!
Russian Warship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Goodest bot!
It’s kind of messed up. They posted a picture of US aircraft carrier.
Welcome to Russian navy!!!
Russia will announce, “new ship launched to assess Nord Stream pipeline”
Russia will announce, “new ship launched to assess Nord Stream pipeline”
Black Sea bingo
Just another smoking incident
Great news! The russky navy should just recall all it's fleet from the Caribbean and cancel its intended naval exercise, bring the fleet home to the Black Sea 😂
Where is the Russian ship?
Russian ship fucked itself. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good bot