Naval firepower rated: China comes 4th

If you guys are so determined to make the calculation that much more complicated, maybe you want to ponder the impact of the USN's lack of littorial combat craft relative to many of the lower ranked (in that calc) countries

Click to expand...

The US is building LCS..55 I think. Present naval doctrine has long excluded littoral combat. But the USN realizes that sea warfare has changed. And is changing with the times and updating it's technology.

Would the CBGs be as effective as the Russians if operating in the Baltic, with huge nuclear subs rather than SSKs, without any FACs at all to mention when Russia has two Bora class surface effect ships with eight SS-N-22s apeice - the USN would be asking the Norsemen for help. Imagine the USN fighting in the gulf without friendly land based air support.

Click to expand...

The US military now operates as a team. The whole is much stronger than any single element.

Aircraft from CV's will provide air cover needed for most engagements in the Gulf. That's one reason why they are there.

edit..15 minutes later;

You know what..it really does not matter. It does not. To me the bottom line is this..What navy on this planet Earth could right now defeat the USN?? I have an answer. None. And that's the bottom line.

planeman said:

Would the CBGs be as effective as the Russians if operating in the Baltic, with huge nuclear subs rather than SSKs, without any FACs at all to mention when Russia has two Bora class surface effect ships with eight SS-N-22s apeice - the USN would be asking the Norsemen for help. Imagine the USN fighting in the gulf without friendly land based air support.

Click to expand...

To answer your question yes.
1 Carrier providing air support, 1 LHD carrying attack helos (marine sea cobras, V-22, etc) 1 Tico for AAW, 2-4 Burkes, and 2-4 of the new littoral combat ships will make mincemeats out of any littoral fleet hiding in Fjords.

Helicopters armed with Penguin or Hellfire missiles will defeat any FAC that is detected.

You are also forgetting that the Standard Missile has an anti-surface capability. Blast fragmentation warhead coming at you at Mach 4 is very deadly. It can cause a definate mission kill on most large ships and cause catastrophic fires. Those SS-N-22 are not very well protected. A blast fragmentation warhed piercing through Quad laucher will expload the fuel and warhead of that missile, tearing apart the ship.

bd popeye said:

You know what..it really does not matter. It does not. To me the bottom line is this..What navy on this planet Earth could right now defeat the USN?? I have an answer. None. And that's the bottom line.

Click to expand...

Popeye, lets not be guilty of hubris. The USN is an awsome power, and rules all the oceans, but in localized combat zone, it is possible for the PLAN, Russian Navy and possibly even the Indian Navy to possibly beat the USN. It all depends on what you mean by "defeat". Sure, none of the Navies would be capable of destroying multiple CBGs, but they could mission kill carriers, sink ships necessary for amphibious landings, inflict enough casualties to score a political, if not military victory. Those situations are just examples. Every battle is part of a wider campaign. Remember that. For example, I believe that the PLAN could defeat the USN if it made the mistake of deploying two or even three CBGs to confront China in a possible Taiwan situation. Say one carrier survives and is operational at the end of the battle. Sure, most of the PLAN would be destroyed, the US would still have multiple carriers to throw at the PLAN and a lot of American ships probably would have survived, but it would have given the PLA enough time to secure Taiwan, making further action both very difficult and politically unprofitable.

The USN at the top of its game is unbeatable, and in most situations is almost unbeatable even when its not at the top of its game. But to make a blanket statement like no navy today can ever beat the USN does not take in account the incredible intricacy and unpredictability of war.

As for naval firepower, there is, as everyone has pointed out, more to it than just numbers of ASMs. The only insight I have to give is that a lot of navies, the PLAN in particular, do not have enough platforms/support to deliver their already healthy ASuW capability effectivley. Developing ASuW capability is something that developing navies do to catch up to more advanced navies. It is, in essence, an asymmetric capability. Having a good ASuW capability can allow a puny FAC to mission-kill a carrier. Of course, as has been pointed out, it is not something you can rely on though. So, soon, I think the PLAN will feel certain enough of its deterrant capability against regional navies and any US intervention to help Taiwan that it will invest in more substantial things, like carriers and an effective satillite network, that will make it a truly world class navy.

Finn, I love your post. They are very well thought out and written. I tip my hat to you.

Dang Finn, bustin' out the dictionary are you? Hurbis?? That means prideful or excessive pride or violence. I looked it up Nope that's not me. Not at all. I'm just posting what I know that's all...Nothing more. It may seem pridefull to some. But the facts are the facts..Do I have pride in the USN? Of course. but in many of my post I have pointed out it's faults. For certain the USN is not without it's faults...

As far as littoral combat is concerned..The USN would not have as a difficult time as some may think. The USN is a blue water navy...Right now..But striving to improve itself in littoral waters. In any present day senerio in a littoral combat situation the USN would apply lessons learned here;



I'm not as well versed as some of you on these matters but in a littoral situation PGM and ECM probaly would be the main weapons used by the USN. The ECM will throughly confuse any enemeny. Things would not work as they should. Electronics will go haywire. PGM dropped from CV borne and USAF aircraft would reek havoc on the enemy.

But to make a blanket statement like no navy today can ever beat the USN does not take in account the incredible intricacy and unpredictability of war.

Click to expand...

Finn I did take that into account. That's why I know the USN side would prevail. The USN actually sends it's ships to sea to train it's crews on how tio deal with any sort of wartime situation. USN sailors know how to operate it's equipment with effiency.

You guys know what??..This is what the USN and PLAN should be doing all the time instead of planning to destroy each other:



You know why? Because War sucks..big time...

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************

MigLeader..YOU are NOT a moderator. You have no authority here. We are having a freindly nonflaming discussion. Well within the limits of the group

BD Popeye Moderator

planeman said:

Jjjeeeeessssssssshhhhhhhh

The tizz Americans get into when they don't come out on top!

In the original post I say it's not perfect and that on its own its out of context and I get two pages of how wonderful the USN is and how we should include GPS guided munitions because they are great for hitting moving targets like ships:coffee:

It's all swings and roundabouts. What this exercise really highlights is that the USN places a greater emphasis on general power projection and that anti-ship missile capabilities have generally suffered as a result - and that it has fewer and less capable AShMs in service than we at first might expect.

Click to expand...

No, that's not it. The only thing that is innacurate is that the title of your thread is misleading. That's all. Russia definitely has the most impressive array of ASM's in the world. But ASM's are only a small piece of naval firepower. It would've been different had you specified rated numbers of ASM's in the world, and made some kind of disclaimer about deployability and serviceability. Then you would be accurate. Because right now, due to serviceability issues, Russia can't put even half of those numbers into play. The USN is simply able to put much more firepower on enemy ships. Period. And that includes ASM's. That's not hubris....that's fact.

If you're rating "real" naval firepower, the USN is just the most brutal in application. And is very much at the top. As far as power projection goes, yes, the USN is a power projecting force. But I don't think you understand the concepts of ASuW engagement envelopes, or how the USN deals with the ASuW mission. If you did, you would understand the USN places emphasis on it, and is currently unmatched. Again, not nationalism....just fact.

Finn McCool said:

The USN at the top of its game is unbeatable, and in most situations is almost unbeatable even when its not at the top of its game. But to make a blanket statement like no navy today can ever beat the USN does not take in account the incredible intricacy and unpredictability of war.

Click to expand...

You do realize that unpredictability and "fog of war" works both ways, right? That's where training becomes an issue. And how the USN trains is pretty impressive. I'm not too sure if PLAN and the Russian Navy follow these methods or have anything similar. But the USN always stacks the decks against themselves in training scenarios. They usually give the enemy forces near 100% readiness, 100% weapons and sensors effectiveness, and 100% awareness. And then USN forces apply statistical anomalies to their own "Blue" side. That's one way they've trained for what you talk about here.

This unpredictability is going to hit the opposing navy as well. Since they are not as experienced or seasoned, they would theoretically have a tougher time dealing with it than USN.

What I meant by hubris was the belief that American military power is unstoppable and can deal with anything that is thrown at it, an idea that gains popularity from time to time in Washington. Of course, that can never be true, even though the USN is totally dominant.

About the training thing-i respond by saying that in war a military force can find itself in impossible situations, that can result in defeat or near-defeat no matter how much better trained or armed they are. The Battle of Nasyiria in Iraq back in 2003 is a good example. Those Marines were 10 times as well trained and armed as the Iraqis they were facing but they still had their attack stopped, individual units were cut up and surrounded the whole attacking force was thrown in to defensive mode in enemy territory. Of course, the Marines won-they captured the bridges over the Euphrates and rescued their trapped comrades-but 18 men died and the battle was widely seen as a defeat by the American media.

That's what I'm talking about. No matter how well prepared or superior the USN is, it is not above the circumstances of the battle or the enemy's intelligence (like smartness, not satillite photos.)

BTW, thanks Popeye. I also think that you have invalueable expertise.

Finn McCool said:

What I meant by hubris was the belief that American military power is unstoppable and can deal with anything that is thrown at it, an idea that gains popularity from time to time in Washington.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody here made these assertions. I've read every post in this thread again, and I just don't see it. No navy or military outfit is invincible, nor has anybody said that. But I just don't see a realistic scenario occuring where the entire USN will be totally decimated by a few conventional subs and/or a few dozen surface ships firing ASM's. All with a reach of between 100km-500 Km maximum. I don't think anybody said that the Russians wouldn't be able to put some hurt on US Naval forces. Nobody's even counted their heavy SSGN....Oscar. But putting it into realistic context, yes, USN forces utterly dominate every sphere of naval warfare at the current time.

Sea Dog said:

I don't think anybody here made these assertions. I've read every post in this thread again, and I just don't see it. No navy or military outfit is invincible, nor has anybody said that. But I just don't see a realistic scenario occuring where the entire USN will be totally decimated by a few conventional subs and/or a few dozen surface ships firing ASM's. All with a reach of between 100km-500 Km maximum. Would make a nice novel however.

Click to expand...

Obviously, no navy is going to defeat the entire USN. I was never talking about that. But I don't think that it is realistic to expect a battle that the entire USN is involved in.

As for the belief in invincibility, I was more talking about a sort of "we can handle it" attitude, when in fact even the USN can get itself into situations that it can't handle. That is how forces that are superior in every respect (as the USN is to pretty much all of the world's navies) lose battles.

I think that the USN's doctrine puts protecting its own assets above hitting the enemies. Of course, the USN also has unparalled ability to hit the enemy, but it is not as offensive oriented as the Russian Navy or the PLAN. They put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. The Russian Navy or PLAN's ships aren't nearly as likely to survive a battle as a USN ship is.

Finn McCool said:

As for the belief in invincibility, I was more talking about a sort of "we can handle it" attitude, when in fact even the USN can get itself into situations that it can't handle. That is how forces that are superior in every respect (as the USN is to pretty much all of the world's navies) lose battles.

I think that the USN's doctrine puts protecting its own assets above hitting the enemies. Of course, the USN also has unparalled ability to hit the enemy, but it is not as offensive oriented as the Russian Navy or the PLAN. They put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. The Russian Navy or PLAN's ships aren't nearly as likely to survive a battle as a USN ship is.

Click to expand...

Have you ever served on a USN ship? I have. I served in two different fleets as well. And I never seen a "we can handle it" attitude as you describe. Actually the USN moves and deploys it's assets based on threat assessments. I've never seen the arrogance that you think it works with.

On your second paragraph, I totally agree. The USN is mostly concerned about keeping sea lanes safe for commerce and travel, and also deterring aggression. Not about just running around the ocean threatening everyone. They are not offensive oriented. But nor are they defensive oriented. They are multi-mission capable that emphasizes sea control and force protection.....as you say. That's a pretty good mix of both offensive and defensive postures. For example, while the Arleigh Burke packs a considerable offensive punch, it is there for one reason.....AAW force protection of carrier assets. But can go offensive at anytime. And does it pretty much better than anything else. The Russian and PLAN units do focus more on offensive aspects as a primacy in their own naval views. That's good in some respects, however, their emphasis eliminates other areas that USN can exploit. That's a given.