2 styles of naval tactics today

USAalltheway725

Banned Member
Hello all,

OK, I renamed my post to a more appropriate title. I was wondering of your opinions on which navy has the most effective style of fighting. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, I served in the USN for 6 years and therefore know a little something about naval tactics and combat. Based on my own analysis, there are two prime styles of fighting.

The Soviet style of naval fighting is the 'aggressor' style of fighting, with emphasis on missile boats, guided missile cruisers and destroyers, and attack submaries. No carriers are involved in this style of fighting. The fleet is centered around the guided missile surface ships with their SS-N-9 Sunburn ASMs, and the attack subs with their 53 cm torpedoes, which will hopefully evade enemy sonar and cause maximum damage. In this style of fighting, the Aggressor fleet isn't equipped with an effective interceptor/countermeasure system to deal with incoming enemy missiles/aircraft/torpedoes. Also, there is limited to ASW capability in this 'aggressor' style of naval fighting. This 'aggressor' style of naval fighting is practiced by the 'underdog' navies of the world, like China, Russia, and India, which hope to use a greater emphasis on anti-ship/anti-carrier ability to hopefully even the scores fighting a more powerful navy like the United States' navy. The aggressor style of naval warfare also involves the element of surprise to catch the enemy navy by surprise when the massive (and hopefully pre-emptive) vollet of ASMs and torpedoes arrive.

Then, there is the 'Western' style of naval fighting. This is more balanced than the 'aggressor' style. The fleet is more well rounded overall and suited for more tasks rather than just destroying enemy ships. In the 'Western' stype of naval combat, there is less emphasis on guided missile cruisers and missile boats to destroy the enemy fleet. Still the ASM missile capability onboard the Western guided missile cruisers/destroyers are as good if not better than the Soviet ASMs (as the Harpoon and TASM cruise missiles outrange Soviet ASMs by at least three times). In the 'Western' style of naval combat, the fleet is not centered around the surface ships. The fleet is centered around the aircraft carrier and its escorts, which can be used for many tasks (like ASM, ASW, strike, air superiority mission, or shore bombardment). There are fewer attack subs (though these attack subs are admittedly more capable than the Soviet versions) and there is more anti-submarine capability among the surface ships. Overall, the Western style of fighting naval battles is as concerned with protecting their own assets as well as destroying the enemy fleet, (unlike the 'aggressor' style of naval combat I discussed earlier). There is a much greater anti-missile capability with SM-1/SM-2 interceptors onboard the surface ships and Phalanx CIWS. Not to mention superior intelligence (AEGIS) and ECM. This 'Western' style of fighting naval battles is found in the more dominant navies of the world today, like the US Navy, Japanese Navy, British Navy, and other European navies.

So of the 'Aggressor' and 'Western' style of fighting naval battles, which style of naval combat do you find superior and which will come out first in 21st century naval combat? Your guess is as good as mine.
 

Marc Aurel

New Member
I seriously doubt that western ASM outrange russian ones. In fact russian ASM-missiles like the Sunburn seem to be much supierior in all aspects, as they - as u said correctly - emphasise on the use of these missiles. They have missiles especially build to hit carrier groups, that surpass western missiles in range, speed and warhead size considerably and that can be read on a lot of websites easily. Can u show any evidence for your statement?
 

USAalltheway725

Banned Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Well, I read from somewhere in Sinodefence forum that USN outranges its opponents by a minimum range of three times. Perhaps Harpoon is inferior to Sunburn ASM, but is the US Navy also has the TASM, which is the modified tomahawk meant for naval anti-ship use. This, while it may be slower and somewhat less sophisticated than SS-N-9, nonetheless outranges it by hundreds of miles.

I also think that loading F-18E/F, S-3, and EA-6 (and maybe even the Harrier) with Harpoons, TASMs, and Mk50s for an anti-ship strike, and then launching from a carrier also gives a US Navy (and other Western navies) a huge advantage in range and firepower. The anti-ship strike could be launched from hundreds of miles away and then could deliver hundreds of ASMs to their targets at maximum range. THis is what I believe puts the US Navy, British Navy, and other Western Navies in better standing than navies which use the 'Aggressor' tactics with ASMs launched from ships.

Nonetheless Russian systems like SS-N-9 Sunburn and other impressive arrays of ship delivered ASMs are not to be underestimated and the USN should develop more advanced ECM and interceptors (perhaps SM-3 or SM-4) to deal with them.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I thought TASMs have been retired from active service and rebuild into land attack TLAMs.
I also thought that Prowlers are able to use HARMs and no Harpoons.
 

dioditto

New Member
USAalltheway725, you are 15, how can you be serving in the navy for 6 years? That would make you.... 9 years old when you start serving...LOL...
You seem to be a habitual lier...from the wording and grammar of your posts, it's easy to deduce you are not even out of high school.
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
2 styles of navy tactics used today

USAalltheway725, you are 15, how can you be serving in the navy for 6 years? That would make you.... 9 years old when you start serving...LOL...
You seem to be a habitual lier...from the wording and grammar of your posts, it's easy to deduce you are not even out of high school.
I agree..we just don't know how old you are USAalltheway:confused: If in fact you served in USN for 6 years where were you stationed? And what were your basic duties? What was your CO's name? Who was the CMC?..What color was your ID card? What is PSD? What is the BOQ? What is the BEQ? what is PWC?? What is PRT?.Those are far questions for anyone that served in the USN.Thank you.

Now back to the subject at hand.

I thought TASMs have been retired from active service and rebuild into land attack TLAMs.
I also thought that Prowlers are able to use HARMs and no Harpoons.
True on both accounts. If USAalltheway served in the position he says he did he should have know that answer. Instead of posting this:

I also think that loading F-18E/F, S-3, and EA-6 (and maybe even the Harrier) with Harpoons, TASMs, and Mk50s for an anti-ship strike,
Oh by the way USAalltheway, the USN has retired most of it's S-3's in favor of more SH-60's.....
 

LtDragon

New Member
I don't see the difference between your 2 ways of fighting style. The former (Aggressor) simply have less or lack defensive capabilities. The ''Western'' country has more money to develop better defense... that's all. Most military with limited ressource or technology focuses on offense first.
 

Jtimes2

New Member
Waylander said:
I thought TASMs have been retired from active service and rebuild into land attack TLAMs.
I also thought that Prowlers are able to use HARMs and no Harpoons.
Correct on all counts. The TASM was retired in 1992, as were the nuclear-tipped land attack versions of Tomahawk. Examples of both were converted into the normal land-attack variants (HE unitary and HE submunition) during the late 1990s.

The EA-6B can fire HARM, but not Harpoon. Harpoon requires a special firing panel inside the aircraft. There are enough types (F/A-18, S-3) in a carrier's air wing capable of firing Harpoons anyways.
 
Top