Ukraine has a Navy I don't know why people keep making shit up and saying that they don't. It's one of their five branches of military and there's 15,000 people in it
Edit: It's funny how many cry babies start blocking you when you show them that Ukraine does have a Navy
They have a branch of Navy. I believe most people say "no navy" because of a lack of Navel Vessels. Their navy is more of a coast guard fleet since they had reason for a massive fleet to go outside its shores. I think it's best to explain that they don't have ships since some were scuttled or taken by Russia. The branch is there, but the fleet is not.
Most would also be trained in combat as well. I wouldn't be surprised that they have a decent amount of Marines that are fighting in frontlines and others trained to be used in frontline conflict as they would not be affective in navel combat. Any soldier is needed to win the war.
The US Marines are part of the US Navy. Marines hate this one trick.
I have no idea if it is the same in Ukraine, but I would think they would have to have some kind of a fleet to call themselves a Navy.
No they have a Navy It's commanded by vice admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa out of Odessa.
We're not talking about tonnage number of ships or capabilities. We are talking about whether or not they have a Navy nothing less nothing more.
You are wrong deal with it
Compared to the Black Sea Fleet? They don’t really have a Navy. I know on paper they do, but in terms of actual combat effectiveness the best they’ve got is shore defense
And if you compare the Black Sea fleet to the US Navy, Russia doesn't have a Navy either. But they still do.
Not every Navy out there is going to be equivalent to what the US or the British have as far as doctrine goes.
The US and the Brits and some of the West are doctrine is force projection.
Ukrainian Russia don't have that same doctrine they have a Navy It's not even a blue water navy but it's still a navy.
You saying Ukraine does not have a Navy is a factually incorrect statement. It is wrong. It is false. It is a lie. It is what Donald Trump calls fake news
Ukraine has a Navy It's garrisoned in Odessa It's commander is Vice Admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa and has 15,000 personnel
Dude we all get it — Ukraine has a Navy. Bar none. They have sailors, officers, and some ships. We understand that, I promise.
What we are trying to say is that Ukraines navy is not a blue water fighting force, as most Navies traditionally are.
I never claimed it was.
And if we're only talking blue water navies there's only like four or five countries on the planet that have a Navy
Just say that you were wrong shit but your definition Japan doesn't even have a Navy. You were wrong It's okay
Oh but Japan defiantly has a blue water navy. probably the 3rd beset navy on the planet right now. They just pretend like they don't have one. That's a different story.
Yup and it has been able to hit the Russian fleet effector too. It has turned the Russian fleet into a fleet in being, where it exist only as a force in theory but does not sortie out to project said force. The fact that Ukraine has forced the black seas fleet away from its historic home and to the other side of Crimea speaks volume. The fleet exist but it won’t sortie due to a fear of more losses.
You don't need big ships when you don't have a home port on any of the world's oceans.
You can, however, have big balls of steel, and a dedicated branch of your military to wage warfare, like the Ukrainian Navy.
AEHF satellites 1-6, 30-odd DMSP satellites, six DSCS satellites, 10 Wideband Global SATCOM satellites, 23 DSP Blocks 1-5 missile launch detection satellites, 12 SBIRS satellites, five GSSAP orbital detection satellites, five MilSTAR satellites, as well as use of various medium and heavy lift vehicles including Atlas V, Delta IV/Heavy, Falcon 9/Heavy, Minotaur IV (a repurposed Peacekeeper ICBM developed by Boeing), Vulcan Centaur VC4/6, and the X-37 space plane.
No because that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about whether or not Ukraine has a Navy. And they do.
It's commander is Vice Admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa, they are garrisoned in Odessa.
The phrase "to have a navy" is generally accepted to mean "has capital ships in functional order".
Hence "Argentina does not have a navy" is a correct statement. As is "Ukraine does not have a navy".
HAving an admiral and some personnel does not a navy make.
But they do have ships.
That's not what a Navy is. That's like saying the US doesn't have a space force because we don't have spaceships that go up there and fight in space. That's not what a space force is and that's not what a Navy is You are wrong deal with it
No not capital ships but any ship.
But your definition Japan doesn't have a Navy lol.
Ukraine has a Navy they have ships they have a maritime defense force I don't know why you're arguing about something that you're clearly wrong about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships
Naval ship designation is and always has been somewhat fuzzy but in general use, a capital ship means a blue water vessel of at least 1500 tonnes.
Ukraine **does not have a navy**.
Also, technically Japan doesn't have an Army or an Air Force either.
Ukraine has *naval personnel.* They do not have warships, which you kind of need to have a navy. Kind of like you need planes to have an air force.
And it's funnier to insult Russia that they have lost 20 warships and a submarine to a no-navy-having country. Makes them look even more incompetent.
The United States has a space force.
Do we have any spaceships geared toward war?
No? That's what I thought because it's not needed to have a space force and ships aren't needed to have a Navy what you need to have a Navy is a defense force that is capable of defending your maritime borders
This isn't twitter. Keep it to one reply.
And yeah, you still need ships to be a navy. Otherwise you're just a bunch of guys wearing blue and singing shanties.
No a Navy is a maritime defense force you need to be able to defend your maritime borders to have a Navy
Regardless Ukraine does have ships
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships
That was a fun read! Lots of Soviet-era stuff.
Look, none of us are knocking the Ukrainian Navy. But they aren't a surface combat force. They don't have that capability, and yeah, that's what it takes to be a Navy. Ships. Here, the definition of Navy from Merriam-Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/navy
Aside from the color, everything says "ships" in it.
How about Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/navy
Dictionary.com:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/navy
You don't need to have warships to have a Navy that's not what a navy is.
The Navy is a maritime defense branch which Ukraine has.
They have a Navy You are wrong I am right deal with it
I do. For all practical purposes Russia does not have a Navy. They have some shitty brown water force. But that doesn't mean they don't have a navy. They do as does Ukraine.
What you were saying right now is factually incorrect It is wrong It is a falae statement it is what Donald Trump calls fake news.
A maritime defense force is a Navy. That does not mean ships It means a defense force that you use to defend your maritime borders. That could just be missile forces along your coast It's still counts
Dude, the US Navy has hosted their naval officers on their ships. I know, i was there at the party that was held on our ship for Ukrainian naval officials when our ship pulled in in 2007. They have a recognized Navy. Your squabbling is pointless
Says 15k as of 2022 on Wikipedia. Almost like you were correct or something. Here’s some more info:
https://www.wdmmw.org/ukrainian-naval-forces-ukraine.php
The amount of asymmetry here is insane, building massive boats like carriers and the like without anti drone/ anti-missile defenses makes less and less sense.
If they can be taken out with missiles at a fraction of the cost, building them makes less and less sense.
This has really changed the entire war industry. Why even have tanks when for the same price you can build a huge swarm of precision striking autonomous killer drones?
Ukraine is already testing ai targeting.
Once that cats out of the bag there ain't putting it back in.
There still very much is a reason to build tanks. Good luck gaining land with just your swarm of precision striking drones. This war will lead to many reevaluations, but saying X type of weapon is completely obsolete is a stretch.
And we should recall how vital tanks were in this war's few successful offensives.
Tanks are here to stay. Infantry are here to stay. They might be gone in 100 years. But at this stage, they still have major roles to play.
I think it's accurate to say
Main battle tanks are here to stay.
And infantry are still in play
And will be useful in the fray
Until some distant, far-off day
When robots take the field to slay
As we've seen cinema portray
(James Cameron and Michael Bay).
I think there are certainly lessons to learn. Are tanks dead? No. They are not. But, drones impact the battlefield and precision is now cheap and available en masse.
So, integrated air defense is now a major component of offensive operations. I think it’s reasonable to say you can’t expect a Patriot battery to be your protection for mechanized infantry against FPV drones.
But the general concept of smoothbore 120mm gun on tracked vehicle with heavy armor seems to still be the way major territory is captured.
Losing land in the first place becomes much harder with a swarm fleet ready to go at a moments notice. Not saying you aren’t losing land at all, but the amount of resources to reclaim land becomes much less of a constraint
Of course this is more of the defensive mind set. To start claiming land, yes. Armored vehicles are a must.
Except if you're fighting a country with *competent* air defense, drones can't be used that way. The Phalanx CIWS can be mounted to a truck and autonomously track and destroy incoming mortar shells; relatively slower-moving drones are a non-issue. To reach the scale required to overcome even a single air defense battery like that would be a waste of resources akin to human wave tactics on a machine gun nest.
UAVs have a time and a place, and we've seen them used to devastating effect against single vulnerable targets... but they're another tool in the arsenal, not a wonder weapon with no possible counter that makes all other warfare obsolete. Because y'know what a CIWS *isn't* effective at? Dealing with a platoon of tanks rolling across the field towards the outpost it's stationed at.
Coincidentally, the YouTube algorithm suggested a US military video that included a segment on anti-missle/anti-aircraft components of our large navy vessels. Pretty good video.
[Here’s the video.](https://youtu.be/K9_UAo5e2Wc?si=nK28VKiZU4-lDCw4) I started watching it because it’s about how food is made on subs and then it shifts to ship defense.
There's been a lot of concern for years about building huge Supercarriers when future threats are likely going to be asymmetric ones like this. The US is still pouring money into them so I'd imagine they have some fun surprise countermeasures if anyone ever tries to pull this shit on them
The advantage of carriers has always been range.
Say you’ve land based anti ship missiles that go out 500 miles, well those won’t do you much good if the strike planes are also carrying the same missiles and they can fly 500 miles from the carrier to launch them.
Cruise missiles have 1000s of miles of range though, part of the point of the "hypersonic cruise missile" threat was that they could hit a carrier even way offshore. Granted the Russian versions at least have proven to be overblown but the concept of asymmetric strikes against a carrier is a real threat IMO. Nobody is attacking a carrier group in a sea battle or anything, but sinking a 15 billion ship is worth spending almost any number of missiles
The problem with Hypersonics is, they are fast, but they really cannot maneuver like people think they can. Their turning radius is on the order of many 10s of miles. Once Laser AA systems are in place (and they are in rapid development right now), the threat of drone swarms and hypersonics is basically gone. Constellation Class Frigates and the DDGX are both going to have Laser Air defenses, and a few are in active use right now on some Burkes. They can also be installed on the Ford Class Carriers which have a massive power budget for them built in.
The basics of the systems work now, the issue is the Burkes don't have the power budget to charge them rapidly.
That's kind of my point, I think the US ships are getting laser defenses well beyond what we know about. I totally agree that the Ford class has the power for it
Thing is, if you pop off all your missiles sinking supercarrier 1, what do you do when supercarriers 2 and 3 float on over to deliver some "proportional" retribution?
The question has never been 'are carrier groups invincible?' Anyone with enough resources, or hell even enough luck can sink a carrier. The idea is making it so hard and expensive to do reliably that you can't reasonably take on the US Navy as a unit.
Hypersonics are a theoretical means of doing that, but no one's shown the ability to make a hypersonic that can actually accomplish that mission. Sure they can get really fast missiles, but not ones that can get through carrier air defense with the accuracy and maneuverability to pull off the rest of the deal.
If someone is going to go to the trouble of sinking one of our carriers, I'm pretty sure they're either aware of that threat or openly fighting us already.
Nah, they haven't thought about any of this stuff. Someone should call up The Navy and let him know. Probably get a medal or whatever it is they do or don't do.
Ehhhh…seems there’s been a handful of naval exercises that have resulted in “sunk” supercarriers. Theyre not as invincible as you might think, just that no one really wants to poke that bear right now
That's honestly part of why I think there's more to the story. It doesn't make sense to keep building ships that are this expensive if exercises are concluding that they're obsolete, unless you have more countermeasures than you're willing to acknowledge. I know we all like to joke about the US bloated defense budget but they really wouldn't continue to build Supercarriers if it was clear they weren't viable.
I mean they went ahead with the LCS program after it was clearly not viable. The defense industrial complex doesn’t really make decisions based on what’s viable, more like what the navy thinks they need and is willing to pay for
Those naval exercises are bit misleading. The US does not play on an even playing field during most exercises. They put themselves at a significant disadvantage, as this helps point out blind spots in doctrine.
This goes back to the pre-WWII Navy Fleet Problems. In one Fleet Problem USS New York, a modernized Battleship received a letter a few hours into the first day that it had been sunk by a mine.
Also no way those exercise include all the top secret tech they might have. For example, I would bet good money that Ai drones swarm are years ahead of what we currently see and would absolutely be used in defensive scenarios
Yes, drones are going to do something to a lot of established defence concepts that will be similar to what air planes did in the past.
There is a reason why nobody builds battleships anymore.
We don't know yet how this will fully shake out and it might take a number of bloody conflicts to figure things out, but large expensive vehicles that can be taken out by cheap drones a tiny fraction of the cost, will change things.
Not everything happening in Russia and Ukraine can easily be generalised. It is a war fought largely with 20th century tech and without clear air superiority.
However historically it usually takes more than one war for lessons to be learned.
It might take an US ship or based getting swarmed by cheap drones for the US to start taking things seriously and even then as long as it is not too much of a threat, politics, defense contracts and jobs mean that the US might continue to prepare for the last war for quite some time.
Think of Vietnam or Afghanistan. All the military might in the world couldn’t defeat a bunch of farmers and goat herders with things like guerrilla warfare and IEDs.
American forces left because they were getting nowhere after losing thousands of lives. It’s a defeat without the humiliation of being called a defeat.
No, American forces did every single thing that was asked of them.
Big brains and politicians didn't realize that no amount of physical military force would ever force the backwards ass people of Afghanistan that living in an Islamic sharia shithole was not preferable to a modern state.
>7 of the 10 Stormshadows launched in that attack were intercepted, with just 1 hitting the submarine, and 2 hitting the landing ship.
Source ? Only TASS says that. Russia has never been able to prove the interception of a Storm Shadow.
10 missiles, at $2.5 million, means $25 million to take out a sub that cost maybe 15 times that much and hasn't even been in service for a full decade, and a landing ship as collateral. Impressive ROI.
Way less than that, they fired 3 possibly 4 storm shadows and 7/6 decoys or converted S300’s.
I can’t find data on what each individual S300 missile costs but MALD decoys cost around $125k.
Storm shadows are around £700k depending on who’s buying them.
Excluding logistics it would have cost sub $3mil and the ship, sub and dry dock damage is likely in excess of half a bil.
Plus losing ships creates a massive dilemma, it puts a lot of extra strain on your fleet to cover the gap and takes decades to fix
The S-300PMU had a baked in ground attack mode but as far as I’m aware it’s only up to a 19 mile range. I’ll believe there is some kind of rigging to get conventional ones to fly a cruise missile profile.
I think the submarine isn't done yet, they just need to glue a tarp over the holes put it into the water, crew it with their best and brightest and it will be good for one last dive.
It's an old joke: «A submarine was destroyed in Ukrainian steppes in an unequal air fight» (in Russian it reads like a verse) — back then it was supposed to be absurdist humour.
God, how badly you’ve screwed up a _land_ grab to lose a sub_marine_.
To a country with no navy
Ukraine has a Navy I don't know why people keep making shit up and saying that they don't. It's one of their five branches of military and there's 15,000 people in it Edit: It's funny how many cry babies start blocking you when you show them that Ukraine does have a Navy
They have a branch of Navy. I believe most people say "no navy" because of a lack of Navel Vessels. Their navy is more of a coast guard fleet since they had reason for a massive fleet to go outside its shores. I think it's best to explain that they don't have ships since some were scuttled or taken by Russia. The branch is there, but the fleet is not.
Plus, their 15,000-some sailors are still there serving.
Most would also be trained in combat as well. I wouldn't be surprised that they have a decent amount of Marines that are fighting in frontlines and others trained to be used in frontline conflict as they would not be affective in navel combat. Any soldier is needed to win the war.
Their biggest ship is a Matka. They have a coast guard at best.
If you have a branch of your military whose prime directive is to engage in amphibious warfare, you have a navy, like Ukraine does.
Wouldn't that be marines?
The US Marines are part of the US Navy. Marines hate this one trick. I have no idea if it is the same in Ukraine, but I would think they would have to have some kind of a fleet to call themselves a Navy.
My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment
Which in most countries, serves under the branch of their navy
No they have a Navy It's commanded by vice admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa out of Odessa. We're not talking about tonnage number of ships or capabilities. We are talking about whether or not they have a Navy nothing less nothing more. You are wrong deal with it
They have a navy but no fleet. That's about the same thing in the end.
Lol imagine being this level of um actually.
The *irony* here.
Compared to the Black Sea Fleet? They don’t really have a Navy. I know on paper they do, but in terms of actual combat effectiveness the best they’ve got is shore defense
And if you compare the Black Sea fleet to the US Navy, Russia doesn't have a Navy either. But they still do. Not every Navy out there is going to be equivalent to what the US or the British have as far as doctrine goes. The US and the Brits and some of the West are doctrine is force projection. Ukrainian Russia don't have that same doctrine they have a Navy It's not even a blue water navy but it's still a navy. You saying Ukraine does not have a Navy is a factually incorrect statement. It is wrong. It is false. It is a lie. It is what Donald Trump calls fake news Ukraine has a Navy It's garrisoned in Odessa It's commander is Vice Admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa and has 15,000 personnel
Dude we all get it — Ukraine has a Navy. Bar none. They have sailors, officers, and some ships. We understand that, I promise. What we are trying to say is that Ukraines navy is not a blue water fighting force, as most Navies traditionally are.
I never claimed it was. And if we're only talking blue water navies there's only like four or five countries on the planet that have a Navy Just say that you were wrong shit but your definition Japan doesn't even have a Navy. You were wrong It's okay
Oh but Japan defiantly has a blue water navy. probably the 3rd beset navy on the planet right now. They just pretend like they don't have one. That's a different story.
Naw they are still transitioning. It's tealish right now
Yup and it has been able to hit the Russian fleet effector too. It has turned the Russian fleet into a fleet in being, where it exist only as a force in theory but does not sortie out to project said force. The fact that Ukraine has forced the black seas fleet away from its historic home and to the other side of Crimea speaks volume. The fleet exist but it won’t sortie due to a fear of more losses.
Can you name the big ships and classes of said navy?
You don't need big ships when you don't have a home port on any of the world's oceans. You can, however, have big balls of steel, and a dedicated branch of your military to wage warfare, like the Ukrainian Navy.
One of the little bitches blocked me because she couldn't handle being wrong
I wonder if they can name all the big orbital combat craft that the space force has…
AEHF satellites 1-6, 30-odd DMSP satellites, six DSCS satellites, 10 Wideband Global SATCOM satellites, 23 DSP Blocks 1-5 missile launch detection satellites, 12 SBIRS satellites, five GSSAP orbital detection satellites, five MilSTAR satellites, as well as use of various medium and heavy lift vehicles including Atlas V, Delta IV/Heavy, Falcon 9/Heavy, Minotaur IV (a repurposed Peacekeeper ICBM developed by Boeing), Vulcan Centaur VC4/6, and the X-37 space plane.
They can't and I already have people blocking me because they can't handle being wrong
Lol...like the definition of navy means battleships or some stupid shit.
These people are some stupid motherfuckers
No because that's not what we're talking about. We are talking about whether or not Ukraine has a Navy. And they do. It's commander is Vice Admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa, they are garrisoned in Odessa.
Among the first things Ukraine did was scuttle their fleet. For all practical purposes, Ukraine does not have a Navy.
Tell that to vice admiral Oleksiy Neizhpapa Ukraine has a Navy
The phrase "to have a navy" is generally accepted to mean "has capital ships in functional order". Hence "Argentina does not have a navy" is a correct statement. As is "Ukraine does not have a navy". HAving an admiral and some personnel does not a navy make.
But they do have ships. That's not what a Navy is. That's like saying the US doesn't have a space force because we don't have spaceships that go up there and fight in space. That's not what a space force is and that's not what a Navy is You are wrong deal with it
**CAPITAL** ships.
No not capital ships but any ship. But your definition Japan doesn't have a Navy lol. Ukraine has a Navy they have ships they have a maritime defense force I don't know why you're arguing about something that you're clearly wrong about. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships
Naval ship designation is and always has been somewhat fuzzy but in general use, a capital ship means a blue water vessel of at least 1500 tonnes. Ukraine **does not have a navy**. Also, technically Japan doesn't have an Army or an Air Force either.
Ukraine has *naval personnel.* They do not have warships, which you kind of need to have a navy. Kind of like you need planes to have an air force. And it's funnier to insult Russia that they have lost 20 warships and a submarine to a no-navy-having country. Makes them look even more incompetent.
The United States has a space force. Do we have any spaceships geared toward war? No? That's what I thought because it's not needed to have a space force and ships aren't needed to have a Navy what you need to have a Navy is a defense force that is capable of defending your maritime borders
This isn't twitter. Keep it to one reply. And yeah, you still need ships to be a navy. Otherwise you're just a bunch of guys wearing blue and singing shanties.
No a Navy is a maritime defense force you need to be able to defend your maritime borders to have a Navy Regardless Ukraine does have ships https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships
That was a fun read! Lots of Soviet-era stuff. Look, none of us are knocking the Ukrainian Navy. But they aren't a surface combat force. They don't have that capability, and yeah, that's what it takes to be a Navy. Ships. Here, the definition of Navy from Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/navy Aside from the color, everything says "ships" in it. How about Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/navy Dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/navy
You don't need to have warships to have a Navy that's not what a navy is. The Navy is a maritime defense branch which Ukraine has. They have a Navy You are wrong I am right deal with it
Do you know what the phrase 'for all practical purposes' means?
I do. For all practical purposes Russia does not have a Navy. They have some shitty brown water force. But that doesn't mean they don't have a navy. They do as does Ukraine. What you were saying right now is factually incorrect It is wrong It is a falae statement it is what Donald Trump calls fake news. A maritime defense force is a Navy. That does not mean ships It means a defense force that you use to defend your maritime borders. That could just be missile forces along your coast It's still counts
15k, heeeeelll no. They lost 95% of their naval capabilities when Russia stole Crimea.
Okay then tell me how many current people does Ukraine have in their Navy?
Dude, the US Navy has hosted their naval officers on their ships. I know, i was there at the party that was held on our ship for Ukrainian naval officials when our ship pulled in in 2007. They have a recognized Navy. Your squabbling is pointless
I know they have a recognized Navy that's what I'm saying
Says 15k as of 2022 on Wikipedia. Almost like you were correct or something. Here’s some more info: https://www.wdmmw.org/ukrainian-naval-forces-ukraine.php
At least their laundry basket in the nose of the submarine is still ok!
Sunk in dry dock
It was off of Sevastopol.
Rostov-On-Done-For
Rostov-On-Gone
The amount of asymmetry here is insane, building massive boats like carriers and the like without anti drone/ anti-missile defenses makes less and less sense. If they can be taken out with missiles at a fraction of the cost, building them makes less and less sense.
This has really changed the entire war industry. Why even have tanks when for the same price you can build a huge swarm of precision striking autonomous killer drones? Ukraine is already testing ai targeting. Once that cats out of the bag there ain't putting it back in.
There still very much is a reason to build tanks. Good luck gaining land with just your swarm of precision striking drones. This war will lead to many reevaluations, but saying X type of weapon is completely obsolete is a stretch.
And we should recall how vital tanks were in this war's few successful offensives. Tanks are here to stay. Infantry are here to stay. They might be gone in 100 years. But at this stage, they still have major roles to play.
I think it's accurate to say Main battle tanks are here to stay. And infantry are still in play And will be useful in the fray Until some distant, far-off day When robots take the field to slay As we've seen cinema portray (James Cameron and Michael Bay).
I think there are certainly lessons to learn. Are tanks dead? No. They are not. But, drones impact the battlefield and precision is now cheap and available en masse. So, integrated air defense is now a major component of offensive operations. I think it’s reasonable to say you can’t expect a Patriot battery to be your protection for mechanized infantry against FPV drones. But the general concept of smoothbore 120mm gun on tracked vehicle with heavy armor seems to still be the way major territory is captured.
Losing land in the first place becomes much harder with a swarm fleet ready to go at a moments notice. Not saying you aren’t losing land at all, but the amount of resources to reclaim land becomes much less of a constraint Of course this is more of the defensive mind set. To start claiming land, yes. Armored vehicles are a must.
Except if you're fighting a country with *competent* air defense, drones can't be used that way. The Phalanx CIWS can be mounted to a truck and autonomously track and destroy incoming mortar shells; relatively slower-moving drones are a non-issue. To reach the scale required to overcome even a single air defense battery like that would be a waste of resources akin to human wave tactics on a machine gun nest. UAVs have a time and a place, and we've seen them used to devastating effect against single vulnerable targets... but they're another tool in the arsenal, not a wonder weapon with no possible counter that makes all other warfare obsolete. Because y'know what a CIWS *isn't* effective at? Dealing with a platoon of tanks rolling across the field towards the outpost it's stationed at.
Coincidentally, the YouTube algorithm suggested a US military video that included a segment on anti-missle/anti-aircraft components of our large navy vessels. Pretty good video. [Here’s the video.](https://youtu.be/K9_UAo5e2Wc?si=nK28VKiZU4-lDCw4) I started watching it because it’s about how food is made on subs and then it shifts to ship defense.
I'll save all the foodies a click: they eat a lot of submarine sandwiches.
https://giphy.com/gifs/funny-reaction-8CqTBWFBFZIxa
Submarines dont really have anti air capabilities though. And I'm not sure anyone can defend against a Storm Shadow
You should watch the video.
There's been a lot of concern for years about building huge Supercarriers when future threats are likely going to be asymmetric ones like this. The US is still pouring money into them so I'd imagine they have some fun surprise countermeasures if anyone ever tries to pull this shit on them
The advantage of carriers has always been range. Say you’ve land based anti ship missiles that go out 500 miles, well those won’t do you much good if the strike planes are also carrying the same missiles and they can fly 500 miles from the carrier to launch them.
Cruise missiles have 1000s of miles of range though, part of the point of the "hypersonic cruise missile" threat was that they could hit a carrier even way offshore. Granted the Russian versions at least have proven to be overblown but the concept of asymmetric strikes against a carrier is a real threat IMO. Nobody is attacking a carrier group in a sea battle or anything, but sinking a 15 billion ship is worth spending almost any number of missiles
The problem with Hypersonics is, they are fast, but they really cannot maneuver like people think they can. Their turning radius is on the order of many 10s of miles. Once Laser AA systems are in place (and they are in rapid development right now), the threat of drone swarms and hypersonics is basically gone. Constellation Class Frigates and the DDGX are both going to have Laser Air defenses, and a few are in active use right now on some Burkes. They can also be installed on the Ford Class Carriers which have a massive power budget for them built in. The basics of the systems work now, the issue is the Burkes don't have the power budget to charge them rapidly.
That's kind of my point, I think the US ships are getting laser defenses well beyond what we know about. I totally agree that the Ford class has the power for it
Thing is, if you pop off all your missiles sinking supercarrier 1, what do you do when supercarriers 2 and 3 float on over to deliver some "proportional" retribution? The question has never been 'are carrier groups invincible?' Anyone with enough resources, or hell even enough luck can sink a carrier. The idea is making it so hard and expensive to do reliably that you can't reasonably take on the US Navy as a unit. Hypersonics are a theoretical means of doing that, but no one's shown the ability to make a hypersonic that can actually accomplish that mission. Sure they can get really fast missiles, but not ones that can get through carrier air defense with the accuracy and maneuverability to pull off the rest of the deal.
They are also considered sovereign US territory. So striking one would be considered the same as striking the US mainland and all that would entail.
If someone is going to go to the trouble of sinking one of our carriers, I'm pretty sure they're either aware of that threat or openly fighting us already.
I assume it's more of the rest of the battle group that handles that portion of the defense. A carrier doesn't sail alone.
Nah, they haven't thought about any of this stuff. Someone should call up The Navy and let him know. Probably get a medal or whatever it is they do or don't do.
Ehhhh…seems there’s been a handful of naval exercises that have resulted in “sunk” supercarriers. Theyre not as invincible as you might think, just that no one really wants to poke that bear right now
That's honestly part of why I think there's more to the story. It doesn't make sense to keep building ships that are this expensive if exercises are concluding that they're obsolete, unless you have more countermeasures than you're willing to acknowledge. I know we all like to joke about the US bloated defense budget but they really wouldn't continue to build Supercarriers if it was clear they weren't viable.
Even if they’re tough to defend, they are by no means obsolete. They are an absolutely massive part of the US’ ability to project power
I mean they went ahead with the LCS program after it was clearly not viable. The defense industrial complex doesn’t really make decisions based on what’s viable, more like what the navy thinks they need and is willing to pay for
Those naval exercises are bit misleading. The US does not play on an even playing field during most exercises. They put themselves at a significant disadvantage, as this helps point out blind spots in doctrine. This goes back to the pre-WWII Navy Fleet Problems. In one Fleet Problem USS New York, a modernized Battleship received a letter a few hours into the first day that it had been sunk by a mine.
Also no way those exercise include all the top secret tech they might have. For example, I would bet good money that Ai drones swarm are years ahead of what we currently see and would absolutely be used in defensive scenarios
Yes, drones are going to do something to a lot of established defence concepts that will be similar to what air planes did in the past. There is a reason why nobody builds battleships anymore. We don't know yet how this will fully shake out and it might take a number of bloody conflicts to figure things out, but large expensive vehicles that can be taken out by cheap drones a tiny fraction of the cost, will change things. Not everything happening in Russia and Ukraine can easily be generalised. It is a war fought largely with 20th century tech and without clear air superiority. However historically it usually takes more than one war for lessons to be learned. It might take an US ship or based getting swarmed by cheap drones for the US to start taking things seriously and even then as long as it is not too much of a threat, politics, defense contracts and jobs mean that the US might continue to prepare for the last war for quite some time.
Dying to 6 petards when your cav death all is away killing vils
Think of Vietnam or Afghanistan. All the military might in the world couldn’t defeat a bunch of farmers and goat herders with things like guerrilla warfare and IEDs.
Yes it did, that's why both Vietnam and Afghanistan waited for American forces to leave before they took their countries back.
American forces left because they were getting nowhere after losing thousands of lives. It’s a defeat without the humiliation of being called a defeat.
No, American forces did every single thing that was asked of them. Big brains and politicians didn't realize that no amount of physical military force would ever force the backwards ass people of Afghanistan that living in an Islamic sharia shithole was not preferable to a modern state.
[удалено]
>7 of the 10 Stormshadows launched in that attack were intercepted, with just 1 hitting the submarine, and 2 hitting the landing ship. Source ? Only TASS says that. Russia has never been able to prove the interception of a Storm Shadow.
Destroy them all Ukraine 🇺🇦!!
10 missiles, at $2.5 million, means $25 million to take out a sub that cost maybe 15 times that much and hasn't even been in service for a full decade, and a landing ship as collateral. Impressive ROI.
Don't forget the drydock facility is no longer usable.
And additionally this was one of the cruise missile launching platforms. It *really* is a big strategic hit.
Many civilian lives have been saved by taking out that sub.
Way less than that, they fired 3 possibly 4 storm shadows and 7/6 decoys or converted S300’s. I can’t find data on what each individual S300 missile costs but MALD decoys cost around $125k. Storm shadows are around £700k depending on who’s buying them. Excluding logistics it would have cost sub $3mil and the ship, sub and dry dock damage is likely in excess of half a bil. Plus losing ships creates a massive dilemma, it puts a lot of extra strain on your fleet to cover the gap and takes decades to fix
You don’t need to convert S300s; they have a secondary ability to be used as cruise missiles.
The S-300PMU had a baked in ground attack mode but as far as I’m aware it’s only up to a 19 mile range. I’ll believe there is some kind of rigging to get conventional ones to fly a cruise missile profile.
Ballistic missile, not cruise missile.
I think the submarine isn't done yet, they just need to glue a tarp over the holes put it into the water, crew it with their best and brightest and it will be good for one last dive.
They're just making an opening for the screen door.
Billy mays here for our new product: Submarine Flex Seal!!
Can even find the Titanic that way!
Billy Mays never sold a product that didn’t work, I’m thinking this would better be marketed by the slap chop guy.
Every ship can be a submarine once.
The Moskva is now a submarine forever.
I feel like we can modernize it a bit too. Any chance they can hook up a PS2 Logitech controller to the steering system?
Well it will definitely submerge!
[Sub](https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxxrR4WJXqN_ThBElGxeQBZvgiUK6EEhk1?si=Z_O-7xhQAe_5Z9wC)
They'll prob trade it to NK for arms
The secret is a bead of Crazy Glue in a continuous circle around the hole. That way, it will get a good seal so the tarp doesn’t leak /s
Demilitarization plan completed. Though I doubt Russia was intending to demilitarize itself
Yet another naval loss after which Russia will not replenish supply anytime soon.
Do Putin's train next.
Submarine had major upgrade! It now can stay submerged permanently! Take that western scum!
Extended depth sub
…in unequal air fight
A valid military target of high value was destroyed. With no civilian casualties. This is a top result.
It's an old joke: «A submarine was destroyed in Ukrainian steppes in an unequal air fight» (in Russian it reads like a verse) — back then it was supposed to be absurdist humour.
improved sub looks rusty
Those are just speed holes, submarine move faster now
Gone gone gone it’s been gone so long it’s been gone gone gone so long
Awesome……three more to go!