Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:25 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:30 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:36 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:39 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:44 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 : 313
    Points : 343
    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 4:42 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:46 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:47 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:47 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:53 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:05 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:11 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:52 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:14 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:35 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:31 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:04 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:35 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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:35 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 : 209
    Points : 209
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:38 pm

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

    Posts : 355
    Points : 357
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:52 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

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:42 pm

    Yes, of course, that's why everybody and its pet are building new aircraft carriers as all people repeat as limited aircraft carriers are.

    There is no, really no chance any kind of weapon system in the land can be at advantage against aircraft carriers.

    Whatever you write, reality is any land based installation is either fixed, or reliant on fixed logistical installation.

    That means everything, absolutely everything about their whereabouts is known in advance. Whatever a country could deploy, it will never be enough to effectively cover all potential targets, even in Russia, even in Soviet times there were not enough assets to cover everything.

    Nor the USA or any other world power has ever had the capability to defend all of its assets and territory.

    And aircraft carrier will be always employed to caught enemy off balanced, that's a fact.

    Just try to list russian, chinese, or american airbases covering their respective territories, with related inventory in terms of combat aircrafts.

    It will turn out that mostly of times, for many not so small regions around 30 to 40 combat aircrafts are actually available. Sums up all the base distributed around a country, and you will end with several hundreds of combat aircrafts. Impressive air forces, are they, but no matters how much impressive, the sheer size of the countries and the numbers of sensitive targets to be defended are simply overwhelming.

    I's a general rule, the same dictating that in land warfare you need armoured troops no matter how large an army is, because no fixed defense will never be enough strong to negate a mobile enemy to attain local superiority.

    And please, don't tell anybody else, but usually in a peer confrontation, even your opponents has subs, cruise missiles, ISAR assets and so on, meaning most of those assets, in both sides, will spent time primarily countering each other.

    It will never be that somebody deploying aircraft carriers won't have those assets deployed as well, while his opponent will do.

    So again, mobile forces will be at advantage against fixed ones, by the mere fact they can choose where and when to strike.

    It's that, it will always be that, and it's the reason behind US, russian, chinese, indian, british, french, even australian, south korean, italian and spanish quest for the aircraft carriers.
    avatar
    eehnie

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:34 am

    Isos wrote:
    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.

    Isos on helicopter carriers you are right, but here I can not say the same.

    Land based fighters plus their weapons have a limited range. Also other land based weapons have a limited range. A big US aircraft carrier can select its position and never will afford a direct fight with land based weapons except in a Normandie like scenario. This should be clear enough. A big US aircraft carrier never will go inside the range of the Russian land based fighters + its weapons.

    One of the big US aircraft carriers is not a small base. There are not many land bases that can operate at same time around 90 combat aircrafts. Plus, they tend to operate not alone. In a Normandie like scenario, would be around 6 of them?

    And also you are wrong saying how easy is to sink an aircraft carrier. If you think 1 tomahawk hit would sink an aircraft carrier of 100000 tons you are wrong. Talking about Midway, it is good to read the reports to realize how the sunk aircraft carriers received multiple impacts before sinking, even were necessary multiple hits under the waterline, and the aircraft carriers of Midway were of 30000-40000 the bigger and under 10000 tons the smaller.

    Maybe if hit here or there a single tomahawk would sink an aircraft carrier of 100000 tons, but this is too much if. To be as lucky there are necessary several hits in average. And to achieve 6-8 hits from tomahawks (or Caliber), you can do the calculus about how many of them should be launched with like 90 fighters just waiting them outside of the range of land based fighters.

    It is obvious that the fighting strategy of US aircraft carriers vs Russia would be to go to a place just out of the range of Russian fighters + plus their weapons. Maybe at 2500 Km of the coast or even less, creating a zone of air and sea superiority that would not allow the Russian strategic bombers, ships and submarines with weapons of range under 1200 Km (excluding Zircons and S-500 of the scenario), that Russia would have to answer with (unless suicide actions):

    - Kalibr (only the longest range variant).
    - RK-55.
    - Kh-55/101/102.
    - SSBN.
    - ICBM.

    And in this situation the US would be able to attack Russian land with ship and submarine based missiles and would have sea superiority vs the small ships answering them with Kalibr.

    Reading the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 we can see that Russia is working hard to avoid this kind of scenarios. The nuclear option is always there, and is very evident looking at the list of weapons available in a situation like this, but Russia wants something else, and is talking openly about non-nuclear deterrence, working the side of conventional guidded missiles, but also working the side of aircraft carriers.

    In the previous situation, a Project 23000 Russian aircraft carrier that allows the use of standard Su-57, placed at 1200-1300 Km from the coast would include also in the mix for the Russian defense:

    - Russian fighters, in bigger amounts than the shipborne fleet, and "unlimited" capability of replacing loses with aircrafts from land. The Su-57 have longer range than the F-35 which would mean that the Russian aircraft carrier would be able to find a position where the Su-57 are in range of attacking the US aircraft carrier while is safe from the F-35.
    - Russian ships would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of Zircons and more S-500, that are also in the own armament of the aircraft carrier.
    - Russian submarines would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of more shorter range weapons (always present in bigger numbers) in adition to the RK-55.
    - Russian strategic bombers would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of shorter range weapons (again present in bigger numbers) in adition to the Kh-55/101/102.

    Consequence, non-nuclear deterrence achieved and sea denial achieved at this distance.

    A smaller aircraft carrier with lower number of aircrafts, with underperformer aircrafts and with specific aircrafts that can not be replaced by aircrafts from land would be surpassed by the US aircraft carrier and would not achieve this non-nuclear deterrence.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:26 am; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5702
    Points : 5743
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:42 am

    Isos wrote:
    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.

    Just like Russian base in Transnistria right? One which they cant supply anymore?

    Also by its size Russia lacks aerial transport capabilities, big time. It would require double, maybe even triple airlift fleet it has now.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 355
    Points : 357
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:46 am

    All those non-US navies except the French & UK carriers primary task won't be to attack land by themselves as USN CV/Ns been doing. North Korea has mobile ASh & BMs, some with nuclear warheads- 3 USN CSGs & 1 SSGN with >200 LACMs total + dozens of fighter-bombers with stand-off weapons didn't make a lot of impression on her- Kim told the world that he'll "turn them to ashes".    
    They can't reduce drafts to navigate on shallow rivers/lakes, r not amphibians & don't have wheels/WIGs to go on/over land, & can't dive & launch aircraft from under water. Their choices of targets r limited as they can't go anywhere in the salt waters like they used to anymore & their fighters lack range, even if refueled. Btw, land -based air tankers, AWACs & their fixed bases can be destroyed as well- they r all part of a kill chain. Also, CB/SGs depend on land based logistics & MPA to get critical supplies/personnel & help them to go through choke points/assist against subs, etc. near land.
    Their escorts, ammo ships & oilers can & will be disabled/sunk- w/o those, the CVNs r naked & can't project power ashore!
    Last, but not least, CVNs in ports/at anchor have ZERO mobility; when a NK BM overflew Japan in 1998, the CV-63 was in port of Yokosuka, & her AW at Atsugi. While leaving/entering ports/anchorages/choke points they must go slow & can also be detected & attacked- even with "emissions control" in place-their "high mobility" won't be of help then! In exercises we know of they been "sunk" by SSKs 14 times! Thanks for ur time & have a nice day!

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:09 pm