Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:09 am

    kvs wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:.......
    Are the smaller inmune to Zircons or what?

    No but when carrier gets inevitably blown out of the water navy operating smaller ones will lose fewer men, aircraft and shekels than Navy that operates massive ones.

    In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket.   Having two smaller carriers instead of one big one increases survivablity and
    also flexibility.    

    But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against.   It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.



    But there is a problem with that, and the study put it clearly. Not only smaller aircraft carriers have lower performance to meet missions, they have also lower survability. In other words, it is clearly easier to lose a smaller aircraft carrier than to lose bigger aircraft carriers. To say it more clearly, there are situations where a smaller aircraft carrier would be lost, but a bigger aircraft carrier can survive.

    And that is said for the 70000 tons option (marked in blue to see it easily), the gap is fairly bigger still for the smallest options.



    eehnie wrote:If you want to read to US people about aircraft carriers, better if you read them talking about their own fleet, than about what Russia needs.

    There is a recent interesting study about different options of aircraft carriers for the US:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

    Aircraft Carrier Variants Considered

    Our  assessment  of  carrier  alternatives  and  their  operational  effective-ness considered four ship concept variants:

    •a follow-on variant continuing the current 100,000-ton Ford-class carrier but with two life-of-the-ship reactors and other equipment and system changes to reduce cost (CVN 8X)

    •a  70,000-ton  USS  Forrestal–size  carrier  with  an  updated  flight  deck  and  hybrid  nuclear-powered  integrated  propulsion  plant  with  capability  to  embark  the  current  large  integrated  air  wing  but  with  reduced  sortie  generation  capability,  survivability,  ship  speed, and endurance compared with the Ford class (CVN LX)

    •a  43,000-ton  variant  of  the  USS  America–class,  fossil  fuel–powered and arranged to support only STOVL operations but at a higher tempo than the current LHA 6 (USS America) (CV LX).1This  variant  would  incorporate  the  larger  ship’s  beam  excursion  that  the  Navy  examined  in  the  USS  Bougainville–class  flight  1  studies.2

    •a 20,000-ton variant that will resemble escort carriers that some allied navies currently operate (CV EX). Similar to the 43,000-ton  variant,  it  will  be  conventionally  powered  and  will  operate  STOVL aircraft.

    1 We depart from the Navy’s convention of using the LH designation for STOVL support platforms. We use CV to ensure that it is clear that these proposed variants are replacements for the current CVN force.
    2 Naval  Sea  Systems  Command  (NAVSEA)  general-purpose  amphibious  assault  ship  (LHA)  flight  1  studies  examined  alternatives  of  the  LHA  design  for  the  USS  Bougainville (LHA 8 ) AoA. NAVSEA, Surface Ship Design and Systems Engineering, provided the data.

    These choices were consistent with congressional language in the FY  2016  National  Defense  Authorization  Act.3

    Capability Conclusions for Concept Variants Examined

    Focusing on warfighting capabilities of the concept variants examined, a  lower-cost  Ford-class  carrier  (CVN  8X)  might  offer  an  alternative  with little diminishment in warfighting capability and retention of the overall  POR.  However,  the  study’s  excursion  examining  the  business  case for a life-of-the-ship reactor core, such as that now in the POR for all submarine classes, did not significantly lower cost. The Navy might want to consider Ford-class cost drivers that only marginally improve capability  in  light  of  the  observation  that,  in  general,  the  maximum  SGR levels and survivability attributes might be more-viable trade-offs with the current concept of operations than that in effect when the ini-tial KPPs were validated. It is likely, in any case, that Ford-class carriers in the POR will continue to evolve to reduce procurement cost to some extent with some risk-based capability trade-offs, and it might be tech-nically feasible, at some point in the future, for a transition to an IPS, for example. The department and Congress might also move to acquire these carriers in increased orders of quantity to yield cost savings. But there is certainly a limit in the cost “floor” for the Ford-class carriers, and their warfighting capacity, as set in the initial requirements, comes with a cost.

    One approach, such as the CVN LX concept variant, might offer significant  procurement  cost  savings  with  an  integrated,  current  air  wing  with  capabilities  near  current  levels  but  with  less  organic  mission endurance for weapons and aviation fuel. It will not have the same SGR  as  the  Ford class,  but  this  might  not  be  a  significant  limitation  for many of the warfighting scenarios. It will be less survivable in some environments than the Ford POR ship, will have less redundancy than the Ford class, and will degrade in mission execution more rapidly with damage or loss of systems, and these factors might drive different oper-ation  concepts.  The  major  means  of  reducing  cost  is  through  loss  in  engineering redundancy, speed, and air wing fuel capacity, and these trade-offs could affect mobility and theater closure.

    The  concept  variant  CV  LX,  which  pursues  a  larger  version  of  the LHA 6 platforms, might be a low-risk, alternative pathway for the Navy to reduce carrier costs if such a variant were procured in greater numbers, as presented in our analysis. Over the long term, however, as the current carrier force is retired, CV LX would not be a viable option as  the  eventual  carrier  force  unless  displaced  capabilities  were  reas-signed to new aircraft or platforms in the joint force, which would be costly. This platform would be feasible for a subset of carrier missions but, even for those missions, could require an increase in the number of platforms. This concept variant might, if procured in sufficient num-bers,  eventually  enable  the  Navy  to  reduce  the  number  of  Ford-class carriers  in  the  overall  force  structure,  but  more-extensive  analysis  of  missions, operations, and basing of such a variant and the supported air combat element are required.

    The smallest concept variants reviewed, the 20,000-ton sea-based platforms, do not provide either a significant capacity or an integrated air  wing  and,  thus,  force  reliance  on  other  legacy  platforms  or  land-based  assets  to  provide  key  elements  of  capability—in  particular,  AEW. As such, this concept variant is not really a replacement for cur-rent aircraft carrier capability to much degree and would require other platforms, aircraft, weapons, and capabilities in the joint force. These platforms  would  be  a  viable  pathway  only  in  broad  fleet  architecture  transformation providing a narrow mission set perhaps regionally and would require extensive analysis. Given that such a concept variant is not a viable replacement of an aircraft carrier, such analysis would be required to see whether any adjustment of the current aircraft carrier program would be feasible.A  decision  to  use  either  of  the  smaller  concept  variants  would  require a revision of fleet concepts of operations, a refocusing of aircraft procurement to more STOVL strike fighters, and a larger force struc-ture to keep the same number of aircraft in the stressing fights. Neither variant would be effective in warfighting scenarios if it is the first on scene before the arrival of units possessing AEW, airborne C2, and EA.



    Talking about smaller aircraft carriers for Russia, we are talking about lower performance and lower survability. And this is what pro-Western commenters want for Russia.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:31 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:

    Seriously though, the Ford class Uber-mega-super-duper-floating-Pax-Amerikana-phallic_symbols are almost perfect weapons.  All they lack is a giant red bullseye on the sides of the hulls adjacent the reactor compartments, ammo stores and fuel tanks with giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... Twisted Evil

    It's quite unlikely, being the reactors and all related equipment located well below the waterline.

    Unless Zircon can swim, it has almost zero chances to reach a CVN's reactor.

    And even if it could swim, past the outer hull, in itself already hard as an IFV armour, there would be around ten meters of armoured bulkheads and service spaces to overcome before reaching the reactors' compartment.

    I think people do not realize that a CVN is designed like an underground bunker.

    Most if not all of its vital systems are nearly impossible to reach, a mission kill is well possible, but sinking it would be very very hard, and nearly impossible with a single hit, whatever its yeld.

    A modern carrier is far far tougher than the best battleships from second world war, and decades of damage assessments and analysis coupled with modern CAD and simulation tools enable naval engineers to predict quite well most of the likely damages that present and foreseen future ordnance could inflict.

    We saw recently ships far smaller still on surface after serious missile hits.

    When the posted study is talking about lower redundancies in smaller aircraft carriers is talking in part about the structural security systems of the ships, and also is talking about other active systems of defense like the aircrafts.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3407
    Points : 3532
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kvs on Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:15 am

    BS. One target has less survivability compared to two. That is physics and not forum onanism.

    Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.

    One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster. That would actually
    be a clear advantage.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 831
    Points : 835
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:33 am

    kvs wrote:BS.   One target has less survivability compared to two.   That is physics and not forum onanism.

    Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.  

    One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster.   That would actually
    be a clear advantage.  

    Not really since two carriers no matter what size can easily be attacked, at the same time.

    You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

    which is the only logic to that defense and two strike groups are harder to maintain than one since that one carrier requires it's own dedicated escort and submarines. you will never find an AC out in the open ocean without support ships.

    No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

    I spent time on flattops,
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:41 am

    But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against. It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.

    Russia needs carriers because aircraft are the best way to find and stop threats to surface ships and submarines.

    Russian aircraft carriers will not be used to invade countries like US carriers do, or British or French carriers do... they are to protect Russian and allied surface ships in international waters going about their business.

    Zircon makes aircraft carriers obsolete like ATGMs make tanks obsolete and MANPADS makes aircraft obsolete.... ie they don't.

    Zircon will be a very potent weapon, but nothing is perfect.

    The best air defence includes aircraft as part of that air defence... the best air defence for the navy has fixed wing carriers and long range fighters.

    Having VSTOL aircraft at sea is like having helicopters on land defending airspace...

    No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

    Carriers can go as fast as you want to make them... it is power to weight ratio... a very big carrier would need a huge power plant to go very fast... smaller vessels need less power to go the same speed.

    You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

    How hard a carrier is to sink is determined by the quality and performance of its escorts and its own aircraft... any defence can be overwhelmed with numbers but then numbers matter in defence too so more carriers and more escort ships will stop more powerful attacks.

    Russia can reduce the strength of the attacks by pre-empting any attack with a few nuclear armed Zircons sinking enemy platforms before they launch strikes on Russian surface vessels.

    An attack of 1,000 Harpoons might be successful, but shooting down or destroying the aircraft or ships carrying those Harpoons before they launch make the job of defending easier, so long range AWACS and fast fighters can intercept and start to blunt a massive attack earlier and more effectively than waiting with no aircraft at all when the first missiles start coming over the horizon.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 831
    Points : 835
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:59 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against.   It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.

    Russia needs carriers because aircraft are the best way to find and stop threats to surface ships and submarines.

    Russian aircraft carriers will not be used to invade countries like US carriers do, or British or French carriers do... they are to protect Russian and allied surface ships in international waters going about their business.

    Zircon makes aircraft carriers obsolete like ATGMs make tanks obsolete and MANPADS makes aircraft obsolete.... ie they don't.

    Zircon will be a very potent weapon, but nothing is perfect.

    The best air defence includes aircraft as part of that air defence... the best air defence for the navy has fixed wing carriers and long range fighters.

    Having VSTOL aircraft at sea is like having helicopters on land defending airspace...

    No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

    Carriers can go as fast as you want to make them... it is power to weight ratio... a very big carrier would need a huge power plant to go very fast... smaller vessels need less power to go the same speed.

    You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

    How hard a carrier is to sink is determined by the quality and performance of its escorts and its own aircraft... any defence can be overwhelmed with numbers but then numbers matter in defence too so more carriers and more escort ships will stop more powerful attacks.

    Russia can reduce the strength of the attacks by pre-empting any attack with a few nuclear armed Zircons sinking enemy platforms before they launch strikes on Russian surface vessels.

    An attack of 1,000 Harpoons might be successful, but shooting down or destroying the aircraft or ships carrying those Harpoons before they launch make the job of defending easier, so long range AWACS and fast fighters can intercept and start to blunt a massive attack earlier and more effectively than waiting with no aircraft at all when the first missiles start coming over the horizon.

    Smaller Carrier means smaller propulsion....means less power to weight ratio and btw Power to weight isn't the only thing that determines a ships speed the hell man. you made no sense there at all.

    that is why there are smaller ships that go slower than 100k carriers.

    Ah the nuke argument go head let Russia fire a nuke it will only doom it's self.

    That also wasn't the point of the statement you are bringing up things that have nothing to do with what was said. so forgive me if I have no desire to respond to stuff wasn't part of the statement.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:25 pm

    kvs wrote:BS.   One target has less survivability compared to two.   That is physics and not forum onanism.

    Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.  

    One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster.   That would actually
    be a clear advantage.  

    The relation 1 to 2 would be the relation between the 43000 tons and the 100000 tons options. For the case of the 70000 tons, the relation would be of 2 to 3.

    1 of 100000 vs 2 of 43000
    2 of 100000 vs 3 of 70000

    But in the study is said that an aircraft carrier of 43000 tons can not meet the missions of 100000 tons aircraft carrier.
    In the study is assumed that an aircraft carrier of 70000 tons would be able to do it, but this is questioned in the letter of the US Navy.

    As consequence even in equivalent tonnage there is a gap on potential to reach missions. This is something that we can see also in the refered to other armament.

    1 T-55 vs 3 PT-76 (to talk about armament of the same age)

    This is also phisics, and you know well how at the time 1 T-55 was profered to 3 PT-76. The reason of why small tanks fall to Main Battle Tanks was its lack of hability to meet the missions, basically by its lack of firepower. With small aircraft carriers it is the same.

    I can understand if the entire concept of aircraft carrier is questioned, but the advantage of big aircraft carriers over smaller aircraft carriers is perfectly clear from a technical point.

    Finally to note that in the same study, there is a relation of the missions that a US aircraft carrier must meet:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

    Table B.1 Mission-Essential Task List for a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

    NTA 1.1 Move tactical forces.
    NTA 1.1.1.7.1 Provide engineering and main propulsion.
    NTA 1.1.1.7.2 Provide combat systems, deck, and communications.
    NTA 1.1.7.3 Provide damage control.
    NTA 1.1.2.3.1 Sail ship from port, anchorage, or moorage.
    NTA 1.1.2.3.3 Conduct flight operations.
    NTA 1.1.2.3.7 Conduct small-boat operations.
    NTA 1.2.1.2 Conduct airspace management and control.
    NTA 1.2.11 Conduct navigation.
    NTA 1.5.9 Conduct information superiority operations.
    NTA 2.2.1 Collect target data.
    NTA 2.2.3 Perform tactical reconnaissance and surveillance.
    NTA 2.4.4.2 Define the battle-space environment.
    NTA 2.4.5.5 Provide intelligence support to targeting.
    NTA 3.1 Process targets.
    NTA 3.2.1.1 Attack surface targets.
    NTA 3.2.5 Conduct EA.
    NTA 3.2.7 Intercept, engage, and neutralize enemy aircraft and missile targets (DCA).
    NTA 3.2.9 Conduct nonlethal engagement.
    NTA 4.1.3 Provide munitions, pyrotechnics, and specialty items.
    NTA 4.1.4 Maintain explosives safety.
    NTA 4.1.5 Onload and off-load ordnance.
    NTA 4.2.4 Provide petroleum, oils, and lubricants.
    NTA 4.3 Repair and maintain equipment.
    NTA 4.4.2.2 Provide food services.
    NTA 4.6.3 Provide U N R E P.
    NTA 4.8.5 Maintain cultural awareness.
    NTA 4.12.2 Provide ambulatory health care.
    NTA 4.12.3Provide surgical care.
    NTA 4.12.4Provide dental care.
    NTA 5.1.1 Communicate information.
    NTA 5.1.3.1 Maintain and display the tactical picture.
    NTA 5.2.1.3 Review the rules of engagement.
    NTA 5.3.9.3 Plan tactical operations.
    NTA 5.5 Conduct information warfare.
    NTA 5.5.5 Perform information assurance.
    NTA 5.6 Conduct acoustic warfare.
    NTA 6.1.1.1 Protect individuals and systems.
    NTA 6.2 Rescue and recover.
    NTA 6.2.2.1 Perform search and rescue.
    NTA 6.3.1.5 Establish and enforce a protection perimeter.
    NTA 6.3.2.2.2 Review and apply use-of-force rules.
    NTA 6 .5.1 Provide disaster relief.

    NOTE: NTA = Navy tactical task.

    This is what the study is talking about when they say that aircraft carriers of 20000 and 43000 tons can not meet the requirements. And this is what the US Navy is talking about when they put in doubt the feasibility of an aircraft carrier of 70000 able to meet the requirements.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:42 pm

    As consequence even in equivalent tonnage there is a gap on potential to reach missions. This is something that we can see also in the refered to other armament.

    1 T-55 vs 3 PT-76 (to talk about armament of the same age)

    This is also phisics, and you know well how at the time 1 T-55 was profered to 3 PT-76. The reason of why small tanks fall to Main Battle Tanks was its lack of hability to meet the missions, basically by its lack of firepower. With small aircraft carriers it is the same.

    Yeah but what missions are you talking about ?

    Russian will use their carriers as escort carriers from WWII, not the way US navy is using them. They will put VLS on them and their fighter will just provide air cover and keep the enemy far enough so that they can't lunch their missiles at carrier group. The main anti ship armement will be VLS and Oniks or zircon which have bigger range than any other missile.

    For land operation if the enemy is well equiped with aviation and coastal missiles no carrier on the world will get close to the shores and won't be helpfull at all because anti ship missiles and their vectors will always be out of range of the carrier defences so even with escort US carriers arae sitting ducks.

    With US carrier the main problem is that if you achieve a good hit so that the carrier can't lunch anymore fighters then they are dead because their ships have harpoons for anti ship role and not all of them BTW. All their naval power consist of the good working catapults while russian carriers will always be euiped with weapons used on destroyers (like K armement taken from Kirovs for anti ship missiles and from Udaloy for anti air with naval Tor) that are proven to work. So they don't need a big escort maybe some SSN and 1 destroyer against submarines but against air and naval threat it can deal with anything by itself even if it can't lunch its fighters.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:01 pm

    Isos wrote:
    As consequence even in equivalent tonnage there is a gap on potential to reach missions. This is something that we can see also in the refered to other armament.

    1 T-55 vs 3 PT-76 (to talk about armament of the same age)

    This is also phisics, and you know well how at the time 1 T-55 was profered to 3 PT-76. The reason of why small tanks fall to Main Battle Tanks was its lack of hability to meet the missions, basically by its lack of firepower. With small aircraft carriers it is the same.

    Yeah but what missions are you talking about ?

    Russian will use their carriers as escort carriers from WWII, not the way US navy is using them. They will put VLS on them and their fighter will just provide air cover and keep the enemy far enough so that they can't lunch their missiles at carrier group. The main anti ship armement will be VLS and Oniks or zircon which have bigger range than any other missile.

    For land operation if the enemy is well equiped with aviation and coastal missiles no carrier on the world will get close to the shores and won't be helpfull at all because anti ship missiles and their vectors will always be out of range of the carrier defences so even with escort US carriers arae sitting ducks.

    With US carrier the main problem is that if you achieve a good hit so that the carrier can't lunch anymore fighters then they are dead because their ships have harpoons for anti ship role and not all of them BTW. All their naval power consist of the good working catapults while russian carriers will always be euiped with weapons used on destroyers (like K armement taken from Kirovs for anti ship missiles and from Udaloy for anti air with naval Tor) that are proven to work. So they don't need a big escort maybe some SSN and 1 destroyer against submarines but against air and naval threat it can deal with anything by itself even if it can't lunch its fighters.

    The list of missions and tasks required by the US to their aircraft carriers is also in the previous message.

    In the refered to the most military side, you can say what would be superfluous for the Russian Navy in your opinion. I do not see many.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 28, 2018 7:59 pm

    The current US carriers are able, at least theoretically, to operate a carrier wing made of up to around 80 fixed wing aircrafts plus helicopters.

    Its main requirements are pretty obvious: to operate sea control on high sea for extended time against any existing opponents, and to be able to counter any regional power land based air force on its own or in cooperation with a second aircraft carrier.

    It should be noted that a full carrier wing is made of three to four AEW aircrafts, around six specialized SEAD aircrafts, and sixty to seventy combat aircrafts.

    The day a carrier enter its area of operations, all of the above is nearly 100% operative, meaning an air power easily on par with an air force made of more than one hundred combat aircrafts plus support assets.

    Two aircraft carriers operating together are on par even with local contingents of a superpower, until additional assets are not sent to counter those aircraft carriers.

    Now, let's do some math.

    Local air cover requires a minimum of two aircrafts on CAP 24/365, but a more credible CAP would be made of four aircrafts flying in two by two formation.

    To maintain such CAP, at least ten aircraft are required for a two aircrafts CAP, and around eighteen aircrafts for a four aircrafts CAP.

    Then, you have reconnaissance missions, long range patrols, some specialized (SEAD, primarily) aircrafts, AEW.

    Let's say reconnaissance require two by two aircrafts (two performing the mission, two providing escort): you can't take those aircrafts from those accounted for CAP, and you should at least have a second detachment available, so it sums another eight aircrafts.

    Long range patrols (different mission from reconnaissance) require two aircrafts, and they fly very very often, so let's say other six aircrafts are needed for such mission, but eight would be far better.

    Add to them four to six SEAD aircrafts, four AEW, and sum them all.

    We are speaking of 18 (CAP) plus 8 (reconnaissance) plus six (long range patrol), plus 4 (SEAD) equals 36 combat aircrafts, plus 4 AEWs.

    It's 40 fixed wing aircrafts, probably the most a Kuznetsov-like hull could manage.

    Make it a little bigger (let's say close or around 65.000/70.000 tons) and it becomes possible to pump up all the above mentioned requirements: 20 aircrafts for CAP, 8 for reconnaissance, 8 for long range patrols. six SEAD aircrafts, 4 AEW plus another 2 additional combat aircrafts to provide a backup, an operational buffer, to the aforementioned combat aircrafts.  It equals to 38 standard combat aircrafts, 6 six specialized SEAD aircrafts, 4 AEW.

    There is no real power projection requirement accounted for, with the exception of the SEAD mission (it could be seen as power projection tool, but it is equally relevant at sea when defending against an enemy task force because degrading its AAW defenses improves your AShMs chances to hit their targets).

    I think, even using the proverbial Eyeball Mk. 1 as a simulation tool, that we have found a reasonable missions' set for a future russian aircraft carrier.

    Of course, against little countries, a carrier equipped with around 40 combat aircrafts plus specialized supports as AEW and SEAD becomes a big power projection tool as well.

    But in terms of peers' confrontation, it is the minimum to provide just a comprehensive and credible air cover to its own task force.

    If you would like to do more, then of course you have to speak of a 100,000 tons, Ford like CVN.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:24 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Russian will use their carriers as escort carriers from WWII, not the way US navy is using them. They will put VLS on them and their fighter will just provide air cover and keep the enemy far enough so that they can't lunch their missiles at carrier group. The main anti ship armement will be VLS and Oniks or zircon which have bigger range than any other missile.


    This refrain about second world war's escort carriers is wrong.

    Escort carriers were meant to provide air cover to convoys, so their primary mission was in reality ASW.

    In the pacific, they performed well beyond their intended roles, because the japanese's defenses were scattered across the ocean and after Coral Sea and Midway battles IJN was no longer able to confront US main carrier force AND auxiliary task forces.

    Japan had to choose what the main threat was, and it was deemed obviously to be the main fleet carriers force.

    This approach left islands based garrisons exposed to the escort carriers, that were able to annihilate land based forces accounting to hundreds of combat aircrafts.

    Again, it has to be stressed that aircrafts carriers have always the advantage to choose location and time of the attack, and are able to concentrate their air power at will: the thousands aircrafts IJN and japanese Army got on the land based air bases across the Pacific could not support each others, and a few hundreds combat aircrafts deployed on around two dozen escort carriers were able to take them out one airfield after another.

    Still, they were so vulnerable and ill suited to any ope sea confrontation that they were quickly phased out after the war: it was not a misjudgement or a mistake.

    They had performed beyond their actual capabilities against an enemy that made the wrong choices both in terms of aircrafts and ships ( the Army's aircrafts proved to be far better opponents than the over-hyped Navy's Zero, and Yamato-class battleships were a waste of hundreds thousand tons of steel and other commodities), but had almost zero chances against a smarter opponent.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:26 pm

    Escort carriers were meant to provide air cover to convoys, so their primary mission was in reality ASW.

    Exactly the case of the K. It has more ka-27 than mig or sukhoi.

    Again, it has to be stressed that aircrafts carriers have always the advantage to choose location and time of the attack, and are able to concentrate their air power at will: the thousands aircrafts IJN and japanese Army got on the land based air bases across the Pacific could not support each others, and a few hundreds combat aircrafts deployed on around two dozen escort carriers were able to take them out one airfield after another.

    No. Aircraft have the advantage of being much faster than anything on the water.
    Carriers are sitting ducks because radars today will detect them from much further than their fighters can operate. And to destroy them you don't need to send bombers armed with hundreds of bombs above them. Just need to send an AWACS detect it from 600-700 km and send some fighters to lunch anti ship missiles from hundreds of km from it.

    10 su-34 armed with 6 kh-35 is a volley of 60 kh-35 and that's only 10 bombers. Imagine now all their tu 22 with kh 23 and all the su -34 and su 24 covered by su 35 and su 57. A supercarrier with 80 fighters is more armed than a lot of countries but 1 or two hit will probably make a mission kill and the admirals have to forget 80 fighters for their defence plans, that's a big lose.

    Russia spent 75 years to develop this capability. Carriers used like US ones are useless. Against a potent enemy. Maybe they will win an open sea engagemenr that will never occure anyway but near the shores of an enemy like russia, china or even modern Japan they will lose their carriers.

    Russian carriers don't follow thus philosophy because first it is useless and second they don't need to be always the most powerfull and to control seas always during peacetime. They just need something capable to defend a fleet and destroy enmy ships before they attack land targets.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:07 pm

    No?

    It's History, not an opinion:
    escort carrier's aircrafts destroyed Land based aircrafts at will, using local air dominance.

    The aforementioned Su-34s should survive at least preemptive strikes and CAPs before making anyrhing meaningful.

    And the AWACS should prove themselves able to survive opponents' tryout to shoot them down.

    Reality does not ever change: mobility is always an advantage, and It always shall be.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:41 am

    Peŕrier wrote:No?

    It's History, not an opinion:
    escort carrier's aircrafts destroyed Land based aircrafts at will, using local air dominance.

    The aforementioned Su-34s should survive at least preemptive strikes and CAPs before making anyrhing meaningful.

    And the AWACS should prove themselves able to survive opponents' tryout to shoot them down.

    Reality does not ever change: mobility is always an advantage, and It always shall be.

    Yes at the time of WW2 but not anymore because they don't have the privilege of the surprise attack because they will be spotted by radars and other detection tools before reaching the target. And before they reach the target they will need to defend themselves against swarm attacks of hundreds of small missiles.

    Do you really think that a carrier can make a bublle of 1000 km around it where everything is detected and destroyed in matters of seconds.

    An su-35 can destroy AWACS from 300 km with r 37 and can detect a carrier probably at 500 km. No need to go through those fighters defending the carrier because tjere will be like you said maybe 2 or 4 flying in the air. A russian or chinese attack will be from different sides so they won't be able to attack all the formations. And with the anti ship missiles range, the carrier won't be able to send on time other fighters to intercept those bombers, if they detect them also. There won't be always an awacs in the air specialy if they are destroyed.


    The thing is that your carrier will have to survive all the things you said and more if we remember how diesel sub are good against them while being smaller than the smallest russian base.

    And carriers fighters don't have superpower specially f 18 which are said by the israeli, not the russians or chinese, to be bad compare to their f 15/16 after exercice with US navy.

    And the targets will be protected by s-400 not some 30 mm canons that have 2% hit probability from WW2.

    To be used efficiently your carrier should be at 300 km from shores or even less if you are fighting a huge country like russia or china so you will be in range of s-400 and costal Bal and Bastion P and the diesel sub will be used in their favourite terrain, costal waters.

    And this is what will happen if russia or china let them come close to the shores. They will more likely send some bombers when the carrier is in bad weather and bad sea condition a little bit further from the shores. Su-34 can go far with regueling and with external tanks. So they can attack at 5000 km easily. A carrier will need days to move 5000 km so it will be attacked by swarm missile volley for days and days. If it reach the bases where the su 34 it is not even sure that the hornets have the range to attack them, just look at a map of russia or china ... and pretty impossible for them to go through russian IADS and su-30/35/57 and mig 35.

    If you still think a supercarrier like a Nimitz could survive this, you should apply to US navy, they are looking for guys like you.


    Last edited by Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:56 am; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:53 am

    Nope, under any circumstances.


    SSKs literally crawl, there is almost zero chances they could intercept military vessels in open sea, they are mostly useful to defend choke points and close to shore waters, aircraft carrier NEVER go close to shores.

    And whoever employ aircraft carriers, do not send them blindly, first a detailed order of battle of enemy's forces is pictured, then a tactical plan is drown, last the carriers are sent.

    Carriers are always at advantage if no big mistakes are done, period.

    Without exception, no matters enemy's weapons fielded.

    There is no credible or even at least real sea denial weapon in the world, period number two.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:59 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Nope, under any circumstances.


    SSKs literally crawl, there is almost zero chances they could intercept military vessels in open sea, they are mostly useful to defend choke points and close to shore waters, aircraft carrier NEVER go close to shores.

    And whoever employ aircraft carriers, do not send them blindly, first a detailed order of battle of enemy's forces is pictured, then a tactical plan is drown, last the carriers are sent.

    Carriers are always at advantage if no big mistakes are done, period.

    Without exception, no matters enemy's weapons fielded.

    There is no credible or even at least real sea denial weapon in the world, period number two.

    Where do you think they go ?? They will need to go near shores to attack russia or china. They even send a carrier between china and taiwan ...
    Hornet and f 35 are not powered by some fantasy reactors. Their range is limited and forget the buddy to buddy refueling. That's good only for bombing farmers.

    Russia will never fight US navy in open ocea. They are not stupid.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:07 am

    Isos wrote:

    Where do you think they go ?? Tjey will need to go near shores to attack russia or china. They even send a carrier between china and taiwan ...

    Russia will never fight US navy in open ocea. They are not stupid.


    And carriers will never, never need to come shorter than a couple hundreds kilometers from nearest shore, meaning no land radar, no land based missile, no SSK could see them or reach them.

    And what airbase in the world is not mapped and already known in its position?

    Answer: no air base in the world.

    So there is zero chance a carrier task group would go against superior air assets, unless some big mistake has been made on planning.

    Mobile forces are superior, always and everywhere in time and space.

    There is no, there was no, there shall never be a case when a fixed defense would be superior to a mobile force.

    now, in the past and in the future, without any possible exception.

    It's a nature's law.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:34 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Where do you think they go ?? Tjey will need to go near shores to attack russia or china. They even send a carrier between china and taiwan ...

    Russia will never fight US navy in open ocea. They are not stupid.


    And carriers will never, never need to come shorter than a couple hundreds kilometers from nearest shore, meaning no land radar, no land based missile, no SSK could see them or reach them.

    And what airbase in the world is not mapped and already known in its position?

    Answer: no air base in the world.

    So there is zero chance a carrier task group would go against superior air assets, unless some big mistake has been made on planning.

    Mobile forces are superior, always and everywhere in time and space.

    There is no, there was no, there shall never be a case when a fixed defense would be superior to a mobile force.

    now, in the past and in the future, without any possible exception.

    It's a nature's law.

    Yeah a couple hundreds of km means awacs will detect it, su 35 will detect it, oniks will reach it, ssn will reach it.

    Who cares if they are fixed bases ? Russia has the best IADS and the further the carrier is the less its fighters will have range. Russian bases are well protected and are in the lands not on the shores.

    Su 35 are much more mobile than f 18 or f 35.
    Carrier can be considered as immobile targets compare to su 34 or mach 3 oniks or mach 8 zircon. The only thing they need to do is have good airborne radars. Once detected and it will be detected it is dead ship. Russians won't wait 2 weeks to destroy it all the thing will happen in 3 or 4 hours. The ship will move maybe 120 km maximum from its initial detection place, for an A 100 or irbis E radar that won't change anything. 2 ms of scaning and it will be there.

    Fighters like f 18 or 35 will have a practicale range of 500km max if they carry full weapons and have to escape russian missiles by flying low and fast. So the carrier will have to come close. That's a fact. Stop saying it won't be reached by anything.

    Isreali though the same that mobile force are better and their tanks were destroyed by hundreds by egyptian atgm teams. Hitler though the same in kursk and Zhukov destroyed its plans with fixed well organized forces.

    I think you should learn better your history. You watched too much those stupid things about golf war ... once dead you don't respawn for another game. Same forcarrier fighters once downed, they have no more fighters. Su 35 are made to destroy f 22 let alone an f 18 or 35 ...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:42 am

    BTW go check what is an ambush to see how stupid your statement is about fixe against moving thing...

    US fighter needs aeroport also. Check only the map of where US fighters jets where put during golf war and you xill see that they were almost all in range of Scud missiles. And if you want to have an idea of what ballistic missile can do just ask the saoudis.

    There is a difference between a fixed russian base with s 400 pantsirs and su 35 and an iraqi base with dug-in mig 25 ...

    Check the loses of the armies that attacked closed castles also.
    Check also the stalingrad battle where soviet fixed position destroyed nazi army.

    You confuse mobile troups in general with "an f 16 against an iraqi t 72". That's not the same at all my dear.


    Last edited by Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:50 am; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:47 am

    Yes, we all have seen ambushes on open sea against carriers.

    At least in the movies, not yet in the real world.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:51 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Yes, we all have seen ambushes on open sea against carriers.

    At least in the movies, not yet in the real world.

    Go check soviet naval doctrine ... that's typicaly what their subs had to do...
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 999
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:53 am

    Peŕrier wrote:Yes, we all have seen ambushes on open sea against carriers.

    At least in the movies, not yet in the real world.

    Never heard of the Battle of Midway?

    Yeah sure, its WW2, but its still a good example of the vulnerability of carriers in a battle between near-peer powers with similar technology levels.  Looking beyond the actual sinking of carriers, WW2 had many examples of carriers rendered useless (mission kill) by a single bomb to the flight deck or torpedo strike causing a list, and yet we still have idiots sermonizing about how carriers are uber-weapons that cannot be scratched in the era of smart supersonic/hypersonic missiles....
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 999
    Points : 1015
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:21 am

    And carriers will never, never need to come shorter than a couple hundreds kilometers from nearest shore, meaning no land radar, no land based missile, no SSK could see them or reach them.

    Ha ha! The old "we can hit you, but you can't hit us" argument.... What a joke. Apparently this guy thinks all future naval warfare will be an Iraq-style scenario of sitting passively offshore while peppering the other guy with tomahawks at ones leisure... Very Happy

    And what airbase in the world is not mapped and already known in its position?

    Answer: no air base in the world.

    And what airbase in the world will be put out of action by a bomb on the flight deck, or a AShM hit, or a torpedo exploding under the hull?

    So there is zero chance a carrier task group would go against superior air assets, unless some big mistake has been made on planning.

    Which is why the Chinese are investing heavily in near-abroad naval air superiority and missile-based A2/AD capabilities, and recon capabilities to allow their effective use.

    Mobile forces are superior, always and everywhere in time and space.

    There is no, there was no, there shall never be a case when a fixed defense would be superior to a mobile force.

    You seem to think that "fixed defenses" constitutes Soviet-era export grade SAM emplacements sitting in open desert? or maybe some hypothetical Chinese air defense equivalent of the Maginot line?... Given that modern Russian and Chinese SAM networks are now inherently mobile, that kinda defeats your comments?

    I find it amusing that the US has always boasted that its satraps UK and Japan are "unsinkable aircraft carriers", yet you want us to believe that floating platforms operating 1,000s of kms from their bases are now more potent than the massed land-based strike capabilities of near-peer competitors?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:18 am

    Those stating carriers are big passive sitting ducks are clearly suggesting Russia have no navy in the future.

    If the enemy can detect Russian ships from thousands of kms distance and launch missile attacks that will destroy large carriers then how can any vessel survive?

    Having airborne AWACS platforms means detecting an attack at its earliest possible time which gives the fleet the most possible time to prepare for an enemy attack.

    Carriers are not invincible... no ship is, but what a medium or large carrier offers is combat persistance at extended flight ranges from the carrier to maximise the view and reach of the aircraft of board the carrier and therefore also on the other ships of the battle group.

    Having ten fucking stupid little helicopter carriers with short range useless fucking VTOL fighters means bugger all... it is all about AWACS platforms with decent size and view... if such aircraft can operate from your carriers then normal sized land based fixed wing fighters could be adapted to operate as well for much less cost than developing VTOl fighters from scratch.

    Having 10 mistral carriers with 6 Sea Harriers on each just means the enemy will use more missiles to destroy your air cover and take marginally longer to do so.

    Conversely if you have two large fixed wing carriers the odds are that one of those carriers will be in overhaul or refit so you will likely most of the time only have one carrier available, but with decent AWACS support and decent fighter aircraft in support you will only need one.... any attempt to overwhelm them will result in the concentration of multiple US carriers... the ideal target for a mass launch of Zircon missiles from ships, subs, and aircraft...

    Just looking at the Su-57 I would say any 5th gen light naval fighter they make will be rather better able to fight the F-35s in service in the west in the same role... especially if they don't compromise the design by trying to make it a VSTOL design.


    And what airbase in the world will be put out of action by a bomb on the flight deck, or a AShM hit, or a torpedo exploding under the hull?

    Not many airfields have integrated air defence networks comparable to those operating around a carrier, nor the number and composition of forces actively defending that air field...

    Most of the ones you can mention are either US carriers or Russian land based airfields...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:49 pm

    Carriers are not invincible... no ship is, but what a medium or large carrier offers is combat persistance at extended flight ranges from the carrier to maximise the view and reach of the aircraft of board the carrier and therefore also on the other ships of the battle group.

    Of course carrier are very good. But the way he describs its usefulness is bullshit. You just can't use them against an army like Russia or china or US because their airfrorces are big and they have very good tools for long range detection.

    And like you said su 57 and su 35 are very good and will be able to destroy f18 and f 35 so your carrier will be less and less usefull when its fighters start getting low in numbers.

    Moreover, russian main bases will be out f range of the naval US aviation and they will use smaller bases to refuel their fighters. Runways can be rebuild once destroyed in matters of hours, it's just a big road nothung much. US can't rebuild at sea their carrier's flight deck.

    Following US way of using carriers is stupid. Russian should just redusign a K maybe with more fighters and less helos but keep the weapons that defend it and even add a s 400 luncher.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:07 pm