Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5909
    Points : 5944
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:48 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Yeah... China and North Korea can build one each and they can be based with Russias Mistrals right?

    There are some things you don't get other countries to build for you... ICBMs are another thing.
    hahahahaa... they can't build Frigates but you want them to get China or Korea to build them some carriers... what a joker jocolor

    By Korea I mean ROK, not the commie black-hole. And yes both PRC and ROK can supply to Russia everything they need for a CV. Sub-systems, wiring, raw materials, steel or even ready-made sub-sections and of course electronics, sensors and so on.

    After all... out of 10 worlds biggest shipyards with highest dry dock turn rate... 6 are South Korean Very Happy

    Means that they are the cheapest,because they pay bowl of rice tot he workers : )


    Magic.

    If the Russians are willing to work for the prospect of a bowl of rice then they can be the biggest shipbuilding nation on earth. : )

    Actually its quite well paid, skilled workers and junior engineers can get up to 8k a month, manual labor is paid about 2,5k USD a month. I think you are confusing North and South Korea here Smile
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2460
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Dec 03, 2017 5:02 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:

    Means that they are the cheapest,because they pay bowl of rice tot he workers : )


    Magic.

    If the Russians are willing to work for the prospect of a bowl of rice then they can be the biggest shipbuilding nation on earth. : )


    lol1 lol1 lol1





    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 627
    Points : 621
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:04 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:

    Means that they are the cheapest,because they pay bowl of rice tot he workers : )


    Magic.

    If the Russians are willing to work for the prospect of a bowl of rice then they can be the biggest shipbuilding nation on earth. : )


    lol1 lol1 lol1






    Are you aware of that one ship represent more cost ( working hours) to construct than a crane or dock?

    The whole infrastructure easy and cheap to make, and if you want orders then you have to be simply the cheapest .

    One bowl rice, that is the secret sauce : )
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5909
    Points : 5944
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:10 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:

    Means that they are the cheapest,because they pay bowl of rice tot he workers : )


    Magic.

    If the Russians are willing to work for the prospect of a bowl of rice then they can be the biggest shipbuilding nation on earth. : )


    lol1 lol1 lol1






    Are you aware of that one ship represent more cost ( working hours) to construct than a crane or dock?

    The whole infrastructure easy and cheap to make, and if you want orders then you have to be simply the cheapest .

    One bowl rice, that is the secret sauce : )

    Shipyard infrastructure is cheap to make?

    You are aware India is building drydock atm that costs 300 million USD...a drydock. Where is the rest of the infrastructure that is required.

    Where are you pulling this stuff from...

    And ofc ships price is dropping with huge shipyards China and Japan have, after 2007. ship orders went down. Guy pulling cables and carrying paint buckets in South Korean shipyard is paid more than surgeon in 80% of the world.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17756
    Points : 18320
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:44 pm

    And yes both PRC and ROK can supply to Russia everything they need for a CV. Sub-systems, wiring, raw materials, steel or even ready-made sub-sections and of course electronics, sensors and so on.

    And so could the united states or UK or Japan... what you haven't explained is why they should do that?

    Like I do not expect subpar aircrafts for future Russian aircraft carriers, I do not expect subpar future Russian aircraft carriers.

    If they want a super carrier (ie 100K tons) then they will only get one and it will be like the Kuznetsov in that it might not be available if needed because it might be in dry dock having an overhaul and there is no second or third carrier available to use.

    If they get a carrier very similar to the K then they could probably make two, they will be able to fit cats and embark a good AWACS platform on board which should greatly improve air to air performance. Air to ground performance will be Zircon and Kalibr based.

    Except in small limited operations like Syria where there is not enemy air component so medium altitude bombing with dumb bombs by Su-33 and MiG-29K can be more than enough most of the time.

    In comparison a small carrier will be a very limited support vessel that lacks range or speed and will be equipped with sub par fighters made to a budget that are fragile and weak.

    After all... out of 10 worlds biggest shipyards with highest dry dock turn rate... 6 are South Korean

    The Russians paid the South Koreans to upgrade their main shipyard in the far east (Zvezda) on the model the South Koreans use to make ships.. do you really think after just getting that upgraded shipyard up to speed they are going to then get Korean ship yards to build their most important ships for them?


    And ofc ships price is dropping with huge shipyards China and Japan have, after 2007. ship orders went down. Guy pulling cables and carrying paint buckets in South Korean shipyard is paid more than surgeon in 80% of the world.

    So how can they build ships cheaper than Russia.

    And by the way, even if SK or China could do it at half the cost of a Russian shipyard it still makes sense to build in the Russian shipyard as that money is spent in the Russian economy and not the SK or Chinese economy.

    Amusing that you bitch that the Russians don't make their own shipyard cranes but think building CVNs should be done in China or SK.

    As I have said several times before the Russians don't need a big expensive super carrier right now or in the next 5 years.

    Maybe in 15-20 years time they can start making medium sized carriers when they have cruisers and destroyers to form a surface group that needs aircraft to defend it.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 627
    Points : 621
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon Dec 04, 2017 12:22 am

    Militarov wrote:

    Shipyard infrastructure is cheap to make?

    You are aware India is building drydock atm that costs 300 million USD...a drydock. Where is the rest of the infrastructure that is required.

    Where are you pulling this stuff from...

    And ofc ships price is dropping with huge shipyards China and Japan have, after 2007. ship orders went down. Guy pulling cables and carrying paint buckets in South Korean shipyard is paid more than surgeon in 80% of the world.

    ok, what is the cost of a ship, that fits that drydock?


    Something simple, like bulk carrier. I don't want to mention military ship : )

    And anyway, why the south koreans won over the japanese/us/european ship manufacturers?
    Maybe the climate is better for shipbuilding than in Japan?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 496
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:58 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:........................
    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap ...............
    A single supercarrier, i.e. a U.S. one, means around 60 combat aircrafts, plus 4 AEW aircrafts, plus a dozen helicopters for ASW and CSAR. ..And there is very little that could harass a CVN and its escorts, unless they choose to get close to an opponent's stronghold.
    Even supposed ballistic anti ship missiles should prove to be able at start to get a tracking on some vessels sailing hundreds of miles away from launching stations, and second to be able to overcome the ships' own defenses, that are already pretty good at intercepting IRBM missiles, and likely will get ever better at it over the time.
    Maybe in the near future carriers will prove more vulnerable than today, but up to now they are threatened mainly by SSNs only, and even when the ballistic anti ship missile concept would prove itself viable, they will remain the most powerful tool at sea.
    In the worst case, the carriers will have to combat on equal terms, until now and barring tactical errors, they choose when and where to strike and have very little to worry.
    No, normally a USN CVN has 4 helicopters: 2 for ASW and 2 for SAR.
    China will soon start building new SSKs with an auxiliary nuclear powerplant to recharge batteries instead of AIP- then they can stalk CVNs well outside of the 1st Island Chain! https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/leaked-slides-detail-chinese-navys-shipbuilding-plans  
    At least this ABM system isn't as good as advertised: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12
    The Russian Zircons & new US AShMs will degrade both RF & US carriers' utility as their fighters don't have the range needed to be launched from farther away to avoid being sitting ducks!
    With sanctions in place against firms dealing with NK & RF, I doubt PRC & SK will risk supplying anything of value to Russian shipyards, especially while their own yards r already busy!
    Just because all those big "sexy" projects r there, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll move beyond the design stage; as I said before, I'll believe it when I see it!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:37 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    No, normally a USN CVN has 4 helicopters: 2 for ASW and 2 for SAR.
    China will soon start building new SSKs with an auxiliary nuclear powerplant to recharge batteries instead of AIP- then they can stalk CVNs well outside of the 1st Island Chain! https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/leaked-slides-detail-chinese-navys-shipbuilding-plans  
    At least this ABM system isn't as good as advertised: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12
    The Russian Zircons & new US AShMs will degrade both RF & US carriers' utility as their fighters don't have the range needed to be launched from farther away to avoid being sitting ducks!
    With sanctions in place against firms dealing with NK & RF, I doubt PRC & SK will risk supplying anything of value to Russian shipyards, especially while their own yards r already busy!
    Just because all those big "sexy" projects r there, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll move beyond the design stage; as I said before, I'll believe it when I see it!
    [/quote]

    Actually, whenever deployed to perform missions against land targets,, U.S. carriers embark far more rotary wings assets than a couple for each mission.

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    It's take or leave the same that assuming a fixed land base could be a threat to a mobile army. it's a concept proven wrong more and more times, from ancient era to nowadays.

    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.

    Even deploying MPA won't be a safe business, because escorts could easily detect a MPA even before the MPA detect the carrier, and the CAP could easily force the MPA to break contact, if not shoot it down.

    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.

    A last word about those prospective hybrid chinese SSKs: my bet is they are speaking of using one or more RTG.

    If this is the case, power output could be enough to give enough power to passive sensors and/or life support equipment, but hardly enough to increase underwater speed or range.

    RTG's power output and power density (and efficiency too) is not that great.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2676
    Points : 2716
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:28 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7 both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression. First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32 Tu-22Ms and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.





    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5909
    Points : 5944
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:55 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why  AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:  

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7  both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression.  First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy  and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not  Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32  Tu-22Ms  and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava  cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.






    Russia atm has no satelites dedicated to roles of tracking enemy naval assets as it did during Cold War as far as we know, so that is debatable, at best. OTH radars for most part cant track naval targets at the ranges you have in mind. You cant track something half of the Pacific away with radar, US cant, Russia cant, its called laws of physics. Also.. what hundreds of cruise missiles are you talking about, Russian coast is so wast that less than 1% of it is defended in any way whatsoever. AC groups are not some random fishing trawlers they have own assets, stop looking at everything black and white.

    Anyways for most part we do know where everyones naval assets are, information flow is far greater today than it was just 20 years ago.

    And stop pulling nukes into story every 10 minutes its getting annoying abit. US has as many destroyers attached to AC groups as Russia has TU-22Ms almost, its disbalance of immense proportions.

    "US has 10 AC battlegroups and..." - YES BUT RUSSIA HAS THE NUKE. Dont you say... a nuke...

    What you are imagining in your head would also require a teleport to transfer assets across whole Russia in seconds, and as far as we know there is currently none available.

    What bothers me is that you ppl do not know how hard is it to do certain things and how things go. Missiles in Ekaterinburg, bombers in Murmansk, cruiser in S.Peterburg half of its crew in train to Vladivostok, fuel frozen in Novosibirsk... wrong spares come to Engels... its a mess, thats how it is on the ground. Its same for the other side, black and white doesnt cut it.

    Its not "strap a nuke to a bomber and destroy aircraft carrier".
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2110
    Points : 2133
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:08 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why  AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:  

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7  both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression.  First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy  and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not  Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32  Tu-22Ms  and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava  cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.

    I think an aircraft carrier group can be defeated from land, Russia is prepared for it. But at same time to call for nuclear war if some aircraft carrier goes near Russia is not as easy.

    I see positive the policy of deterrence that Pérrier is leaving to see. It would be positive for Russia to have an aircraft carrier group on par with US standard aircraft carrier groups. To have some deterrence value an aircraft carrier group must be on par, if not its alone option is to go away when one superior comes. The US loves to have superiority, without it the US does not the same. Small aircraft carriers for Russia only helps to keep the current superiority of the US aircraft carrier groups.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 496
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:27 am

    Right, but also, if other systems fail or knocked down, a few reconn. MiG-25s (still the fastest combat fighters) can be used to spot CBGs from 40 km altitude, besides new AEWC A-50/100s that can detect ships from ~400-600 km away & "..can be in the air up to 6 hours at a distance of 1000 km from its base.", if not more, as they can be refueled mid-air. http://www.russiadefence.net/t4867p150-awacs-airborne-command-posts-of-ruaf
    http://files.hangame.co.jp/blog/2012/63/cae1b573/07/06/38862608/cae1b573_1341551758401.jpg
    https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/beriev-a-50-airborne-early-warning-and-control-aircraft-aewc-russia/
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/beriev-%D0%B0-100-airborne-early-warning-control-aewc-aircraft/

    OTH Radar range is good enough considering the range of threat CVN's air wing. If Tu-22M3 #s r not enough, Tu-95/142/160M/2Ms could also be used, not to mention Oscar/Yasen SSGNs, & Kilo (aka "Black Hole") SSKs.
    Any CSG packs dozens of CMs, so if "shit hits the fan", using a tactical nuke against it is well within the current RF military doctrine.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 972
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:50 am

    The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Second Russia drops a nuke it's own military infrastructure will start getting nuked in return or do you think it's enemies would be like "Naw guys they nuked us but it's okay we won't use nukes in return"

    Why don't you try going to a terrorist giving him a gun and ask him not to kill you.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5909
    Points : 5944
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:57 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Second Russia drops a nuke it's own military infrastructure will start getting nuked in return or do you think it's enemies would be like "Naw guys they nuked us but it's okay we won't use nukes in return"

    Why don't you try going to a terrorist giving him a gun and ask him not to kill you.

    Nuke is answer to everything here, you will get used to it.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 496
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:08 am

    At the end of the day, a USN CSG isn't worth losing NY, LA, Norfolk and/or San Diego - so deterrence works both ways.
    But this thread is about Russian naval plans, & they'll consider the current long-time operators of CVNs experience in the cost -benefit analysis regarding their possible future CV/Ns in the Russian context. The Ulyanovsk CVN project is outdated now, & by the time they can actually start building Storm CVN, it may become outdated as well.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2110
    Points : 2133
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:51 am

    If Russia goes nuclear against an aircraft carrier group would be do only that, and would not be waiting the answer. Russia would go also with almost all the nuclear arsenal against every target they have.

    Russia only would do this in a very, very, very, very extreme situation.

    In part this is why anti aircraft carrier deterrence makes sense. And it can not be done with subpar aircraft carriers, that leads to subpar aircraf carrier groups.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2676
    Points : 2716
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:01 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Is Russia will not use nukes in event of full scale war then why nukes? Assault of a/c group with hundreds of tomahawks launched is what according to you?


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2676
    Points : 2716
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:39 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Russia atm has no satelites dedicated to roles of tracking enemy naval assets as it did during Cold War as far as we know, so that is debatable, at best.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201701141049601090-russia-liana-satellite-network-details/
    "
    The complete constellation of Liana satellites is expected to come online later this year. Military experts believe that between 6-8 satellites are necessary to monitor the Earth's surface in its entirety. The military remains hush-hush about the exact number necessary.
    "

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Орбитальная_спутниковая_группировка_России


    Looks like now has 4 , 2( or3) Lianas 2 Piona's, 6-8 is ok to cover the whole planet.



    So no there is nice sat coverage Russian shores. Satellite even if not monitoring 24/7 it will be couple o f hours back so AC cannot move over its horizon right?


    Besides Anteys and Tu-95 are flying around. Not that many as before but still.



    Militarov wrote:
    OTH radars for most part cant track naval targets at the ranges you have in mind. You cant track something half of the Pacific away with radar, US cant, Russia cant, its called laws of physics. Also.. what hundreds of cruise missiles are you talking about, Russian coast is so wast that less than 1% of it is defended in any way whatsoever. AC groups are not some random fishing trawlers they have own assets, stop looking at everything black and white.


    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Волна_(загоризонтный_радиолокатор)
    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-768.html


    Volna - 3000+ km range, Nakhodka. So can monitor in radius lower south then Hong Kong till almost shores of Alaska.
    if new Container radar will have really 6000km range then most of Pacific is monitored.

    + some Sunflowers with 500km ranges.





    Militarov wrote:

    And stop pulling nukes into story every 10 minutes its getting annoying abit. US has as many destroyers attached to AC groups as Russia has TU-22Ms almost, its disbalance of immense proportions.


    30 Tu22M3M updated by 2020 -> each can carry 3xKh32 (hypersonic, 1000km range, 40,000m ceiling)

    + 39 Tu-22M3M (can carry 3 Kh-22)

    one group can stop 10 Tus with ? 30 missiles? really? Of course you cannot move Tu around prepared airfields because Russians do not knww potential ways of US attack?





    Militarov wrote:

    "US has 10 AC battlegroups and..." - YES BUT RUSSIA HAS THE NUKE. Dont you say... a nuke...

    What you are imagining in your head would also require a teleport to transfer assets across whole Russia in seconds, and as far as we know there is currently none available.

    What bothers me is that you ppl do not know how hard is it to do certain things and how things go. Missiles in Ekaterinburg, bombers in Murmansk, cruiser in S.Peterburg half of its crew in train to Vladivostok, fuel frozen in Novosibirsk... wrong spares come to Engels... its a mess, thats how it is on the ground. Its same for the other side, black and white doesnt cut it.

    Its not "strap a nuke to a bomber and destroy aircraft carrier".

    First of all nothing happens over night. AC do not come unnoticed to range of K-32/22 if so they are monitored closely.
    Second nuke is used when you need them. If attack of multiple AC groups is not enough then what is?
    How do you know that there is mes sin Russia and ot in Us navy? interesting. If level of mess is similar then we can assume more less equal chances.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2676
    Points : 2716
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Dec 07, 2017 3:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:At the end of the day, a USN CSG isn't worth losing NY, LA, Norfolk and/or San Diego - so deterrence works both ways.
    But this thread is about Russian naval plans, & they'll consider the current long-time operators of CVNs experience in the cost -benefit analysis regarding their possible future CV/Ns in the Russian context. The Ulyanovsk CVN project is outdated now, & by the time they can actually start building Storm CVN, it may become outdated as well.

    Russia is in no position to have as many groups as US. Look at UK. 2 ACs most and with F-35 STOVL versions. The question how lrge we will yet to see.

    I can see only the way to build large command ship with airwing and equipped with strong AAD/ASM/ASW . This with 2-3 frigates protect a group of 22800 ships and subs to do the job.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:53 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    The Hadrian Wall from Scotland border to the mouth of Danube was static allright, & the legions were mostly heavy infantry & therefore not "highly mobile"- unlike the mounted Huns who invaded Europe after their defeat by the Chinese. The Gr. Wall of China also served as a road & early warning system, & did save many lives more often than not, & was a base to mount frequent reprisal raids against the highly mobile nomads. It was breached only once, by the Mongol general Subutai who's tumens (all mounted) later went as far as Poland, Hungary, & the Adriatic Sea- on the E. borders of the Holy Roman Empire. Later, the Manchus were invited to help crash a peasant revolt & didn't have to storm any walls before seizing power there for themselves. Later, they too used parts of the Gr. Wall as a base against the Mongols.
    Like the battleships were made obsolete by naval aviation, CBGs r becoming obsolete by Hypersonic & BMs. Even as W. Arctic & Okhotsk & Japan Seas (behind the Kuril & Sakhalin islands with bases/fortresses there) aren't all covered by ice year round, I doubt CSGs will ever be sent against N. & E. Russia for the same reason LHD/As weren't sent to Crimea (CV/Ns r prohibited in the Black Sea) before Russia secured it: Bastion AshMs. China now has bases in the middle of the SC Sea making it very unsafe for any uninvited ships. So, a CBG can't safely "choose time & location of an attack" in many areas already.
    Building new subs w/o AIP but with RTG with loss of performance doesn't make sense to me, defeating the purpose of adding range, & in any case, "laying in ambush", they won't need to be chasing CBGs. Their AShMs & torpedos can do that. More likely they'll have a smaller nuclear power plant than on SSNs but will still have more output than the RTG, eliminating the need for the AIP.

    Adrian wall, as the limes in the Rhein Valley or in Pannonia plains, was a phisical border mark and a defense against plundering and raids, not against invasion.

    Every Rome's Army history book will teach the Legions were the most mobile units of ancient times, first and foremost in terms of strategic mobility, but in terms of tactical mobility as well.

    The standard daily march, with personal equipment carried on shoulders was around 35 Km on paved roads, and easily in excess of 25 Km on unpaved roads with good weather. This for many days in a row, if not weeks.

    And all the romans' military campaign were maneuver warfare campaigns, whether they were invading somebody else or defending from invasions.

    Before the Mongols appeared from the far east, there was no other army in western world as mobile as the Legions, and before mechanization there was no other Army on foot as mobile.

    About fixed defenses, the Pacific campaign in II WW should teach everybody that they are hard to overcome only until they could be reinforced as needed, when needed, by mobile forces.

    The very moment they get even for a short time unable to get cooperation from own mobile forces, they become only sitting ducks.

    But anyway, why a hypersonic missile should get aircraft carriers obsolete, when the very same missile could be launched from an aircraft, that took off from an aircraft carrier, against a land target?

    The carriers will still have the chance to launch stand off attacks and to concentrate resources, getting local air superiority.

    New technologies and weapons could give a defendant more choices and chances, or could do the reverse, but won't change the advantage inherent with mobility.

    In case somebody is thinking of carrier strike groups trying to force straits and choke points, it could be the case.

    More likely, they would employed to take out targets exposed, instead to risk to run in a mouse trap.

    And their simple existence will force any opponents to deplete resources to give dozens or hundreds of possible targets some kind of defense.

    They could even choose to not try strikes against military targets, but to hammer down roads, electrical power plants, railroads, factories, whatever could create chaos or hamper the enemy. Are there enough resources to defend everything valuable lying, let's say, within 300 Km from the nearest open sea?

    Usually the answer is no, and it is followed by the consideration that a mobile force is both cheaper and more effective in keeping at bay the potential threat posed by an enemy's fleet, than trying to defend whatever is laying within reach from open sea with fixed defenses.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:07 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Is Russia will not use nukes in event of full scale war then why nukes?  Assault of a/c group with hundreds of tomahawks launched is what according to you?



    Maybe to deter others to use them against Russia?

    It is just an humble hypothesis, of course!

    Second humble hypothesis, to deter an enemy to inflict mortal damages to the country's own existence by conventional warfare?

    Before something justifying dozens millions of deaths on own population occurs, there are countless cases where a military defeat is still better than nuclear holocaust.

    Conventional forces are still, and the more, relevant because nobody would launch a nuclear attack until its own existence is in real and imminent danger.

    And imminent means something that almost certainly get the country destroyed within weeks or months.

    Even something that could get to the country end within years could be judged, in the end, better to deal with than a nuclear war.

    Quite everybody would find some more years of life expectancy very enticing.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:22 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    I think an aircraft carrier group can be defeated from land, Russia is prepared for it. But at same time to call for nuclear war if some aircraft carrier goes near Russia is not as easy.

    I see positive the policy of deterrence that Pérrier is leaving to see. It would be positive for Russia to have an aircraft carrier group on par with US standard aircraft carrier groups. To have some deterrence value an aircraft carrier group must be on par, if not its alone option is to go away when one superior comes. The US loves to have superiority, without it the US does not the same. Small aircraft carriers for Russia only helps to keep the current superiority of the US aircraft carrier groups.

    Thanks, it is quite what I'm trying to say.

    Actually, when trying to defend from others and not trying to exercise force in the far abroad, the point is not if a carrier is on par with opponents' carriers.

    The point is if its own carrier is able to negate opponent's carrier air superiority.

    Land based assets, being them coastal defenses, air bases, AWACS and so on, will have still the main role, but an aircraft carrier able to contend for a while local air superiority would make the difference most of the times.

    No amount of small vessel could contend air superiority, even destroyers and cruisers would have an hard time trying to get to the carriers sailing against enemy's aircrafts. A capable carrier on own side would represent a true force multiplier both for land based defenses and surface combatants.

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6739
    Points : 6839
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:30 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:..................

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

    South Korea already solved it with Dokdo-class. Take this one, install reactor which will also halve the size of tower, kick the tower to the side, offset weight with elevator on the other end, install ski ramp and make sure front end of deck is also rectangular. Stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage. Done.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 496
    Points : 496
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:47 pm

    Peŕrier wrote: Adrian wall, as the limes in the Rhein Valley or in Pannonia plains, was a phisical border mark and a defense against plundering and raids, not against invasion.
    And all the romans' military campaign were maneuver warfare campaigns, whether they were invading somebody else or defending from invasions. Before the Mongols appeared from the far east, there was no other army in western world as mobile as  the Legions,..
    But anyway, why a hypersonic missile should get aircraft carriers obsolete, when the very same missile could be launched from an aircraft, that took off from an aircraft carrier, against a land target?
    More likely, they would employed to take out targets exposed, instead to risk to run in a mouse trap.
    Usually the answer is no, and it is followed by the consideration that a mobile force is both cheaper and more effective in keeping at bay the potential threat posed by an enemy's fleet, than trying to defend whatever is laying within reach from open sea with fixed defenses.
    Ur history is wrong. The Hannibal's army (Carthage was a Phoenician colony, i.e Semitic people) marched from N. Africa to S. Italy; the Assyrians, also Semites, had, besides chariots, 1st recorded regular mounted cavalry & captured Babylon, Urartu, Jerusalem & Egypt - both, as already mentioned Huns, well before the Mongols, were no less, if not more, mobile than the Romans.
    The battleships could also launch light planes, but still lost against torpedo & free fall bombers. Land defences have strategic depth while CSGs must be supplied often with aviation fuel, ammo, food, spares, etc. while having vulnerability 360 degrees around them. The no-go zones created by sea-denial centered fleet with sea & land based missiles & aviation, even w/o CV/Ns, will turn semi-closed seas into kill zones- their mobility won't outrun hypersonic missiles; their few dozen fighters (or what's left of them) will have no place to recover. WWII battles between CBGs is ancient history, & the Russians & Chinese r not that stupid to engage in them. But keeping CSGs out of range makes them next to useless to the enemy.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 972
    Points : 974
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:52 pm

    Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.




    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jun 25, 2018 5:39 pm