Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1275
    Points : 1279
    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 : 1275
    Points : 1279
    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 : 17877
    Points : 18439
    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...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    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.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:25 pm

    Midway was a battle staged by aircraft carriers against aircraft carriers.

    There was, and there is still today and in the foreseable future, no chance that land based forces could "ambush" aircraft carriers.

    And barring really big misjudgements by naval planners, carriers will strike when and where its more likely they will get local air dominance.

    There is no way any country in the world, exept some landlocked ones, could have enough air assets to defend all meaningful targets that lie by or close to its shores.

    There is a strict correlation between military capabilities and economical, political and social development: the more military capabilities your country could deploy, the more developed should your country be, which in turn means more possible vulnerabilities and liabilities.

    Road networks, railroad networks, powerlines, food processing factories, merchant and fishing ports, city underground lines, refineries, oil and gas depots, data transmission lines, dams, agricultural water supplies, airports, you name them.

    And again, within hours a carrier task group could easily sail some hundreds kilometers, moving within or outside the reach of any land air base and its aircrafts.

    While the carriers sail, their aircrafts are not consuming mission cycles.

    Land based aircrafts, in the hypothesis they could redeploy to reinforce some airbase, will have at least a cycle less in their airframes and engines before maintenance become mandatory, and crews will need rest and have no replacement.

    Because nowadays a combat aircraft is able to perform several sorties before getting grounded for maintenance, but crews still need many hours' rest after each single sortie to recover from mental stress and phisical fatigue, it's usual having more crews for each aircraft in a squadron.

    Something that ferried aircrafts could not bring along with maintenance tools and people, redicing overall efficiency of hastily redeployed aircrafts.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:30 pm

    You are saying total bs. You think because fighters and personnel goes in another bases they lose all their energy ? Really ?

    You think being on a carrier 1 month is better than taking a plane to go 500 km away on an advance base ?

    There was, and there is still today and in the foreseable future, no chance that land based forces could "ambush" aircraft carriers.

    Thank you Einstein for this truth ...

    You think russian are going to send t-90 to destroy the carrier ?

    Land based aircrafts, in the hypothesis they could redeploy to reinforce some airbase, will have at least a cycle less in their airframes and engines before maintenance become mandatory, and crews will need rest and have no replacement

    Yeah land based pilots are weak stupid and have no organization ...

    And again, within hours a carrier task group could easily sail some hundreds kilometers, moving within or outside the reach of any land air base and its aircrafts.

    With su-34 armed with 300km kh 35 or oniks and tu 22 armed with 1000 kh 22, it can even move in the middle of the pacific it won't be safe. And now that russian are getting their yasen subs it's even worse.

    While the carriers sail, their aircrafts are not consuming mission cycles.

    Yeah on the ground Russian planes let their engines runing for no reason ...

    Something that ferried aircrafts could not bring along with maintenance tools and people, redicing overall efficiency of hastily redeployed aircrafts.

    Every russian base will have tools for maintenance. More pilots and people can come with something called cargo plane ...

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:36 pm

    Land forces = land based assets.

    I.e. combat aircrafts, patrol aircrafts, missile's batteries that are land based.

    I see you have an optimistic picture about how much work is required to perform even a relatively simple ferry flight, and how much strain it puts upon crews, particularly on combat aircrafts' crews.

    A single redeployment requires hours of planning and study before the flight, and should require familiarization flights past arrival to let crews know visually the whereabouts of their new operating base, plus briefings with local operations planners.

    Anybody knowing a military pilot, either combat or logistic, could go ask him how much work he has to perform in one day, sometimes for a few days in a row, just to make an uneventful ferry flight.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:39 pm

    And f 18 pilots knows the russian mainland better than russian ? So US pilots can do missions with worse plane than russian without the need of geting familiar with the terrain but russian who have crews everywhere in russia have to get familiar ??

    If they send some new crews they will be intergrated with the crews that are already deployed. That's not a problem at all actually, they often do long range exercice all over russia.

    You just invent stupid argument that have 0 sense and even less sense if you want to use them to defend unarmed supercarriers.

    Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer).


    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:44 pm

    Land forces = land based assets

    No.

    Land forces = land forces.

    land based assets I.e. combat aircrafts, patrol aircrafts, missile's batteries that are land based. = airforce + costal forces + naval aviation

    Those things are different and have different commanders. Specially for russian forces. You should go search for more informations about military before talking.

    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 476
    Points : 510
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:42 pm

    Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

    More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:46 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

    More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

    Yeah you got the idea Very Happy
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:47 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

    More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

    Yeah you got the idea Very Happy
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:47 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

    More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

    Yeah you got the idea Very Happy

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:53 pm

    In naval warfare: land forces = assets (relevant to war at sea) that are land based.

    Naval planners do not put much interests on mechanized brigades, unless as potential targets.

    What they are interested for, are C4I, combat and patrol assets able to operate on sea.

    It doesn't matter wether those assets belong to Navy, Army or Air Force: as long they are able to operate on sea, they are relevant.
    And those assets are land based, because they are either static or dependent on land based infrastructure.

    On the other side, a ship or a sub, or aircrafts and helicopters operating from ships, are accounted as sea based assets, because they operate for extended time at sea being logistically autonomous.

    Pilots,expecially combat aircrafts' pilots, are as everybody else subjects to fatigue and stress, and a combat sortie is an heavily demanding task both mentally and phisically: unless you are not in a desperade situation, you will never send a pilot into combat after a ferry flight without granting him a good rest.

    Better again, if operating in an area where that pilot have never been before, you will granting him at least a familiarization flight, so to know all the surroundings, in case he should come back from a sortie in a damaged aircraft needeing to land safely ASAP, even at night and maybe without functioning navigational aids.

    It's a matter of mutual security: a pilot takes years to be trained, and you won't risk to lost him because of poor planning and hasty deployment, and a crashed aircraft on the airfield scattering debris and ordnances around could put a stop to air operations for a while endangering the airbase itself.

    By the way, I'm not american nor I ever believed or suggested US pilots could operate from a new airbase without rest and familiarization: simply they, as anybody else in the world, won't operate because too risky, unless they got really desperate.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:05 pm

    By the way, I'm not american nor I ever believed or suggested US pilots could operate from a new airbase without rest and familiarization: simply they, as anybody else in the world, won't operate because too risky, unless they got really desperate.

    When they attacked Iraq do you think they made an agreement to let their pilots make some flight in Iraq before the war ?

    Get over it, it's a stupid argument.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:11 pm

    No, they left their crews rest after the ferry flights to Saudi Arabia and they left them time to familiarize themselves with the Saudi airbases where they were intended to operate from.

    The same as anybody else in the world: they need rest, and they need to know their own airbase and its surroundings.

    Not the opponents' airbases, unless the opponent is such a sportman that he likes enemies to not risk too much from lack of experience.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:52 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:No, they left their crews rest after the ferry flights to Saudi Arabia and they left them time to familiarize themselves with the Saudi airbases where they were intended to operate from.

    The same as anybody else in the world: they need rest, and they need to know their own airbase and its surroundings.

    Not the opponents' airbases, unless the opponent is such a sportman that he likes enemies to not risk too much from lack of experience.

    Yeah because Iraqui didn't have the tools to Attack them.

    Do you think Russia would let US put 2500 fighter jets near its border while the relation with USA would be like those relations US did have with Iraq (i.e talking about attacking them everywhere at all level of ppower from stupid GI to the president and in the ONU) and wait for them to train their crews ??

    Like I said some days ago on this forum most of US fighter where at ar bases in range of Scud missiles. Iraqui were stupid not to lunch them in big salvo against those bases. Russian are not idiots for sure.


    And bomber crews don't need to train to find a target at sea. All seas are blue and flat ...

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:14 pm

    Where all of this comes from?

    Nobody but you in that last post talked about the US deployng hundreds or thousands of combat aircrafts close to russian border.

    Take a deep breath.

    I have always talked about inherent advantages of aircraft carriers against land based aircrafts.

    That was and that it is what I'm talking about.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:35 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Where all of this comes from?

    Nobody but you in that last post talked about the US deployng hundreds or thousands of combat aircrafts close to russian border.

    Take a deep breath.

    I have always talked about inherent advantages of aircraft carriers against land based aircrafts.

    That was and that it is what I'm talking about.

    I just said that your exemple of US leting their pilots take a rest in saudi arabia is stupid because Russia would never let them do so if they bring fighters close to russian border like they did with Iraq.

    The number of 2500 is cited everywhere for the Golf war. It's not my invention. So I guess in our scenario if US go to war with Russia they will need to deploy them near the border too because Russian bases are all over the huge Russian territory and far from the front line so they will need to be close because if not they will only reach the front line and not the russian bases behind the front.  

    Yeah I gave you facts about how wrong those "advantages" are and you started to talk about rest of pilots how it is so hard to make a flight of one base to an other.

    Your main "advantage" that you talk about is that carrier can stay out of range of russian aviation which is stupid as both jets are as far as the other from ther respective targets but russian will have the advantage of Sukhois longer range and they will have AWACS and refueling Il-78 wth them and they will have r-37 to destroy US awacs.

    So if US want to use their carriers against Russia they will need to send them near at least in the range of Oniks missiles.

    I will take a deep breath when you will open a book talking about naval doctrine.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:31 pm

    Again, nobody but you talked about US (or Venusian or whatever else) deploying pilots to attack another country, be it Russia or Chartago or the Klingon Empire.

    The reasoning was about aircraft carriers striking against an area, and their advantage in choosing location and time for a strike, getting local air dominance.

    This because the opponents, relying on land based aircrafts, will endure difficulties trying to redeploy, within its own borders, aircrafts and pilots to reinforce menaced defenses.

    Even if it could promptly ferry aircrafts and crews, they will need some rest, and better again a little familiarization with their new airbase, before getting operational.

    Something that grant aircraft carriers a window of opportunity before reinforcement get operational.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:04 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Again, nobody but you talked about US (or Venusian or whatever else) deploying pilots to attack another country, be it Russia or Chartago or the Klingon Empire.

    The reasoning was about aircraft carriers striking against an area, and their advantage in choosing location and time for a strike, getting local air dominance.

    This because the opponents, relying on land based aircrafts, will endure difficulties trying to redeploy, within its own borders, aircrafts and pilots to reinforce menaced defenses.

    Even if it could promptly ferry aircrafts and crews, they will need some rest, and better again a little familiarization with their new airbase, before getting operational.

    Something that grant aircraft carriers a window of opportunity before reinforcement get operational.

    Are you stupid ?

    You talked about how great US carriers are and how they can be deployed in matters of hours while ground based fighters need days and days.

    Using efficiently a carrier against some farmers in afghanistan proves nnothing about its usefulness against a real army like Russia or China.

    Deploying a carrier means deploying fighters which means deploying them so that they can hit target so they must be deployed close enough so that fighters have enough range to reach targets and evade missile by using afterburners so they don't just look at their max range and put the carrier at the limit because if the jets are intercepted and engaged and need to use afterburners and burn much more fuel than expected they will need the carrier to be close enough, we are not talking about farmers with Ak-47 but developed armies with IADS and interceptors. So they will be in range of ground costal artillery (missiles actually) and in range of the opposing air force and in range of diesel subs. Why don't you understand this.

    When a fucking frigates goes near russian borders it is watched by russian navy, US carrier are not stealthy or invisible so they will be watched too. They don't need to redeploy anything because they already cover all their territory with fighters deployed everywhere. They will redeploy some fighters if they see some movement of the other carriers and will attack the first one for sure, they won't let US forces build up their forces near them.

    WHY THE FUCK DO THEY NEED TO GET FAMILIARIZE WITH THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY WHILE US PILOTS CAN ATTACK THE COUNTRY AND USE THE SAME AREA WITHOUT FAMILIARIZATION ? DO YOU NEED 10 TO GET FAMILIAR WITH THE 2 OR 3 BUILDING IN THE BASE ?

    Are you familiar with Something called "the logic".

    They don't need to rest after 2h of flight for weeks. A coffe and a sleep and they are good.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:35 pm

    I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

    And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

    Yes, that's correct.

    And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

    I wrote that and I replay it as well.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1954
    Points : 1948
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:35 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

    And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

    Yes, that's correct.

    And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

    I wrote that and I replay it as well.

    Yeah and I tell you it is stupid because a modern army will detect the carrier and will have modern weapons to destroy it. You can easily move fighters and equipement from one base to another specially if you have all the cargo planes that russia has. So the carrier will be no more than a small base that can be destroyed more easily than a ground base because because everything is in a box of 330x70m, one hit ini the good place and you lose your base.

    US didn't achieve to destroy an unprotected Syrian base with almost 100 tomahawks, what would be the result against a russian base protected by russian IADS ?

    They don't need to familiarize with anything because in the air you don't follow roads. They have modern navigation systems.

    You can say it again and again it will still be wrong.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:38 pm

    No problem, be happy with your ideas.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 636
    Points : 636
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:52 pm

    CVNs can be sunk by torpedoes/mines exploding under them- the bombs & missiles stored deep below decks will blow up in seconds, not to mention all the aviation fuel & diesel fuel for emergency generators!
    Coastal ASM batteries r mobile too- while the CVNs must be in certain "box" off the coast to attack land targets. And, they do go near land- the Med. Sea, S/E China & Yellow Seas & the Arabian/ Persian Gulf r not that wide:
    The sea’s average north-south length, from Croatia’s southern shore to Libya, is approximately 800 kilometers (500 miles). http://justfunfacts.com/interesting-facts-about-the-mediterranean-sea/
    from Antalya to Port-Said is 399.65 mi (643.17 km)
    https://www.distance.to/Antalya/Port-Said

    from Tubruq to Crete is 360.44 km
    https://www.distancefromto.net/between/Tubruq/Crete

    from Sicily to Tripoli is 528 km
    https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-sicily-to-tripoli
    from Tunis to Cagliari is 284.08 km
    http://disween.com/tunis-36-tn/cagliari-14-it

    from Mallorca to Algiers is 223.89 mi (360.31 km)
    https://www.distance.to/Mallorca/Algiers,Alger,DZA/36.54494944148322,3.3398437500000004

    from Manila to Hong Kong is 694 miles
    https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-manila-to-hong-kong
    from Manila  to  Hainan is 1314 km or 816 miles.
    http://howmanyhours.com/flight_time/Manila/Hainan.php
    from Manila to Qui Nhơn 1,271 km (790 miles)
    https://www.distancecalculator.net/from-qui-nhon-to-manila

    from Shanghai to Kagoshima is 866 km
    https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-kagoshima-to-shanghai-cn
    from NANTONG to JEJU is 554 km
    https://www.aroundtheworld360.com/distance/nantong_cn/jeju_kr/

    Port of Ras Al Khafji to Bandar Abbas: 474 nm
    http://ports.com/sea-route/port-of-sitra,bahrain/bandar-abbas,iran/#/?a=0&b=0&c=khafji&d=bandar,%20Iran

    Ruwais to Kish Island: 208 nm
    http://ports.com/sea-route/port-of-sitra,bahrain/bandar-abbas,iran/#/?a=0&b=0&c=ruwais&d=kish

    All those max. distances can be covered by Russian & Chinese ASMs; CVNs will have to go between them, thus reducing their stand-off ranges from shores. Also, CB/SGs can be detected from space & UAVs/shore EW assets can mess up their GPS navigation support w/o which the AWs can't fly off & return safely-i.e. bomb anything!
    The MiG-25BMs, which can outrun AAMs, escorted by MiG-31s could hit ships' & planes' radars with Kh-58s & Kh-31s from 110-120km away: https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=64  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-58#Variants
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-31#Variants

    Finally, pilots can use simulators to familiarize themselves with other bases/theaters even before they go there:  
     http://www.dinamika-avia.com/product/classifier/detail.php?id=1424
    http://www.dinamika-avia.com/product/classifier/detail.php?id=1214
    “These days, not a single batch of MiG-29 fighters is delivered without supplying the customer with special training sessions and simulators,” Ivanov says. “Our knowhow is the use of 3D technologies in flight visualization.”Flight simulation is not a new area for Russian aircraft manufacturers. However, it is only now, thanks to modern software, various hydraulic systems, and 3D visualization of the environment, that simulators have been capable to truly imitate a real flight and its conditions. https://www.rbth.com/economics/2014/09/08/using_a_flight_simulator_with_the_russian_air_force_38133

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:01 pm