Sink the Kuznetsov

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

Zaslon
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Zaslon »

Due to the hysteria of the british media about the Russian surface group...I want to test a possible response to this hysteria...Sink the Kuznetsov and the entire of his Naval Surface group [:D]

My idea was an airstrike of Tornado GR4/A and Eurofighter FGR4 with support of Airseekers, Sentries and Predators.
But...I saw that Alarm Missile was retired in 2014. What is the british anti radiation missile in service in RAF?
I didn't find an antiship loadout for Tornados...Sea Eagle is still in use? Maybe Harpoons?

Or it is better send a British SAG?

Thanks.
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
Grazyn
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 9:29 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Grazyn »

British Eurofighters and Tornados too I think can mount the Storm Shadow cruise missile

edit: I'm not sure it can target ships though, maybe just static targets?
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by mikmykWS »

Sounds good. Should add some EU diesels as well.

According to twitter a Dutch sub came up. Turned on its AIS long enough for the Russians to see[:)]

https://twitter.com/Galrahn/status/789178082716332032

Mike
User avatar
.Sirius
Posts: 712
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:21 pm
Contact:

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by .Sirius »

ORIGINAL: Grazyn

British Eurofighters and Tornados too I think can mount the Storm Shadow cruise missile

edit: I'm not sure it can target ships though, maybe just static targets?
Hi guys
anti-ship capability for the RAF is down to Brimestone, Paveway LGB and Iron Bombs :(
Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by DrRansom »

That'd be a fun mission: sink the Kuznetsov with the present day RAF.

(Or just wait till you can maneuver a nuclear powered sub into position...)
User avatar
AlGrant
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:38 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by AlGrant »

Whatever weapon system you decide upon I'd ensure it doesn't need any visual/TV targetting, the Kuz would just switch on that new smoke screen device they've been testing [;)]
GOD'S EYE DISABLED.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1436
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by SeaQueen »

Send all of it! According to the press, they've been shadowed by a Royal Navy destroyer the whole way. I'm sure if they wanted to sink it they could back it up with land based strike aircraft. There probably also out to be at least one submarine involved and some MPA. All these things work together.

User avatar
MR_BURNS2
Posts: 396
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Austria

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by MR_BURNS2 »

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Send all of it! According to the press, they've been shadowed by a Royal Navy destroyer the whole way. I'm sure if they wanted to sink it they could back it up with land based strike aircraft. There probably also out to be at least one submarine involved and some MPA. All these things work together.


What is this british MPA you are talking about? [8|]
Windows 7 64; Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (8 CPUs), ~2.7GHz; 6144MB RAM; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970;


thewood1
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by thewood1 »

I would assume maritime patrol aircraft...sorry, looks like you are joking.
Zaslon
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:52 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Zaslon »

That's the question. No alarm, No Sea Eagle, No MPAs...

An airstrike with Paveway in the range of S-300F is a suicide...at least theoretically.

Only Sea Skuas from Lynx because Martlets from Wildcats are too small for capital ships.

I will add submarines and at least two British task forces in order to test all posibilities...but hey...It's scary to see that now United Kindgom retired a lot of weapons without a proper replacement.
Image
Kids think about Iran and Amateurs think about Russia, but professionals think about China
User avatar
AlGrant
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:38 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by AlGrant »

I would assume maritime patrol aircraft...sorry, looks like you are joking.

I think the joke (a.k.a Ludicrous situation) is that since the Nimrod MR.2's were retired the UK currently doesn't have any MPA's ..... at least until the P-8's come online (due 2019) and unless things change they won't even be able to Air-Air refuel with UK Voyagers.



GOD'S EYE DISABLED.
LordFlashheart
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 5:40 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by LordFlashheart »

Been pondering this one myself. (Discounting a RN SSN sailing underneath the battle group already with Spearfish primed).

Answer I suspect would be SPEAR 3 + F-35s - eventually.

And after Brimstone, Storm Shadow next weapon to be integrated (according to the Eurofighter folks) would be the Marte ER anti-ship missile. (No RAF plan to buy that though, but perhaps this might be a wake-up call to think about that? Either that or perhaps MBDA might tweak Storm Shadow perhaps with datalink/modded IR seeker to allow it to go after moving ship targets? I would imagine a Broach warhead vs a warship would be pretty spectacular.)

Currently though, discounting the suicide mission option of a Paveway/PIV medium altitude approach it seems to be either go 'Old Skool' with unguided iron bombs (loft attack?) or Brimstone. Ultra LL run-in - then pop up to 100ft to release. 9(?) Brimstones per Tornado so might swamp defences and a couple get through the CIWS. Only trouble is, that with Brimstone low-collateral warheads you'd have to hope for a lucky shot that starts a deck fire or takes out radars...

(I'm assuming here that Typhoons could adequately deal with any Su33 CAP by themselves)

Finally - if you are replicating the Kuznetsov's 'Channel Dash', you could always rope the Army in? Regiment of MLRS rocket artillery at Dover/Ramsgate with orders to wipe out a grid square when task group passes close to the coast would make for an interesting surprise...

User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5965
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Gunner98 »

Finally - if you are replicating the Kuznetsov's 'Channel Dash', you could always rope the Army in? Regiment of MLRS rocket artillery at Dover/Ramsgate with orders to wipe out a grid square when task group passes close to the coast would make for an interesting surprise...

Not so much! UK is a signatory to the Ottawa convention against Anti personnel mines, and considers that the cluster munitions of that standard MLRS rocket illegal. Therefore the only munitions available for British MLRS are the ones that have unitary warheads and are GPS guided. They don't work so well on moving targets but are great for COIN targeting. Or of course the AT-2 Anti-Tank mine dispensing warhead - an interesting idea but not overly effective!

B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
Lionheart
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Lionheart »

ORIGINAL: AlGrant
I would assume maritime patrol aircraft...sorry, looks like you are joking.

I think the joke (a.k.a Ludicrous situation) is that since the Nimrod MR.2's were retired the UK currently doesn't have any MPA's ..... at least until the P-8's come online (due 2019) and unless things change they won't even be able to Air-Air refuel with UK Voyagers.

The RAF want boom refuelling capability on the Voyagers for their C-17's and RC-135W's as well as the P-8's, plus coalition operations. Just a matter of waiting for the cash to become available.....
Lionheart
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 12:28 pm
Location: Surrey, UK

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Lionheart »

ORIGINAL: LordFlashheart

Answer I suspect would be SPEAR 3 + F-35s - eventually.

SPEAR 3 isn't going to have a big warhead, but in theory an F-35 could carry 8 which would be enough to overwhelm a frigate.
User avatar
AlGrant
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 4:38 am

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by AlGrant »


Putin does like his high profile flag waving, but if there was even the remotest chance of a shooting match I think they'd be a bit more cautious with a TG that in effect contains the biggest guns in the Russian Northern Fleet - 1 ageing carrier and currently 1 operational Kirov class.

Any likelyhood of hostilities and I think the Kuznetsov group would avoid the confines of the North Sea where it would be in easy range of shore based aircraft to the East and West and sub commanders would have a pretty good idea where to sit and wait for her.

Far more likely to go to the West of Ireland (there were questions about if she'd take that route last week) and avoid the choke point of the English Channel. Much more sea room to avoid the sub surf threat and harder for UK aircraft to get out there (if Ireland refused to allow use of airspace).

GOD'S EYE DISABLED.
DrRansom
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2013 12:52 pm

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by DrRansom »

So, it actually turns out that the RAF couldn't sink the Kuznetsov? That seems to be the conclusion from the discussion here...

I hope the UK military decides to get back on the AShM band-wagon after this. (And the USN too)

Here's a corollary question, how would a USN air wing do against the Kuznetsov? Do carriers still carry enough Harpoon / SLAM-ERs to overwhelm Kuznetsov battlegroup defenses? Or, would a battlegroup's airwing have too many JDAMs and too few stand-off mobile-target weapons.

As for the Kuznetsov's battlegroup's role, it might be to threaten any US tomahawk shooters in the Mediterranean. Or, it will sail to Tartarus and constrain US targeting options there.
thewood1
Posts: 10131
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:24 pm
Location: Boston

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by thewood1 »

I think a carrier that only had to focus on that Russian group could do it. If there are other threats (air and sub), then you might need a second one for cover.
ExNusquam
Posts: 530
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:26 pm
Location: Washington, D.C.

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by ExNusquam »

Here's a corollary question, how would a USN air wing do against the Kuznetsov? Do carriers still carry enough Harpoon / SLAM-ERs to overwhelm Kuznetsov battlegroup defenses? Or, would a battlegroup's airwing have too many JDAMs and too few stand-off mobile-target weapons.

I would guess that carrier magazine composition changes with the situation (just like VLS loadouts). If the carrier was deploying for Inherent Resolve and then got tasked to deal with a non-COIN taget, it would probably be under-loaded with standoff weapons. If the carrier was deployed to the NORLANT specifically, even just to show the flag, it would be a safe bet that the magazine composition would be significantly different.

As for weapon usage, it won't be the AGM-84s that overwhelm the defenses, it will be the ECM/Decoys/HARMs that do it. Or a Mk48.
I think a carrier that only had to focus on that Russian group could do it. If there are other threats air and sub), then you might need a second one for cover.
I think you're overestimating the capabilities of the Russian task group. The only potent surface combatant in the group is the Kirov, and the Kuznetsov has an absolute maximum of 44 fighters on board, and that's assuming they took every carrier capable aircraft they had (not likely). The fighters they do have will have very limited range or will have their operational efficiency decreased by buddy-tanking. This group might have been a tough nut to crack for the USN of the 1980s, but the Soviet tech just isn't as potent these days.

As to other threats, I don't think they're particularly restrictive to the USN in any realistic engagement. The Kuznetsov's deployment route and location are quite expeditionary, and the group will be operating a large distance from significant Russian air support. ASW operations won't really constrain a USN CVG these days, since they don't have much of an ASW mission since they lost the S-3. I suspect long-range ASW would be undertaken by P-8 squadrons forward deployed.
As for the Kuznetsov's battlegroup's role, it might be to threaten any US tomahawk shooters in the Mediterranean. Or, it will sail to Tartarus and constrain US targeting options there.
In a war scenario? Possibly. More realistically, it's an opportunity for Russia to do the following:
1. Show the flag
2. Work out operational tactics with the MiG-29Ks.
3. The CGN will also provide some additional SAM coverage off the coast (and SAM coverage has been a big Russian messaging tool).
4. Did I mention showing the flag?

I think the recent piece in USNI is a very good assessment of what the Russians are attempting to achieve with the deployment.
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5965
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Sink the Kuznetsov

Post by Gunner98 »

I think your on the mark, its not like other navies haven't done it before.. Great White Fleet for instance.

Its got me curious though, although I agree that the Russian TG should be no match for a CSG it would be fun, have to provide some extra threats I think. I'll crank out a quick scenario this weekend once back home. The Bush is almost ready to deploy I think...

B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”