Soviet Navy VS The United States Navy In 1990, Who Wins?

>>1438423
This is more of /k/ though isn't it?

>>1438423
>Soviet """navy"""
>Putting Soviet "we're poor and stupid but we want into aircraft" carrier cruisers together with proper aircraft carriers

I mean, they had a shitton of submarines but they're second strike capable retaliation weapons against strategic targets, not something you use against ships.

>>1438545
Even if you let that slide:

The muricans had a shitton of technological advantages. Just look up the shit reagan pulled in the 80s. The americans most likely could start the battle in a favorable position for them. Even if that isn´t the case the americans would have such a crushing air superiority that no ship based AA would be able to compensate that.

>>1438423
I am a ginormous russiaboo, but Russia was never a naval power.
Any carrier that is not Kuznetsov is a glorified helicarrier.

>>1438423
The US has both a technological, numerical, and doctrinal advantage.

>>1438423
It's almost like two different countries in different parts of the world with different geo-politcal goals would have very different navies.

The USA needs a blue water navy to protect its global interests. The Soviet Union and by extension, Russia, need a naval force to protect its coasts.

This is why the Soviet Union didn't heavily invest in carriers because carriers are tools of aggression. The US Navy wants to bomb people so they need proper carriers to launch planes that can carry some real ordnance. The Soviet Union just wanted ASW helos and some fighter cover for its fleet. This is also why America generally had shit-tier ship launched anti-ship missiles while the Soviet Union went big on those. The US Navy preferred air launched missiles while the Soviet Union could just use land based bombers.

You can't just compare the two in a straight forward manner. While it's impossible to be 100% sure it is likely the two surface fleets would never have directly engaged each other. The Soviet Union knew a pitched battle in open waters was a horrible idea and the US Navy would never let its carrier near the coast (thus air bases) of the Soviet Union.

>>1440653
SOSUS for example. It's sensitive enough that we could tell exactly which ships and submarines were setting sail, where they were, and which captains were operating them by variations in operational sounds.

>>1438423
Russia was never a naval superpower,their only good carrier is the Kuznetsov,that's it.

>>1442854
More like their only carrier, Russians honor traditions of 2nd Pacific Squadron well.

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/troubled-russian-aircraft-carrier-kuznetsov-returns-to-sea-39881

>The vessel has not been extensively serviced since it was launched in 1985, despite having been plagued with a slew of serious problems during the course of its lifetime.

>While on deployment in the Mediterranean in 2009, a short circuit aboard the vessel caused a fire that killed one crew member. A month after the incident, an attempt to refuel the vessel at sea caused a large oil spill off the coast of Ireland.

>Last year The Daily Beast reported that the U.S. Mediterranean Fleet trailed the Kuznetsov into the Mediterranean to lend a hand in case of an emergency, according to an unidentified U.S. Navy source. "The Kuznetsov might sink," the source said.

File: 1466425005413.png (372KB, 842x720px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 842x720px

>>1443012
>>Last year The Daily Beast reported that the U.S. Mediterranean Fleet trailed the Kuznetsov into the Mediterranean to lend a hand in case of an emergency, according to an unidentified U.S. Navy source. "The Kuznetsov might sink," the source said.