Naval attack on Russia

>>31396613
dont you just blockade their one useful port?

I don't think any tactical level of conflict is realistic given that Russia can hit the United Kingdom with cruise missiles launched from inside Russian territory.

It'd get hot, FAST.

>>31396613
That would implie that there carrier could stay afloat long enough to launch a counter attack.

>>31396623
That particular one is a troop carrier, it's not exactly intended for naval attacks

>>31396629
Yeah, their aircraft carrier would eat bong dick too, what's your point?

>>31396638
Oh, because you can't write I thought you meant the carrier in the OP's image, since you said "that there" which means the one we're looking at, not "that their".

>>31396622
Yeah, I'm sure NATO countries would love Russian cruise missiles zooming over their cities to attack an ally.

>>31396657
>It'd get hot, FAST.

>>31396669
Cruise missiles won't be the primary method of fighting, there's a limited supply of them, and methods of defence too.

And anyway, Britain could station its navy pre-emptively.

>>31396613
Russia couldn't even sustain a full-scale conventional war against Ukraine, I wouldn't worry about it.

>>31396645
It's /k/ get off your high horse.

>>31397022
>>31396645
yeah that's right!
Get of your high whores. This is a weapons bored! We don't need no fancy grandma in here, you're wrong if you don't understand what i'm trying to say.

Considering that UK has no aircraft carriers nor any anti-ship missiles except shitty Harpoons? The only adequate purpose of Royal Navy and UK military as a whole is defense of British Isles, or one limted 3-4 month long campaign in Africa/Oceania.

>>31397022
Get off your retarded horse.

>>31397182
>Considering that UK has no aircraft carriers
The first Queen Elizabeth class is due online this year.

>>31397022
>This is an internet board
>I should make a point of not having to speak properly for people to understand what I say

>>31397182
>any anti-ship missiles except shitty Harpoons?

If you are shit shitposting, at least be factual. There's aprox six or seven missiles in service that are AShMs or capable in servicing in that role. Not including arguably Brimstone and TacToms.

>The only adequate purpose of Royal Navy and UK military as a whole is defense of British Isles, or one limted 3-4 month long campaign in Africa/Oceania.

Based upon what?

>>31397199
>>31397334
If you want proper grammar go join a college English class. This is an Internet forum. Stop being pretentious dick nosels and get over it.

>>31397551
Maybe figure out that if you say what you mean to say, people will know that.

We can't see inside that head, Autismo. You gotta use your words gooder.

>>31397608
You got the point just fine and yet you refuse to adress it. I think the autism may have been inside you the whole time.

>>31396613
Russia has far more large surface combatants than the Bongs, and a crapload of corvettes. Going into Russian waters is suicide with the number of ships they have.

>>31397618
>No, you!

Bong here, hopefully that report will give Theresa the excuse to get us some shiny new toys

or at the very least go full Switzerland and give us military traning and assault rifles

>>31398297
They won't train and arm us m8, most of the country spends its weekend kicking seven bells of shit out of each other over a sport where the stars fall over when they get too close. Imagine the scene after a match when people are armed.
At most she'll commit a few extra funds or vow to by the year 2037.

>>31397743
>>31397743
>Russia has far more large surface combatants than the Bongs, and a crapload of corvettes. Going into Russian waters is suicide with the number of ships they have.

nothing the russians have could survive being hunted by the RNs SSNs, sure the surface fleet might be smaller than the russians (although its also better trained, more modern and far better maintained) but that means little if the russians cant even detect their killers

>>31396617
absolutely pointless when the majority of Russian trading occurs by land.

File: HMS Vengeance .jpg (75KB, 593x447px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 593x447px

>>31397743
>Going into Russian waters is suicide with the number of ships they have.
What are submarines, anon?

>>31401338
not him, but what are Russia's anti sub capabilities? Because you do bring up a good point about submarines considering they have a very good economy of force index/

>>31401371

>not him, but what are Russia's anti sub capabilities?

Not particularly good. It wasn't that long ago that British submarines were quite literally stealing a Russian sonar off a ship by cutting and dragging it off. While undetected.

Stealing the very thing intended to detect YOU, without being detected.

Thats a special level of mindfucking the Russians from beneath the waves.

File: nocluegetsit.gif (1MB, 480x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x264px

>>31401431

>It wasn't that long ago that British submarines were quite literally stealing a Russian sonar off a ship by cutting and dragging it off. While undetected.

You gotta be shitting me.

File: Conqueror Class.jpg (187KB, 800x1192px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x1192px

>>31401490

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48)#Operation_Barmaid

The very same ship that sunk the Belgrano too.

>>31401431

Really does sound like something from Tom Clancy that people would actually dismiss as impossible, but no. It is real.

>>31396613
A drunk chimpanzee rowing a leaky sampan can beat the Russian Navy.

>>31396905
>Russia couldn't even sustain a full-scale conventional war against Ukraine, I wouldn't worry about it.
That's because there is no sustaining if Russia wents full on conventional. ukies get steamrolled in 3 days tops.

>>31401431
but bong ASW is literally nonexistent at this point in time an the near future.

>>31396613

Russia's surface navy would fold like the malnourished unlucky outdated rust bucket it is, but their subs would pose a serious threat.

>>31403761
eh, still have the type 23s in service and they are just about the best ASW frigates in existence and the RN if it could be said to have a speciality it would be ASW

>>31401502
>A Sonar from a polish tug boat in the '80s
that has nothing to do with anti sub capabilities of modern russia.
>>31401431
Everyone sucks at anti sub today, also the whole NATO, no one trains is often enough to be capable of spotting a modern sub. But the main problem is that the weapon range of a sub is much higher than the detection range of a sub hunter

>>31397230
It's yet to conduct first sea trials and it won't come into service until 2020. As of now, there are not enough escort vessels to provide it with battle group, and brits scrapped all Harriers to buy 8 overpriced hangar queens that basically destroy carrier decks.

>>31397472
Like what, Sea Skues? Those are low-range missiles launched from the helicopters. The only AShMs onboard Type45 are 40 year old Harpoons. Talk about neglected rustbuckets

>Based upon what?
Based on "Army 2020", a document which defines shape and goals of UK military for next decade and beyond. England can't dedicate more than 30k personnel at one time and wage war longer than 8-10 weeks. Preferably without casualties.

It's a military for colonial raids into Polynesia, not a peer for high-end opponent.

>>31406707
>and brits scrapped all Harriers to buy 8 overpriced hangar queens that basically destroy carrier decks.

What did he mean by this

File: 636.3 varshavyanka b-262 stariy oskol (1).jpg (625KB, 2048x1360px) Image search: [Google]

625KB, 2048x1360px

>>31401431
>Not particularly good
>He wants to be eaten alive by Kilos
It's your life man, do whatever you want. But that's stupid.

Russian doctrine has always been to use tactical nuclear force against conventional military targets, they're banking on the idea that if they use a 50kt nuke against a military force well away from American/British soil then neither Theresa May nor Hillary Clinton would have the balls the escalate to a full nuclear exchange, opting to sue for white peace instead.

File: the great game.png (22KB, 422x403px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 422x403px

>>31407111
>well away from American/British soil
>Americans will die for the queen
Just as planned.

File: the great game.jpg (35KB, 627x427px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 627x427px

>>31407122

Your version is outdated

>>31401431
>Not particularly good. It wasn't that long ago that British submarines were quite literally stealing a Russian sonar off a ship by cutting and dragging it off. While undetected.

too much hollywood? or call of duty?

>>31407217
Nah, just russian tech being shit. It really happened.

>>31407228
>I swear it really happened, but camera battery went low

>>31407228
>russian tech being shit
In Polish hands

>>31407236
>i-impossible! Russia stronk! L-lies! Dirty hohol!
>you
Pick two

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Conqueror_(S48)#Operation_Barmaid

>>31407254
As someone who has worked with both russians and Poles, I can tell you that the russian claim to superior skills and high aptitude for using technological things is just hot air.
Operation Rimon 20 is a good example of how russians tend to overestimate their own skills and gets shat on as a result.

>>31408023
>A Sonar from a polish tug boat in the '80s
that has nothing to do with anti sub capabilities of modern russia.

>>31406707
Iv read Army2020, that's not what it says.

BTW being able to deploy 30k out of 80k I'd actually pretty good. Any more and you would be cancelling training, time off, and withdrawing from all foreign deployments (of whuch there quite a few small scale ones)which bar an invasion isn't happening.

The RN could defeat the Russian navy outside of russian waters and the army could provide a high quality division to a nato mission I'm eastern Europe and another one to Scandinavia. The millitary is not designed to do more than that on that scenario.

Any situation were the UK and russia go one to one would be outside Europe (which means uk wins) or mean that the russians have just conquered europe (which won't happen becouse MAD).

The military needs more money and this is a tried and tested way to get it. Just look how often US millitary leaders say similar things in order to try and increase their budget.

>>31401087

Its not pointless if you are denying the enemy the seas.

Brit ships could pound pretty much all of europe if they dont have to worry about the russian fleet.

>>31403761
>>31406470
This. RN's cold war mission was defending the uk-Greenland gap and designed itself around that mission. Things have moved on but the skills are still there.

>>31408131
Excuse me but tugs are an important part of a Russian cbg

>>31406707.
>Like what, Sea Skues? Those are low-range missiles launched from the helicopters. The only AShMs onboard Type45 are 40 year old Harpoons. Talk about neglected rustbuckets

You need to learn the actually learn what missiles are in service. Stop thinking that the RN is the only one with AShMs. The Type 45s are AAW ships, they are *only* for task group or carrier defence. They have no need for AShMs beyond what a helicopter with Sea Skua can do.

>Based on "Army 2020", a document which defines shape and goals of UK military for next decade and beyond. England can't dedicate more than 30k personnel at one time and wage war longer than 8-10 weeks. Preferably without casualties.

Cite me where it states that a deployment can only be sustained for 3-4 months.

SDSR2015:

4.40
>We will be able to deploy a larger force more quickly. By 2025, this highly capable expeditionary force of around 50,000 (compared with around 30,000 planned in Future Force 2020) will include:
• A maritime task group centred on a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier with F35 Lightning combat aircraft.
• A land division with three brigades including a new Strike Force.
• An air group of combat, transport and surveillance aircraft.
• A Special Forces task group.

4.41
>When the Armed Forces are not deployed at this scale, they will be able to undertake a large number of smaller operations simultaneously. These might include:
• A medium-scale operation, often drawing mostly on just one Service, such as our current counter-ISIL mission in Iraq.
• Multiple additional operations, ranging from specialist missions such as counterterrorism or counter-piracy, through to broader, more complex operations such as the military support to tackle Ebola in Sierra Leone or the enduring naval presence in the Gulf.
• A wide range of defence engagement activities, such as training teams and mentoring.

>>31406707
>As of now, there are not enough escort vessels to provide it with battle group

Use your brain, apply the simple 1/3 rule and you'll see there's enough.

>and brits scrapped all Harriers to buy 8 overpriced hangar queens that basically destroy carrier decks

Epic.

>>31406707
>8 overpriced hangar queens that basically destroy carrier decks.

when will both of these memes die

>>31408523

I do think having tomahawks (or a brit equivlent) would make the RN have a fuckload more teeth then they currently have.

Different doctrines, yeah yeah, but still.

>>31408581

They do have tomahawks.

>>31408623

On their subs, i venture to guess?

>>31408633

Yeah, RN is now adding on that capability for the surface fleet.

The Type 45s have room for additional 16 strike length (either mk41 or SSylver A-70(?)) VLS and the Type 26 will have mk41 equipped by default.

>>31408669

Ahh, yeah. I did a quick google of RN assets, and didnt see anything surface fleet wise, but now i see the new frigate is supposed to get a bunch.

Also, i learned their subs fire tomahawks out of their torpedo tubes.

>>31408690

Pretty crazy that.

We're all just hoping that other people buy the frigate (Australia looks pretty hopeful) so that the price is lowered. The one thing the the RN needs to focus on is upping ship numbers and crews.

>>31408746

Well im an American, i demand you gib frigate.

Or at least the engines, damn those LCS's cant stay running for shit.

>>31408752

Certainly welcome to buy. The common NATO frigate has always been a good idea.

It would take pressure off the LCS program for upgunning since you'd have a middle point for both a Burke and LCS.

>>31408131

And you seem to think the British tech didn't advance too?

It's quite incredible how much vatnik butthurt gets shown every time that humiliating story about their new fancy sonar completely failing to detect a submarine in LITERAL PHYSICAL CONTACT with it gets brought up. Someone should probably post the image of Russia's navy trying to fight Japan to cap it all off.

>>31396622
>cruise missiles from Russian territory
Cruise missiles or nuke ICBMs?

>>31409423
Why ladm8 of course I don't. I'm fairly convinced that nowadays British submarines are quite capable of stealing a Soviet sonar from a modern Polish tugboat.

File: kalibr missile range kaliningrad.jpg (494KB, 1388x1327px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 1388x1327px

>>31409619
Cruise missiles.

>>31410219

Its funny how much Russia has taken after US doctrine after the fall of the cold war (really actually right before).

Kalibr is essentially a tomahawk, with some variants having a mach sprint.

>>31410219

>Needing to pass over multiple countries with Patriot
>Needing to pass by plenty of ocean when there's fucktons of AAW frigates/destroyers of the EU in the area
>When the UK has some of the largest land based radars in the world watching the skies

Yeah, it ain't happening.

File: tu-95ms & kh-55sm.jpg (176KB, 1600x1007px)

176KB, 1600x1007px

>>31410380
It's funny how you don't know what the fuck are Kh-55, RK-55 and S-10, yet are trying to imply a lot about what you obviously know so few of.

>>31410433
What countries with Patriot does it need to pass? What does Partiot have to do with anything, when it can't even handle Scuds? What the fuck is radar horizon? Think about these questions carefully before pressing "Post" button again.

>>31410473

Doctrinal use and platform commonality, not just MUH RANGE, troglodyte.

>>31410505
>when it can't even handle Scuds

Wew lad. You talking about that ONE failed intercept based upon a glitch, that was fixed about two decades ago?

>>31397022
Mate, the only means of communication we have is through text. Inability to communicate properly in this medium indicates that your opinion is worthless, as you can't even express it.

>>31410556
All of which was around since the USSR, as proven by examples provided above. Try harder.

>>31410505

Germany and Denmark, not to mention if France has any SAMP/Ts near the coast (which if their ally is being threated with cruise missile strikes, they will.)

Not to mention the 6 Daring classes, the 2 Horizon classes, 3 Sachsen classes and 3
Iver Huitfeldt classes along the way from countries with such vessels in the water all with extremely potent anti-air abilities. And thats not even counting all the other anti-air ships.

Given Russia would have zero means to target anything but known static elements, and thus no way to target or judge results, tac-strikes at that distance would be both overly costly, inaccurate as fuck and aimed into the complete unknown with no telling if they disabled whatever they aimed at.

In effect, a pointless exercise in futility that would serve to only waste their stocks of missiles, especially given how difficult it would be to store any large quantity of them in such a small enclave of country with no reliable means to resupply, being surrounded on all sides by enemies.

>>31410597
>All of which was around since the USSR

All of which are incomparable to the tomahawk doctrinal and capability wise.

> Every slavaboo actually believes some patriotic shit of RT
> Doesn't realise that the british military has essentially replaced, replacing or upgraded every major piece of equipment with exception of Land rover, GR4, an the landing ships.
> Doesn't realise Russian sailor spend 90% of the year drunk in a port frozen solid, is underpaid and has no motivation.
> Doesn't realise Royal Navy sailors actually sail the globe showing the flag everywhere.

In all Honesty it would be a phoney war. Any major offensive by either power would be fucked up.
> Russia for its size of country, would not be able to use all its troops.
> Uk for its size of military would not be able to attack without being invaded and eradicating the bulk of russian forces on a home ground advantage.

> Russia tries to invade, fails, just like everyone else.
> Uk tries to invade russia, Fails like everyone else.

In the end it will come to who has more friends and who has a larger economy.
The UK has a lot of codefence treaties with other world powers in addition to having a larger economy

File: MIM-104_Patriot_operators.png (98KB, 800x407px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x407px

>>31410628
>Denmark
Yeah, right. They'll only fly over Germany if they were to hit something around the latitude of London.
>anti-air ships
That are of course strategically placed exactly where the missiles are going to fly because muh sixth sense. Not even counting that missiles can make a detour.
>Given Russia would have zero means to target anything but known static elements
So use cruise missiles exactly for what they are made? Thanks for your contribution.

>>31410219
>muh cruise missile

Every single time when you pit russian X versus a NATO equivalent it always ends up with russians falling back to muh cruise missiles.
Comparing air assets - muh cruise missiles will kill all NATO air on the ground
Comparing naval forces - muh cruise missiles will strike the ports/sink the ships
Conventional forces - muh cruise missiles will kill all NATO C3 positions, destroy ground forces and bases
Then when you bring up the fact that russia don't have reliable kill chain or means to accurately guide missiles to any mobile targets you get ignored.
If you try to bring up the fact that NATO has cruise missiles as well you'll hear that russian air defense is infallible and 110% effective while any NATO air defense will be less than worthless and completely incapable at killing anything all backed up by a single incident due to a software bug.
Someone ought to make a vatnik bingo card with all the excuses you hear russians make when it's pointed out that russia is woefully lacking in military capability compared to NATO.

File: 20021854-1.jpg (55KB, 900x554px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 900x554px

>>31410628
>how difficult it would be to store any large quantity of them in such a small enclave of country
Think again.
>with no reliable means to resupply, being surrounded on all sides by enemies
Oh no, what are they going to do if that one lone tank shared by all three Baltic states will block the path? The struggle is real!

>>31410745
>Cruise missiles or nuke ICBMs?
>Cruise missiles.
>A fucking wall of tears and butthurt
Jesus Christ, calm down, it was a simple answer to a simple question.

>>31410782

>pls ignore how one weapon alone is not enough or viable!

>>31410645
Incomparable because muh feels? Try harder, really.

>>31410788
I've never implied that, dumbass. Calm your tits.

>>31410804
>I've never implied that

>>A simple answer to a simple question
>>but im not implying the answer is correct!

Wew laddy.

>>31410794
>Incomparable because muh feels?

No?

Are you truly this ignorant?

>>31410808
>Russia can hit the United Kingdom with cruise missiles launched from inside Russian territory. It'd get hot, FAST.
>Cruise missiles or nuke ICBMs?
>Cruise missiles.
>THE ANSWER WAS INCORRECT, MUH BUTTHURT
Take a deep breath and calm down.

>>31410819
So because of "muh feels" it is? Seriously, you need to try harder. Or at least initially imply something less retarded next time.

>>31410782
>OP asks how a UK vs russian naval conflict would play out
>ignores the question, fall back on land based cruise missiles

File: 21631 grad sviyazhsk.jpg (41KB, 800x420px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 800x420px

>>31410887
I didn't answer OP, dumbass, I answered anon that was asking a specific question. And they are ship based.

>>31410740

Actually I meant to say Netherlands after wondering for a second if Denmark had them or not, which they don't. Either way, certainly "in the way" to force the missiles on other routes.

>That are of course strategically placed exactly where the missiles are going to fly because muh sixth sense.

Missiles going for a single country from a single small area when completely fucking surrounded by dozens of ABM radars, SAM nets and naval AAW bubbles? I think you're highly overestimating how much wiggle room they would have to get a missile where it's going. If you don't think all those countries would have their assets ready in their waters if such a thing was being threatened, then you're completely delusional.

It's not called "sixth sense", it's called "Having radar and complete knowledge of launch location on a geographic scale for direction."

It's ALMOST like the UK and NATO have spent the last few decades designing a missile radar net against Russia or something. Who woulda thunk it?

>So use cruise missiles exactly for what they are made? Thanks for your contribution.

Ah the classic slavboo move. Quote out a tiny part of the post, make a vague response that ignores the central point and then conviniently hope the other guy forgets about the crucial element mentioned that they would have zero method to identify if it had done the job or not due to inability to survey the site, or even know if it was a required target to begin with.

>>31410774

>Think again.

Stockpiles are not infinite massively less so in one tiny corner of their country compared to their main munitions areas, and they're a hell of a lot less than the stockpile of SM-2's, PAC-3's and Asters.

>Oh no, what are they going to do if that one lone tank shared by all three Baltic states will block the path? The struggle is real!

>Solve one logistics problem by escalating from tactical strikes to a full on land war invasion campaign against NATO states

Are you actually brain damaged?

>>31407122

We're not doing it because we like you or something - baka!

>>31410909
Which is why your picture where one of cruise missile range calculated from Kaliningrad?

>>31410957
>Either way, certainly "in the way" to force the missiles on other routes.
And certainly rather easily avoidable due to being concentrated in four more or less close spots along two countries.
>surrounded by dozens of ABM radars, SAM nets and naval AAW bubbles
Is this the part where I tell you what the fuck is radar horizon?
>I think you're highly overestimating how much wiggle room they would have to get a missile where it's going
They could go above the middle of Scandinavia for all I care.
>It's ALMOST like the UK and NATO
And what does it have to do with NATO anyway, if the thread is specifically about britbongs?
>they would have zero method to identify if it had done the job
>or not due to inability to survey the site, or even know if it was a required target to begin with
Are you like mentally handicapped? What the fuck is missile tracking? What the fuck is intelligence? What the fuck are strategic targets? Jesus fucking Christ, try harder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMasnaAf_H4
>less so in one tiny corner of their country
This specific "tiny corner" of their country is set off as a special military district and armed to the teeth with enough weaponry to arm three motor rifle divisions.
>and they're a hell of a lot less than the stockpile of SM-2's, PAC-3's
None of which are operated by bongs. None of which has 100% efficiency, especially given a massive cruise missile strike. This and the fact that Patriot is laughable.
>and Asters
Rather short ranged, but yeah, bong navy will sure take some out with that.
>escalating from tactical strikes to a full on land war invasion campaign against NATO states
By OP's scenario it is bongs who are escalating. If NATO is supporting them there is no reason not to ignore the land corridor to Kaniningrad. If NATO is not supporting them, and since OP never specified that I'm going to assume that this is the case, there is no cut of supplies to Kaliningrad, hence no need for the land corridor.

>>31396617

Would that be Kaliningrad, Archangel, or Vladivostok?

>>31411158
No, the picture I posted has cruise missile range calculated from Kaliningrad because it is where the Baltic Fleet is stationed.

>>31411275
>Arkhangelsk
>Not Severomorsk
What? I mean there are other ports too, but this is just silly.

>>31411330

My knowledge of northern Russian ports failed me.

My point though was there's more than one useful Russian port.

>>31411384
I sure agree with that. I think he was trying to refer to the Baltic specifically though, which is silly anyway, since there's a naval base in St.Petersburg too.

>>31406707

hurr

>>31411254

>Is this the part where I tell you what the fuck is radar horizon?

And this is the part where I remind you that AWACS and AEW has existed for a long time.

>They could go above the middle of Scandinavia for all I care.

Which have their own air defences, leave an even longer route over water for navies to intercept and draw in even more countries to this.

You've not really thought this through have you?

>And what does it have to do with NATO anyway, if the thread is specifically about britbongs?

You honestly think they wouldn't bring down a cruise missile going above their own airspace aimed at an ally? Or is this the patented vatnik "losing arguement so start arguing about precise scenarios only for Russia that ignore reality" tactic again?

>Are you like mentally handicapped? What the fuck is missile tracking? What the fuck is intelligence? What the fuck are strategic targets? Jesus fucking Christ, try harder.

Kindly tell me what Russia has that can, with free reign, attain imagery and details of secretive, classified areas of the UK during a war scenario that won't be giving any reliable information out themselves.

The answer is none.

>This specific "tiny corner" of their country is set off as a special military district and armed to the teeth with enough weaponry to arm three motor rifle divisions.

S-STRONK

Oh wait, it doesn't make any difference. They're still completely logistically isolated without access to the full stockpile.

>None of which are operated by bongs. None of which has 100% efficiency, especially given a massive cruise missile strike. This and the fact that Patriot is laughable.
>Rather short ranged, but yeah, bong navy will sure take some out with that.
>Even more "B-bongs allies will h-help Russia by allowing logistics!"

And now we get to the "lets deny reality" portion of the vatnik arguement.