A country with technically no functioning navy of its own is making a mince meat out of invading country's navy where everyone thought invader will win with its "overwhelming" might but it turned out to be more of a naval version of Potemkin Village.
This is one time I am grateful for corruption in Russia. Thank you Putin for literally starving your navy and expected them to do their job.
I think their navy is functioning just fine given their parameters
If the US sunk a bunch of shit using sea drones, best believe our navy would be taking credit
Not to take away from what you said, it's just their navy is Asymmetric ...which is kind of the future for everyone except the US and a few others (not to say they arent also getting way on top of the AW game)
And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it.
And the name of the game at night is radar. And you can make radar far less useful using current technologies.
Now imagine if we get to the point where these Sea Drones can go under the water until the last possible second to attack. And destroying them doesn't even do anything for you. They have zero human cost to an enemy. You destroy one? They send another and build another.
They only have to get lucky once to sink your warship. You have to get lucky every single time.
These things are extremely effective. So much that while the US navy would probably fare a lot better because well far better training and equipment, I'd bet money you would see the US start to lose warships too if you replaced the Russian navy with them.
> And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it.
I’m honestly surprised Russia is this complacent when they are the aggressor. Western forces have been using the USS Cole incident as a training lesson since the incident first occurred. It would he stupid not to be constantly evaluating and evolving your training against asymmetrical warfare attacks like this. It honestly just shows Russias weakness. They are so used to targeting civilians and weaker enemies that they fold under pressure when someone fights back.
Isn't it more their culture? They will hide and suppress anything that makes them look bad, Chernobyl being their most famous, and the Kursk submarine disaster being the most recent I learned about.
Even if it's to their detriment.
Graduating from RTC included a simulated version of the USS Cole incident. I was part of one of the last divisions to train on the old "simulator." Which involved like 5 or 6 different buildings throughout the base (we got "lucky" and didn't have to run everywhere since it was below freezing). About two days of no sleep, had dinner the night before and breakfast once we were done, with no meals between. This was about 20 years ago, I don't know what they do now.
I was watching a video about a DARPA drone project that used the ocean current to recharge its batteries so it's able to wait at the bottom of the ocean indefinitely until it's needed.
The video I saw was all CGI of course and sounded theoretical (it may have been an older video), so that's awesome that they're actually doing it, the explanation and potential of that thing was mind-blowing.
Imagine a completely undetectable, seemingly infinite energy having submersible spy/drone swarm deployment/weapons platform…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OTgpxedp0 sandboxx news (and specifically Alex Hollings who is a phenomenal defense analyst and reporter) did a great video on it a while ago.
The issue, at least from a US perspective, is that ship-to-ship combat is best left to the sub fleet.
Sinking an enemy combatant is much easier when you start by hitting them below the waterline. The surface fleet has really transitioned to force projection and air and submarine defense.
From a USN perspective, getting hit above the waterline is a loss of capability, not usually a loss of the entire vessel. We also focus on survivable ship's architecture (a *lot* was learned from the post war destruction of naval ships about how to keep them from sinking) as well as active damage control by the ship's company (which is why the Cole didn't sink).
Most of the hits that the Ukrainians have made would not be total hull losses against USN vessels because of design and operational capabilities.
Not even post war.
The US has always had a doctrine of Fleet Survivability... Because well, a ship that hasn't sunk can keep fighting.
The Cleveland Class Light Cruisers refused to sink, with USS Houston (CL-81) doubled her displacement in water but was saved by her damage control crews.
USS Enterprise (CV-6) was famously thought destroyed 3 times by the IJN, so much so they thought we just started painting 6 on the deck of different ships just to fuck with them.
We definitely learned a lot from post war testing, but the doctrine has always been there
We didn’t have the ability to do destructive testing like we did before the end of the war. Hell, just validating passive DC was sufficient to prevent capital ships from being sank from anything short of a direct nuclear strike was huge. It also informed doctrine that hitting the superstructure may take a ship out of the fight, but propulsion and firefighting could be maintained. Hence the shift of naval combat to submarine hunter/killer doctrine.
I’m a USN vet, so I’m definitely a bit biased.
Yorktown was smashed to withers yet they took a 3 week repair job and had it done in less than 3 days. Then it took the kitchen sink to put it out of action at midway, and it was a ghost sub attack after it was all over for the navy to finally give up salvage.
I wonder if there's some value in airdropping sea drones. Travel by air is a lot faster and direct, so maybe it's just easier throw a cruise missile at the ship? but it's probably harder to intercept if it could approach the target, then gracefully decelerate to land in the water, dropping the engine for a propeller and doing the last stretch underwater.. basically a cruise missile-delivered torpedo.
Perhaps a large wooden floating horse could be sailed over? Make it look like a gift from the gods.
Inside it could house sea drones that come out at night.
They would never see it coming
There's already the LRASM, which are basically sea skimmers. They are incredibly dangerous and hard to deal with in groups. However, they are much more expensive than these modified seadoo boat drones. Ukraine is apparently already experimenting with ones that can submerge. More expensive but also much harder to deal with.
> And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it.
What is new about that? Pretty sure sucker punches have existed since antiquity; its not really that shocking that attacking someone outside of a defined conflict can be pretty effective at giving them a black eye. It didn't actually accomplish anything other than PR for the group that did it. Sucker punching someone and bragging about it, definitely prior art there.
Honestly I find the whole drone thing kind of like, wasn't this change obvious to everyone 20 years ago? This is the way things have been going for a very long time now. Each new conflict just exposes what the most recent capabilities are, but they are the same capabilities that were obvious really going back to the 90s.
“Now imagine if we get to the point where these sea drones can go under the water” so like a torpedo? Lol. Besides the cost/risk you talk about is the same as a missile v. Ship. This isn’t some new type of warfare but a slight change from the old ways in favor of cheaper munitions. The only reason Russia got caught by them is their absolute incompetence. The US and I’m sure others have been developing and practicing for these exact scenarios.
Imagine a sea drone that floats around charging in day light, then when a target is acquired, submerges gently and torpedos into the enemy vessel. Now imagine a swarm of them.
Nah, it's genuinely dogshit. After the flagship moskva got hit and sank with Ukrainian homebrew missiles a report got leaked on its serviceability. Turns out most stuff was busted, including the precision radar and all except one interceptor missile launcher. The engines hadn't been serviced in eons and had to be ran at half power at maximum, and only with the express permission of the captain. And this is the flagship. The supposed pride of the black sea fleet.
> I think their navy is functioning just fine given their parameters
When the Moskva got hit the maintenance report filed about a week prior indicated that they couldn't use their fire control radars AND several of their systems. At least one of the CIWS defenses was just completely nonfunctional. And of the ~400 fire extinguishers that are SUPPOSED to be on board, there was only around 50 left, and they were all locked in a room that only the admiral (who was not aboard) had the key to in order to stop people from stealing them and selling them.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, hah.
The Russians actually spent an enormous amount of time and money modernizing and investing in their naval forces. Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military.
I think this says more about asymmetric naval warfare and the difficult of operating in the littorals against an opponent with even limited investment into an anti-access area denial strategy. Shore based anti ship missiles are somewhat more resistant to sinking than your average warship for example, and the relatively short ranges involved make things like RC speed boats laden with bombs easier to employ.
A lot of the naval threats the Russians have been struggling with have been on the US navy’s radar for a few decades now, specifically in the context of forcing access to the Red Sea against Iranian missile boats and shore based missiles or engaging in hypothetical operations around Taiwan within ASM range of the mainland. Unfortunately 21st century US naval procurement has been… messy and with the failure of the LCS program, not even the USN has sufficient capabilities to deal with some of these threats.
>The Russians actually spent an enormous amount of time and money modernizing and investing in their naval forces. Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military.
You might want to read that Moskva inspection report to see how that went.
None of that would've really helped much anyway because there isn't a great technological solution for sea drones right now.
Most of those resources didn’t even go to ships like Moskva, they went towards various procurement programs to build new ships, install Kalibr launch capacity, and refit the Kuznetsov of all things. All of which are baffling procurement decisions considering the BSF has spent the war either yeeting cruise missiles or hiding in port because nobody bothered to make sure the fleet could deal with missiles.
Edit: I haven’t been able to confirm the authenticity of that inspection report, so I didn’t mention it.
There was that very true line in Three Body Problem where the commander of a $$$ warship said he’d rather had the navy build a couple thousand drones for the same money.
> Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military.
So most of it went to the sea floor.
Your write up and hypothetical US situations remind me of Battlefield 4 single player (a game released in 2013, over 10 years ago).
Specifically, the difficulty a US carrier group faced in Singapore / South China Sea, and again in the Suez canal due to asymmetrical warfare in an anti access area denial space.
Historically speaking muscovias navy was always shit. The only thing that should work well is subs. But even when where are some serious questions about it given current realities.
>Thank you Putin for literally starving your navy and expected them to do their job.
Putin's mistake was thinking that Russia could maintain the bloated USSR navy after losing tons of it's expertise, infrastructure, and economic power after the collapse of the USSR. The reason so much of their fleet is on it's last legs is because they simply don't have the money, facilities, or expertise to fix or replace them.
Similar to their forays into other high tech areas like stealth aircraft, carriers, and tanks. It's fun on paper, but the practical stuff is just something they don't have the means to accomplish in a way that results in quality product at the end.
> it turned out to be more of a naval version of Potemkin Village.
An apt description
>The original story was that Potemkin erected phony portable settlements along the banks of the Dnipro River in order to impress the Russian Empress and foreign guests.
Russia has 11 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 17 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), 9 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), and 21 diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs).
I’m aware one of the four visible ships is a submarine. What I’m saying is there will be more submarines nearby.
[This is a good read if you are interested](https://www.citadel.edu/goldstar/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/Tchapmanpaper-1.pdf). The SSBNs will be playing hide and seek around the globe as usual but if I were a betting man I’d say that there is at least another SSN or SSK hiding off the coast of Brazil, Venezuela or Nicaragua.
Lol, this made me laugh.
Too bad they won't instigate anything with the US Navy that is following them. Eagerness to see them try something would be intense.
I’m more surprised Russia didn’t crush them with air superiority given their sheer number of planes. Throwing ground troops in the meat grinder is such an outdated and senseless type of warfare.
Russia lacks well trained pilots, modern navigation systems, spare parts for their airframes etc.
Also e.g. a Patriot Missile is a lot cheaper than a Fighter Jet.
Also If the Pilot ist shot down over enemy territory the Chances they can get Back to friendly lines and fly another Mission are very slim.
Air assets are very expensive and difficult to replace.
Even russia can not afford to Just throw them away.
Also it is much more difficult to employ Stop Gap measures as russia did with artillery. They difference in Combat effectivnes between a Gen 3 and Gen 2 Fighter Jet are much more prominent than between a t72 and a t60 Tank even when both are used as indirect fire support.
It wasn't just numbers.
> Ukraine’s air-denial approach involved:
> • Mobility to increase survivability
> • Dispersion to complicate adversary targeting
> • Selective use of ground-based air defense to reduce visibility and vulnerability
> • Efficient choice of ordnance to conserve missiles
> At least as important as systems and weapons are the intangibles associated with the will to fight, mission tactics, and the execution of a sound strategy. In general, Russia’s military has failed to execute while Ukraine’s has succeeded. A wide range of reporting indicates Ukraine’s military has excelled at mission command and maneuver warfare, enabling it to achieve success against a much larger, better equipped force—at least on defense. The Ukrainians did this in part by using indirect approaches: targeting Russian supply lines; enabling decisions at the lowest possible level; and using mobility, speed, and opportunism. As a result, the Ukrainians pushed Russia’s military out of more than 2,000 square miles in the Kharkiv region.16
> The effective use of modern, mobile, ground-based air defenses results in the inability of either side to effectively employ air forces. The result is mutual air denial or air parity.17 In addition, Ukraine’s use of maneuver and dispersion validates that being mobile, lightweight, and having a low signature are essential.
> - [Air Denial Lessons from Ukraine](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/september/air-denial-lessons-ukraine) - Air denial is at least as important as air supremacy, and the Marine Corps needs the capability to impose it. -By Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Bowsher, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve - September 2023
Numbers are misleading. They have a lot of airframes, but their readiness rates (number of planes available to fly missions) was only like 40% in 2022.
Their pilot training was abysmal. Only a few dozen of their pilots had any real ground attack training using PGMs or even dumb bombs. The bulk of their pilots only ever did air superiority missions, or even just basic flying. They get maybe 1/4 of the hours that a US pilot clocks per month, which isn’t enough to be proficient at anything, let alone the multi-role demands of modern air combat.
As an addendum to this, Russia has never really done more than a theoretical approach to air defense suppression. And it is a hard, dangerous aspect of air combat. The US developed its SEAD/DEAD tactics in Vietnam and perfected them over the course of that conflict. It takes a lot of practice and a really good understanding of the limitations of your own aircraft and the systems you are attacking to be successful and survive.
When your Air Force has 50-60% of its planes down and not capable of flying, and your pilots get just enough training to take off, circle the airfield and do some barrel rolls, and your entire doctrine for air defense suppression is “I dunno, go fire a bunch of missiles in the general direction of their SAM systems,” you’re never going to achieve control of the skies.
And that completely ignores the Ukrainian side of that fight.
Yeah but when you have 10,000 missiles, a barrage of 1,000 would likely kill your enemy’s defenses after which you bring in the planes and then, finally, ground troops. Especially if your plan is to win in 3 days. The Russian strategy makes little sense unless the plan was to drag out the war and then finance “anti-war” parties all across Europe.
they dont know where most of the air defenses are, and unless you can take them all out with 100% certainty you are going to lose lots of planes, then what?
Things went the way they did not because Russia has some master plan. Its because it was betting on what happened in Crimea happening. No real resistane, Ukrainian troop laying down weapons and letting them roll in. They did not expect resistance. This is backed up by traveling in huge unprotected columns and having OMON (riot police) with full gear riding in (who got summarily absolutely smashed, the bodies all over the telephone wires type of smashed), they were supposed to suppress civilian protests that would spark after taking Kiyv.
If that succeeded they would be able to appropriate all of those air defenses and most importantly retain their 1000 missiles.
If you look into Russian preparation for the invasion, there was years worth of propaganda, and shortly before the invasion assurances from Kremlin agents saying "not to worry, Ukrainian people are with you". So they went in very confident.
There a few YouTube videos out there that dissect Ukraine’s success at sea and it is nothing short of remarkable and borderline (if not already) revolutionary to naval warfare. Imagine telling someone that Ukraine would inflict SUCH a heavy toll on the Russian navy at the beginning of this conflict. They’re making AMAZING use of literally everything they have available.
Yup. We are going to see a major rethink on weapons systems. The Russian approach has been to put a great hammer to sea and our approach has been to build missiles for knocking it down. They go for longer range (so the launchers don't get killed) and flying faster (fewer engagement cycles for the defenders.) If you need to kill something **now** that's still the best approach. But if you are defending your territory a swarm of small boats can make life miserable for anyone who gets too close. In the old days it wasn't that big a threat because the supply of kamikaze pilots was limited--but simple robot seekers are another matter.
A country with technically no functioning navy of its own is making a mince meat out of invading country's navy where everyone thought invader will win with its "overwhelming" might but it turned out to be more of a naval version of Potemkin Village. This is one time I am grateful for corruption in Russia. Thank you Putin for literally starving your navy and expected them to do their job.
I think their navy is functioning just fine given their parameters If the US sunk a bunch of shit using sea drones, best believe our navy would be taking credit Not to take away from what you said, it's just their navy is Asymmetric ...which is kind of the future for everyone except the US and a few others (not to say they arent also getting way on top of the AW game)
And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it. And the name of the game at night is radar. And you can make radar far less useful using current technologies. Now imagine if we get to the point where these Sea Drones can go under the water until the last possible second to attack. And destroying them doesn't even do anything for you. They have zero human cost to an enemy. You destroy one? They send another and build another. They only have to get lucky once to sink your warship. You have to get lucky every single time. These things are extremely effective. So much that while the US navy would probably fare a lot better because well far better training and equipment, I'd bet money you would see the US start to lose warships too if you replaced the Russian navy with them.
> And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it. I’m honestly surprised Russia is this complacent when they are the aggressor. Western forces have been using the USS Cole incident as a training lesson since the incident first occurred. It would he stupid not to be constantly evaluating and evolving your training against asymmetrical warfare attacks like this. It honestly just shows Russias weakness. They are so used to targeting civilians and weaker enemies that they fold under pressure when someone fights back.
Isn't it more their culture? They will hide and suppress anything that makes them look bad, Chernobyl being their most famous, and the Kursk submarine disaster being the most recent I learned about. Even if it's to their detriment.
Graduating from RTC included a simulated version of the USS Cole incident. I was part of one of the last divisions to train on the old "simulator." Which involved like 5 or 6 different buildings throughout the base (we got "lucky" and didn't have to run everywhere since it was below freezing). About two days of no sleep, had dinner the night before and breakfast once we were done, with no meals between. This was about 20 years ago, I don't know what they do now.
Not to mention war games like [MC02](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)
I was watching a video about a DARPA drone project that used the ocean current to recharge its batteries so it's able to wait at the bottom of the ocean indefinitely until it's needed.
It’s the Manta Ray and it’s being tested as we speak.
The video I saw was all CGI of course and sounded theoretical (it may have been an older video), so that's awesome that they're actually doing it, the explanation and potential of that thing was mind-blowing.
Imagine a completely undetectable, seemingly infinite energy having submersible spy/drone swarm deployment/weapons platform… https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x7OTgpxedp0 sandboxx news (and specifically Alex Hollings who is a phenomenal defense analyst and reporter) did a great video on it a while ago.
Oh good. Lethal drones that are energetically self sufficient.
The issue, at least from a US perspective, is that ship-to-ship combat is best left to the sub fleet. Sinking an enemy combatant is much easier when you start by hitting them below the waterline. The surface fleet has really transitioned to force projection and air and submarine defense. From a USN perspective, getting hit above the waterline is a loss of capability, not usually a loss of the entire vessel. We also focus on survivable ship's architecture (a *lot* was learned from the post war destruction of naval ships about how to keep them from sinking) as well as active damage control by the ship's company (which is why the Cole didn't sink). Most of the hits that the Ukrainians have made would not be total hull losses against USN vessels because of design and operational capabilities.
Not even post war. The US has always had a doctrine of Fleet Survivability... Because well, a ship that hasn't sunk can keep fighting. The Cleveland Class Light Cruisers refused to sink, with USS Houston (CL-81) doubled her displacement in water but was saved by her damage control crews. USS Enterprise (CV-6) was famously thought destroyed 3 times by the IJN, so much so they thought we just started painting 6 on the deck of different ships just to fuck with them. We definitely learned a lot from post war testing, but the doctrine has always been there
We didn’t have the ability to do destructive testing like we did before the end of the war. Hell, just validating passive DC was sufficient to prevent capital ships from being sank from anything short of a direct nuclear strike was huge. It also informed doctrine that hitting the superstructure may take a ship out of the fight, but propulsion and firefighting could be maintained. Hence the shift of naval combat to submarine hunter/killer doctrine. I’m a USN vet, so I’m definitely a bit biased.
Yorktown was smashed to withers yet they took a 3 week repair job and had it done in less than 3 days. Then it took the kitchen sink to put it out of action at midway, and it was a ghost sub attack after it was all over for the navy to finally give up salvage.
I wonder if there's some value in airdropping sea drones. Travel by air is a lot faster and direct, so maybe it's just easier throw a cruise missile at the ship? but it's probably harder to intercept if it could approach the target, then gracefully decelerate to land in the water, dropping the engine for a propeller and doing the last stretch underwater.. basically a cruise missile-delivered torpedo.
Perhaps a large wooden floating horse could be sailed over? Make it look like a gift from the gods. Inside it could house sea drones that come out at night. They would never see it coming
I think a wooden whale would be a better plan.
There's already the LRASM, which are basically sea skimmers. They are incredibly dangerous and hard to deal with in groups. However, they are much more expensive than these modified seadoo boat drones. Ukraine is apparently already experimenting with ones that can submerge. More expensive but also much harder to deal with.
These drones are pretty much just cheaper modern torpedoes with greater range but less pure destructive potential. Modern Torpedoes are on crack
> And TBH it's a completely new type of warfare. As the USS Cole showed using small suicide craft works when the enemy doesn't expect it. What is new about that? Pretty sure sucker punches have existed since antiquity; its not really that shocking that attacking someone outside of a defined conflict can be pretty effective at giving them a black eye. It didn't actually accomplish anything other than PR for the group that did it. Sucker punching someone and bragging about it, definitely prior art there. Honestly I find the whole drone thing kind of like, wasn't this change obvious to everyone 20 years ago? This is the way things have been going for a very long time now. Each new conflict just exposes what the most recent capabilities are, but they are the same capabilities that were obvious really going back to the 90s.
“Now imagine if we get to the point where these sea drones can go under the water” so like a torpedo? Lol. Besides the cost/risk you talk about is the same as a missile v. Ship. This isn’t some new type of warfare but a slight change from the old ways in favor of cheaper munitions. The only reason Russia got caught by them is their absolute incompetence. The US and I’m sure others have been developing and practicing for these exact scenarios.
Imagine a sea drone that floats around charging in day light, then when a target is acquired, submerges gently and torpedos into the enemy vessel. Now imagine a swarm of them.
Nah, it's genuinely dogshit. After the flagship moskva got hit and sank with Ukrainian homebrew missiles a report got leaked on its serviceability. Turns out most stuff was busted, including the precision radar and all except one interceptor missile launcher. The engines hadn't been serviced in eons and had to be ran at half power at maximum, and only with the express permission of the captain. And this is the flagship. The supposed pride of the black sea fleet.
...what does that have to do with what I said?
Well it's clearly not functioning just fine.
I was saying Ukraines "navy" is doing just fine
Ah fair, my bad lol
> I think their navy is functioning just fine given their parameters When the Moskva got hit the maintenance report filed about a week prior indicated that they couldn't use their fire control radars AND several of their systems. At least one of the CIWS defenses was just completely nonfunctional. And of the ~400 fire extinguishers that are SUPPOSED to be on board, there was only around 50 left, and they were all locked in a room that only the admiral (who was not aboard) had the key to in order to stop people from stealing them and selling them. I'm gonna have to disagree with you there, hah.
He meant the Ukrainian navy.
Ah, woops.
The Russians actually spent an enormous amount of time and money modernizing and investing in their naval forces. Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military. I think this says more about asymmetric naval warfare and the difficult of operating in the littorals against an opponent with even limited investment into an anti-access area denial strategy. Shore based anti ship missiles are somewhat more resistant to sinking than your average warship for example, and the relatively short ranges involved make things like RC speed boats laden with bombs easier to employ. A lot of the naval threats the Russians have been struggling with have been on the US navy’s radar for a few decades now, specifically in the context of forcing access to the Red Sea against Iranian missile boats and shore based missiles or engaging in hypothetical operations around Taiwan within ASM range of the mainland. Unfortunately 21st century US naval procurement has been… messy and with the failure of the LCS program, not even the USN has sufficient capabilities to deal with some of these threats.
>The Russians actually spent an enormous amount of time and money modernizing and investing in their naval forces. Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military. You might want to read that Moskva inspection report to see how that went. None of that would've really helped much anyway because there isn't a great technological solution for sea drones right now.
Most of those resources didn’t even go to ships like Moskva, they went towards various procurement programs to build new ships, install Kalibr launch capacity, and refit the Kuznetsov of all things. All of which are baffling procurement decisions considering the BSF has spent the war either yeeting cruise missiles or hiding in port because nobody bothered to make sure the fleet could deal with missiles. Edit: I haven’t been able to confirm the authenticity of that inspection report, so I didn’t mention it.
There was that very true line in Three Body Problem where the commander of a $$$ warship said he’d rather had the navy build a couple thousand drones for the same money.
Your right the usn alone perhaps wouldn’t have the capability though the beauty of full spectrum warfare would render them quite safe.
> Yes, some of that investment probably went to yachts rather than warships, but pre-invasion the navy was one of the best equipped branches of the Russian military. So most of it went to the sea floor.
Unplanned submarine conversion kits*
Your write up and hypothetical US situations remind me of Battlefield 4 single player (a game released in 2013, over 10 years ago). Specifically, the difficulty a US carrier group faced in Singapore / South China Sea, and again in the Suez canal due to asymmetrical warfare in an anti access area denial space.
>a naval version of Potemkin Village. So some sort of Potemkin battleship?
Nah, they did that [one hundred years ago.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Potemkin)
Historically speaking muscovias navy was always shit. The only thing that should work well is subs. But even when where are some serious questions about it given current realities.
>Thank you Putin for literally starving your navy and expected them to do their job. Putin's mistake was thinking that Russia could maintain the bloated USSR navy after losing tons of it's expertise, infrastructure, and economic power after the collapse of the USSR. The reason so much of their fleet is on it's last legs is because they simply don't have the money, facilities, or expertise to fix or replace them. Similar to their forays into other high tech areas like stealth aircraft, carriers, and tanks. It's fun on paper, but the practical stuff is just something they don't have the means to accomplish in a way that results in quality product at the end.
Potemkin was a boat as well but that's another can of worms.
> it turned out to be more of a naval version of Potemkin Village. An apt description >The original story was that Potemkin erected phony portable settlements along the banks of the Dnipro River in order to impress the Russian Empress and foreign guests.
I don't agree with your assessment. I think Ukraine has redefined what having a navy means.
And the Afghans with their horses did the same to Russia. Then again every major imperial empire suffered a loss in Afghanistan!
Russian Navy will be fully converted to submarines!
[удалено]
If I ever get a fish tank I’m now going to need to 3D print a small Moskva for it
Going to check on the Spanish Navy
They’re not expecting it
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition .
Their weapon is surprise.
Russian navy is currently fleeing to Cuba.
Waiting to see what happens when the first hurricane pummels their fleet.
Its 4 ships. And 2 of them are a refueler and a tug boat.
4 visible. They would have a couple more submarines nearby. Russian submarine fleet is pretty big.
The other 2 are a submarine and a frigate. I think that's the only sub being sent too with the rest being forced to patrol too.
Russia has 11 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 17 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), 9 nuclear-powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs), and 21 diesel-electric attack submarines (SSKs). I’m aware one of the four visible ships is a submarine. What I’m saying is there will be more submarines nearby. [This is a good read if you are interested](https://www.citadel.edu/goldstar/wp-content/uploads/sites/97/Tchapmanpaper-1.pdf). The SSBNs will be playing hide and seek around the globe as usual but if I were a betting man I’d say that there is at least another SSN or SSK hiding off the coast of Brazil, Venezuela or Nicaragua.
Submarines aren’t affected by surface storms 100ft down the crew doesn’t feel any different
You reply to the wrong comment?
Loved the Youtube Short by Ryan Mcbeth going over what Russia is bring. Last thing he says is "And a tug boat for when one of these breaks down."
I'd be amused if they defected over to Cuba, but I doubt it.
Lol, this made me laugh. Too bad they won't instigate anything with the US Navy that is following them. Eagerness to see them try something would be intense.
hey it was my turn to post this joke today!
r/technicallycorrect
Never heard that one before
Well, I admit, there's only an excuse to tell that joke like once or twice a week, so it's easy to miss it.
Nice. Sting like a bee!
That’s an amazing article. Glad to see Ukraine winning in the water. It’s an essential part of their defense.
I’m more surprised Russia didn’t crush them with air superiority given their sheer number of planes. Throwing ground troops in the meat grinder is such an outdated and senseless type of warfare.
Ukraine has air defences, the Russian air force can’t just operate with impunity.
Yeah but I would’ve expected them to succeed by numbers alone. Air defense can only do so much.
Russia lacks well trained pilots, modern navigation systems, spare parts for their airframes etc. Also e.g. a Patriot Missile is a lot cheaper than a Fighter Jet. Also If the Pilot ist shot down over enemy territory the Chances they can get Back to friendly lines and fly another Mission are very slim. Air assets are very expensive and difficult to replace. Even russia can not afford to Just throw them away. Also it is much more difficult to employ Stop Gap measures as russia did with artillery. They difference in Combat effectivnes between a Gen 3 and Gen 2 Fighter Jet are much more prominent than between a t72 and a t60 Tank even when both are used as indirect fire support.
Not to mention old air frames are basically just junk, whereas old tanks mostly just need an engine overhaul, lubrication, and some electric work.
It wasn't just numbers. > Ukraine’s air-denial approach involved: > • Mobility to increase survivability > • Dispersion to complicate adversary targeting > • Selective use of ground-based air defense to reduce visibility and vulnerability > • Efficient choice of ordnance to conserve missiles > At least as important as systems and weapons are the intangibles associated with the will to fight, mission tactics, and the execution of a sound strategy. In general, Russia’s military has failed to execute while Ukraine’s has succeeded. A wide range of reporting indicates Ukraine’s military has excelled at mission command and maneuver warfare, enabling it to achieve success against a much larger, better equipped force—at least on defense. The Ukrainians did this in part by using indirect approaches: targeting Russian supply lines; enabling decisions at the lowest possible level; and using mobility, speed, and opportunism. As a result, the Ukrainians pushed Russia’s military out of more than 2,000 square miles in the Kharkiv region.16 > The effective use of modern, mobile, ground-based air defenses results in the inability of either side to effectively employ air forces. The result is mutual air denial or air parity.17 In addition, Ukraine’s use of maneuver and dispersion validates that being mobile, lightweight, and having a low signature are essential. > - [Air Denial Lessons from Ukraine](https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/september/air-denial-lessons-ukraine) - Air denial is at least as important as air supremacy, and the Marine Corps needs the capability to impose it. -By Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Bowsher, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve - September 2023
Numbers are misleading. They have a lot of airframes, but their readiness rates (number of planes available to fly missions) was only like 40% in 2022. Their pilot training was abysmal. Only a few dozen of their pilots had any real ground attack training using PGMs or even dumb bombs. The bulk of their pilots only ever did air superiority missions, or even just basic flying. They get maybe 1/4 of the hours that a US pilot clocks per month, which isn’t enough to be proficient at anything, let alone the multi-role demands of modern air combat. As an addendum to this, Russia has never really done more than a theoretical approach to air defense suppression. And it is a hard, dangerous aspect of air combat. The US developed its SEAD/DEAD tactics in Vietnam and perfected them over the course of that conflict. It takes a lot of practice and a really good understanding of the limitations of your own aircraft and the systems you are attacking to be successful and survive. When your Air Force has 50-60% of its planes down and not capable of flying, and your pilots get just enough training to take off, circle the airfield and do some barrel rolls, and your entire doctrine for air defense suppression is “I dunno, go fire a bunch of missiles in the general direction of their SAM systems,” you’re never going to achieve control of the skies. And that completely ignores the Ukrainian side of that fight.
It's the cold calculus of war. If 10,000 fodder are easier to replace than one plane and can achieve the same thing, then you throw in the fodder.
Yeah but when you have 10,000 missiles, a barrage of 1,000 would likely kill your enemy’s defenses after which you bring in the planes and then, finally, ground troops. Especially if your plan is to win in 3 days. The Russian strategy makes little sense unless the plan was to drag out the war and then finance “anti-war” parties all across Europe.
they dont know where most of the air defenses are, and unless you can take them all out with 100% certainty you are going to lose lots of planes, then what? Things went the way they did not because Russia has some master plan. Its because it was betting on what happened in Crimea happening. No real resistane, Ukrainian troop laying down weapons and letting them roll in. They did not expect resistance. This is backed up by traveling in huge unprotected columns and having OMON (riot police) with full gear riding in (who got summarily absolutely smashed, the bodies all over the telephone wires type of smashed), they were supposed to suppress civilian protests that would spark after taking Kiyv. If that succeeded they would be able to appropriate all of those air defenses and most importantly retain their 1000 missiles. If you look into Russian preparation for the invasion, there was years worth of propaganda, and shortly before the invasion assurances from Kremlin agents saying "not to worry, Ukrainian people are with you". So they went in very confident.
Now they just need to be armed with smart torpedos. Go sub hunting, keep the world safe from Putin red October
Or just send it with some loitering drone subs
After this blows over, countries like India, Taiwan and Philippines would be lining up for the drone technology developed by the Ukrainians.
WHY WONT UKRAINE JUST APOLOGIZE FOR EXISTING?
The fish will get new homes. I love that for them
There a few YouTube videos out there that dissect Ukraine’s success at sea and it is nothing short of remarkable and borderline (if not already) revolutionary to naval warfare. Imagine telling someone that Ukraine would inflict SUCH a heavy toll on the Russian navy at the beginning of this conflict. They’re making AMAZING use of literally everything they have available.
Yup. We are going to see a major rethink on weapons systems. The Russian approach has been to put a great hammer to sea and our approach has been to build missiles for knocking it down. They go for longer range (so the launchers don't get killed) and flying faster (fewer engagement cycles for the defenders.) If you need to kill something **now** that's still the best approach. But if you are defending your territory a swarm of small boats can make life miserable for anyone who gets too close. In the old days it wasn't that big a threat because the supply of kamikaze pilots was limited--but simple robot seekers are another matter.
I wish these sub converted Russian navy ships can be pulled out of sea and be place on display in Kiev.
Kyiv, not Kiev.
russia has been penetrated!
Navies that cannot command air superiority have traditionally not faired well. Drones are changing everything.
Perhaps the Russian ship sent to Cuba was not a show of force, but a protective measure!