pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (04/05/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in missile range...
jrll@Portia.stanford.edu (john ralls) (04/06/89)
From: john ralls <jrll@Portia.stanford.edu> > >Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the >SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger >from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft >that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats >are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in >missile range... Umm... how about diesel boats (they have about 200)? And then there's land based air... Any US CVBG that went above GIUK could expect a serious defence-in-depth. I rather doubt that it would accomplish much more than a salutory raid. Our navy is good, but the concentration of forces is heavily against us. In fact, the CVBG might run out of ammo before the Russians rran out of ships and planes. John Ralls (ex-LT, USN)
jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (04/07/89)
From: jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) }From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> }Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the }SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger }from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft }that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats }are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in }missile range... That would be a bad place to be. Forget mini-carriers- look where their LAND BASED aircraft are. That would be asking for bomber wave after bomber wave. A CV there would be a real threat against Moscow, and they would proceed to draw and quarter the task force if it took everything in the Soviet Defense Force to nail them. Up to and including nukes, if their published strategies are actually what they plan to do. Not to mention that there are a lot of SSNs and SSs based there... You brazen out an approach in the Barents and you turn into Dog food... (even worse than sneaking into the Gulf of Mexico and not expecting the Air Force and National Guard not to try to get a piece of you.) -- Disclaimer: "It's mine! All mine!!!" - D. Duck
asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) (04/07/89)
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) In article <5403@cbnews.ATT.COM> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> >Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the >SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger >from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft >that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats >are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in >missile range... Sorry but the problem is not the minicarriers. Its the land based Badgers, Backfires and Blinders under Sov Red Banner Fleet Control. They have approx 200-400 + what they can raise from Sov Air Force. These planes can range you or your CBG as far as Britain and definitely S of the GIUK line. If you go up near Murmansk they just call up the regular Sov air interceptors and chew up ANY CBG within hours. Current Sov doctrine states that u blow away CV with long range SSMs and then mop up the rest with combined surface/air attacks. Their boats other then the Kirov class and a few others don't have the endurance to sail into Mid-Atlantic unsupplied on a search&destroy mission unless they are sure that there are no CBGs around. Normally the bombers will get tagged heavily by CAP from CV but if you are in Murmansk or thereabouts you just don't have that luxury as Sov MIGs start racking up F-14s on their cockpits! Ameer Z. Sulaiman.
pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (04/07/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> From: john ralls <jrll@Portia.stanford.edu> > >Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the >SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger >from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft >that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats >are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in >missile range... Umm... how about diesel boats (they have about 200)? And then there's land based air... Any US CVBG that went above GIUK could expect a serious defence-in-depth. I rather doubt that it would accomplish much more than a salutory raid. Our navy is good, but the concentration of forces is heavily against us. In fact, the CVBG might run out of ammo before the Russians ran out of ships and planes. (<jrll@Portia.stanford>) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, I would assume that up there we would also have land-based aircover.. Either Scotland, Norway, or Sweden. Their subs would be hard to stop, I'd imagine we'd have our own out in front to engage them first, and then ASW picket lines. The resupplying would be a toughie though.... -- ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB.KALKIN@DRYCAS |----------------------------- UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04
asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) (04/11/89)
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) In article <5481@cbnews.ATT.COM> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >>Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes: >>Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the >>SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger >>from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft >>that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats >>are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in >>missile range... > >Well, I would assume that up there we would also have land-based aircover.. >Either Scotland, Norway, or Sweden. Their subs would be hard to stop, I'd >imagine we'd have our own out in front to engage them first, and then >ASW picket lines. The resupplying would be a toughie though.... >-- The problem in that theory is the RAF does not have any land based interceptors that can cover North of GIUK. The Tornado has excellent range and loiter ability but still not enough. USAF assets based at Keflavik Greenland could provide limited coverage with F-15s operating at max range for a short time. Sweden is neutral and its entry into a war with USSR is questionable given that Sweden has not been to war in over 150 years incl when Germany overran Norway/Denmark. Unless the Sovs act real dumb it is very doubtful if they'll join. Norwegian Air Force is good but it is small and would be on the frontline anyway in a war like the Luftwaffe. What's left of it by the time CVG makes it to Kola peninsula (2-3days to a week or later) will probably be unable to do the dual job of protecting Norway from Sov onslaught and covering for the Yanks. US subs are designed for ASW ops and so are RN subs and they would be able to restrict Sov sub attacks but they cannot stop sub launched cruise missile or SSMs. Plus the fact that no more than a dozen of these subs would be avail. Hard to stop subs/ships and air so close to Sov coast. And if the CV is destroyed and the TF loses air cover unless it can get to a safe harbor within 48hrs, its doomed. The subs will make it but the ships will probably all die. Only non-suicidal raid on Kola would have to resemble something like Doolittle's raid. A token gesture of strength and possibly demoralizing the enemy. BTW the diesel sub forces of Britain and Norway because of their very nature are pouncer subs and would have big problems keeping up with the TF.
pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) (04/11/89)
From: Philip Verdieck <pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu>
One facet of this discussion regarding hypothetical CBG forays which
I poorly ignored in my previous posting was, that I was referring to
dangers from the Soviet Fleet. I wasn't including their land-based
aircover in my statement. Just any forces from the fleet's air, missiles,
subs, etc.
I was hoping for a discussion on what would happen in a Fleet vs. Fleet
situation. Obviously we would have and edge with our Carrier Air Wings,
(Although that should slowly change when they have their full-size
carriers) if the action ever closed to ship-to-ship missile, who would
come out on top.
Assuming it got closer would any of our (Iowa Class?) Battleships stack
up to their Soviet couterparts?
(I would prefer to ignore subs and ASW for this conflict)
--
ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University
PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college
BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB - KALKIN@DRYCAS |-----------------------------
UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) (04/14/89)
From: asulaima@udenva.cair.du.edu (SULAIMAN) In article <5552@cbnews.ATT.COM> pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) writes: >One facet of this discussion regarding hypothetical CBG forays which >I poorly ignored in my previous posting was, that I was referring to >dangers from the Soviet Fleet. I wasn't including their land-based >aircover in my statement. Just any forces from the fleet's air, missiles, >subs, etc. > >I was hoping for a discussion on what would happen in a Fleet vs. Fleet >situation. Obviously we would have and edge with our Carrier Air Wings, >(Although that should slowly change when they have their full-size >carriers) if the action ever closed to ship-to-ship missile, who would >come out on top. >Assuming it got closer would any of our (Iowa Class?) Battleships stack >up to their Soviet couterparts? > >(I would prefer to ignore subs and ASW for this conflict) >-- First its hard to envision such a conflict. In the event that USN trapped or lured a Sov BG to battle I can say very safely that the Sovs will lose and badly so. As mentioned earlier their CVs aren't really carriers and even the Soviet navy calls them ASW cruisers. Their combat air wing of 12 or so planes will be eaten up in minutes by a US carrier wing. The ships will then fall to long range air-strikes by A-6s and F-18s. I doubt if there will be any ship-to-ship combat. Reminiscent of Midway in the respect that the ships never actually saw each other. If through some freak chance or due to loss of significant air-assets a Sov BG actually meets a US BG I think it will be even odds. The Sovs use big SSM but the US has better SSM protection on ships. The US has its Iowa class and the Sovs have the nuclear powered Kirovs. All in all it may go to the commander with better fleet tactical ability. Although this a la Jutland scenario is highly unlikely except among a group of small ships. You really can't ignore the air aspect because its a part of both sides doctrine. The Sovs use their land based naval air to grind the US CVBG down and the US plans to use the CVs planes for defence and offense. Nobody really knows for sure about the new Sov CVs but it is reported that they'll carry approx 60 planes a lot less than US CVs but then their composition will make a lot of differnce. A nightmarish scenario would be a 160 Sov Backfires flying from home and at last stage being provided air cover by a forward deployed CV of the new type with its 40-50 interceptors providing air-cover and air-superiority.