Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 1967
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:56 am

    eehnie wrote:
    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.

    More consequences of the introduction of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier allowing the use of standard Su-57:

    - Cancellation of the production of Ford-Class aircraft carriers. The US would need to develop a superior aircraft carrier.
    - Cancellation of the production of the F-35. The US would need to develop a superior fighter for its aircraft carriers.


    Last edited by eehnie on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:24 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:48 am

    @Eehnie if you want to use an carrier against russia from 2500 km away how are you going to do anything ? F18 and f35 have smaller range than su 35/34 or tu 22m and tu 160. So the carrier has to be closer to the shores.

    You don't need to sink it. A good hit from anti ship missile in the good place and it won't be able to lunch jets anymore and becames useless ship. It is a small base with lot of things on it. So the probability to hit munitions or fuel with one hit is big.

    I didn't say it is easy but when you know that a su 34 can carry 6 anti ship missiles and they have something like 100 of them it means they can lunch salvos of 600 antiship missiles at the carrier.

    You can keep your carrier at 3000 km so that it can't be reached by su 34 but first it will be useless you can t use f 18 and it will always be in range of tu 22 andd tu 160.

    That's all.

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

    We are talking about transporting personnel and spare parts for their fighters. The fighters can fly by themselves from a base to another. Not to transport 2000 tanks in two days. They also have civilian planes that can be used to transport people.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 1967
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:16 am

    Isos wrote:@Eehnie if you want to use an carrier against russia from 2500 km away how are you going to do anything ? F18 and f35 have smaller range than su 35/34 or tu 22m and tu 160. So the carrier has to be closer to the shores.

    You don't need to sink it. A good hit from anti ship missile in the good place and it won't be able to lunch jets anymore and becames useless ship. It is a small base with lot of things on it. So the probability to hit munitions or fuel with one hit is big.

    I didn't say it is easy but when you know that a su 34 can carry 6 anti ship missiles and they have something like 100 of them it means they can lunch salvos of 600 antiship missiles at the carrier.

    You can keep your carrier at 3000 km so that it can't be reached by su 34 but first it will be useless you can t use f 18 and it will always be in range of tu 22 andd tu 160.

    That's all.

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

    We are talking about transporting personnel and spare parts for their fighters. The fighters can fly by themselves from a base to another. Not to transport 2000 tanks in two days. They also have civilian planes that can be used to transport people.

    It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

    To note that the position of the US aircraft carrier would allow the Su-34 to attack only with Kh-55/101/102, of which only carries 2.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Jan 30, 2018 12:29 pm

    It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

    That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 317
    Points : 347
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:07 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    More consequences of the introduction of the Project 23000 aircraft carrier allowing the use of standard Su-57:

    - Cancellation of the production of Ford-Class aircraft carriers. The US would need to develop a superior aircraft carrier.
    - Cancellation of the production of the F-35. The US would need to develop a superior fighter for its aircraft carriers.

    I think the us would just ramp up carrier production and hope the Russians don't develop teleportation.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 361
    Points : 363
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:07 pm

    Ha ha ha! Like in that Jewish anecdote: "Chaim, get out of the car!" while the a car is only being imagined! If the RF won't be using its CVNs as the the USN does, why must US cancel its Fords & F-35s on just that account? U r carried away, buddy!
    I failed to include a/c carriers in 4 more seas:
    The aircraft involved in the campaign operated ..from the .. USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS America in the Adriatic Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Deliberate_Force#Campaign

    [It] connects to the Ionian Sea at the 72-kilometre (45 mi) wide Strait of Otranto. [and]..is 200 kilometres (120 mi) wide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_Sea#Geography

    the Ionian Sea is 360 miles wide max.:
    http://greekvoyager.com/en/knowing-greece/greece-geography/the-ionian-sea/

    [Later,] The Royal Navy sent a substantial task force that included the aircraft carrier HMS Invincible, which operated Sea Harrier FA2 fighter jets.
    The Italian Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier Giuseppe Garibaldi, a frigate (Maestrale) and a submarine (Sauro-class). The United States Navy provided a naval task force that included the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Vella Gulf, and the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge. The French Navy provided the aircraft carrier Foch and escorts.
    [The Kursk SSGN spent 6 months in] the Mediterranean ..during the summer of 1999 to monitor the United States Sixth Fleet responding to the Kosovo crisis. [It was covering the land Russian forces in the region.] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_(K-141)#Deployments

    The Red Sea at its widest point [is] 355 km (220.6 mi) wide.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sea

    The Arabian Sea's ..max. width ..is [~] 2,400 km (1,490 mi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_Sea#Geography

    Also,
    At a distance of 1,600 mi (2,575 km), Africa and South America are relatively close trans-Atlantic neighbors. In fact, the distance from SW Senegal to NE Brazil is less than half the distance between London and New York. http://www.oafrica.com/broadband/brazil-and-africa/

    Natal-Brasil → Freetown-Sierra-Leone 1,805.55 mi (2,905.76 km) https://www.distance.to/Natal-Brasil/Freetown-Sierra-Leone

    The Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago (Portuguese: Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo) is a group of 15 small islets and rocks in the central equatorial Atlantic Ocean. .. It lies approximately 510 nmi (940 km; 590 mi) from the nearest point of mainland South America (the northeastern Brazilian coastal town of Touros); 1,824 km (1,133 mi) from the west coast of Africa.
    ..Since 1998, the Brazilian Navy has maintained a permanently manned research facility on the islands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter_and_Saint_Paul_Archipelago
    Fernando de Noronha is an archipelago of 21 islands and islets in the Atlantic Ocean, 354 km (220 mi) offshore from the Brazilian coast. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_de_Noronha
    CB/SGs must pass between Brazil & W. Africa to get to/from the  S. Atlantic, Indian & Pac. Oceans as an alternative to Med. Sea, Suez Canal, & the NSR/NW Passage in the Arctic; the Panama Canal isn't wide enough for CVNs. The Pacific is also full of islands & choke points around its shores:  
    http://www.lizasreef.com/HOPE%20FOR%20THE%20OCEANS/Images%20HFTO/Pacific%20OceanH.gif

    https://www.bugbog.com/maps/australasia/pacific_map/

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Pacific_map.gif

    The Marquesas Islands group is ..lying about 1,371 km (852 mi) northeast of Tahiti and about 4,800 kilometres (3,000 mi) away from the west coast of Mexico,..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquesas_Islands#Geography

    Distance from Hawaii to Marquesas Islands is 2,336 mi
    https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Hawaii/Marquesas+Islands,+French+Polynesia/data=!4m7!4m6!1m2!1m1!1s0x7bffdb064f79e005:0x4b7782d274cc8628!1m2!1m1!1s0x7635e66a3a79a46d:0x16a7af39097eb98e?sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQj5372IDZAhUFxmMKHafgA0gQ5y4IKDAA

    The ..shortest distance between California and Hawaii is 3,976 km= 2,471 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-california-to-hawaii

    ..the ..distance between Kauai and Samalga Islands.. 2,175 miles.
    http://www.howderfamily.com/blog/hawaii-is-closer-than-you-think/

    The ..shortest distance from Hawaii to Federated States of Micronesia is 5182.93 km= 3220.52 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from/Hawaii/to/Federated+States+of+Micronesia

    The.. shortest distance between Micronesia and Vanuatu is 2,644 km= 1,643 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-micronesia-to-vanuatu

    Distance from Japan to Federated States of Micronesia 3,433 km
    https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Japan/Federated+States+of+Micronesia/@21.5698169,135.3725025,5z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x34674e0fd77f192f:0xf54275d47c665244!2m2!1d138.252924!2d36.204824!1m5!1m1!1s0x65d9b5c5ac58c813:0x547a8dcdfaa46525!2m2!1d150.550812!2d7.425554

    Distance from Hawaii to Tahiti is 2,629 mi. https://www.distance.to/Tahiti/Hawaii

    Distance between Chile and Easter Island is 3,689.06 km. This distance is equal to 2,292.27 miles, and 1,990.61 nautical miles.
    https://www.distancefromto.net/between/Chile/Easter+Island

    The ..shortest distance between Australia and New Zealand is 4,163 km= 2,587 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-australia-to-new-zealand

    The ..shortest distance between Antarctica and NZ is 4,989 km= 3,100 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-new-zealand

    The 800-kilometre (500 mi) wide passage between Cape Horn and Livingston Island is the shortest crossing from Antarctica to any other landmass. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Passage

    The shortest distance between Antarctica and South Africa is 7,362 km= 4,575 miles.
    https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-south-africa

    CB/SGs of any nation navigating there must go between those points & avoid civilian traffic, shallows, seamounts, wrecks, & possible minefields. Enemy subs & planes with torpedoes &/ AShMs can ambush them anywhere.
    None of these distances can't be covered by Ash/BMs!
    New missile variant ‘could keep US carriers out’
    http://www.atimes.com/article/new-missile-variant-keep-us-carriers/

    Arctic developments update: http://www.pravdareport.com/world/americas/29-01-2018/139846-arctic-0/


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:52 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 1967
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:52 am

    Isos wrote:
    It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

    That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.

    Obviously do not expect less than thousand of missles if you see one hundred vs a poor Syrian air base.

    Also means sea denial to Russia. As example in the Arctic Ocean, some thing Russia does not want. And with very few US aircraft carriers in strategic positions would mean sea blockage for Russia.

    There are strong reasons why Russia is including this way aircraft carriers in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1986
    Points : 2028
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Feb 01, 2018 3:35 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:

    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.


    1) and pilots'fatigue by ferry flight you know it from experience or guessing?

    2) so AC groups are moving with same speed as fighters moving to another airports?! so there is no time to rest? really?!

    3) the whole AC group is not immune to attacks but much harder to kill than one ship.

    4) It looks like you really dream to see II WW combats on Pacific. This era is gone. As simple as that. Why do you think Russia is developing airborne hypersonic cruisemissiles with range 1500km? isnt it ringing the bell with AC group ranges attack?

    5) there are still bunch of Tu-22 with Kh-32 missiles to deal with AC groups.

    6) MiG-31 can carry up to 9000kg of ordnance, 6 anti-ship Kh-31 inclusive. Why it cannot carry 3-4 hypersonic missiles if needed for this role?


    Peŕrier wrote:
    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.


    That's why there is continuous training for in peace time. There is also very limited number of potential directions US forces can approach Russian mainland. If you dont believe check maps as simple as that. All directions are already planned bases either build or being built or will be built






    BTW decision is taken according to Russian press to build helicopter carriers/LHDs first. No wonder because for Russians anti sub warfare is more important. Look at air wings of Soviet Russian ACs alwasy proportionally more helos then fighters. For a reason.


    If Russia develops V gen light fighter with VSTOL then could fit there. Anyway I do not see need for Russia to follow China or Us examples. Too expensive and add little value on innuclear wars scenario. For anything less than Midway battles small LHD/VSTOL carrier is more than enough.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:52 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

    That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.

    Obviously do not expect less than thousand of missles if you see one hundred vs a poor Syrian air base.

    Also means sea denial to Russia. As example in the Arctic Ocean, some thing Russia does not want. And with very few US aircraft carriers in strategic positions would mean sea blockage for Russia.

    There are strong reasons why Russia is including this way aircraft carriers  in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

    How do you fire thousands of missiles ? If they have onlyy cruise missiles in their VLS, the destruction of the carrier and its escort group will be easier.

    What sea blockage ? In the north they will be stuck in the ice quickly and will be destroyed by russian aviation. In the black sea Turkey won't follow USA, in the Pacific you block Chinese sea roads for russian gaz and oïl that they desperately need so they will also Attack US ships and in the Baltics most of the countries their will stay neutral and won't touch Russia.

    Russian bases that host Russian bombers are not reachable by cruise missiles nor US carrier aviation and even if they reach they will be easily destroyed.


    Carriers are good for naval warefare in the middle of ocean. Near the cost of a modern country with good aviation like Russia or china they are dead meat. Get over it.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 1967
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:11 pm

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.

    That won't gonna be effective against russia. If tey do so they will need thousands of missiles so less space for anti air missiles for their VLS so an attack of anti ship missiles will go through their defences is more likely to succeed.

    Obviously do not expect less than thousand of missles if you see one hundred vs a poor Syrian air base.

    Also means sea denial to Russia. As example in the Arctic Ocean, some thing Russia does not want. And with very few US aircraft carriers in strategic positions would mean sea blockage for Russia.

    There are strong reasons why Russia is including this way aircraft carriers  in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015.

    How do you fire thousands of missiles ? If they have onlyy cruise missiles in their VLS, the destruction of the carrier and its escort group will be easier.

    What sea blockage ? In the north they will be stuck in the ice quickly and will be destroyed by russian aviation. In the black sea Turkey won't follow USA, in the Pacific you block Chinese sea roads for russian gaz and oïl that they desperately need so they will also Attack US ships and in the Baltics most of the countries their will stay neutral and won't touch Russia.

    Russian bases that host Russian bombers are not reachable by cruise missiles nor US carrier aviation and even if they reach they will be easily destroyed.


    Carriers are good for naval warefare in the middle of ocean. Near the cost of a modern country with good aviation like Russia or china they are dead meat. Get over it.

    Nothing of this makes sense...

    Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

    The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

    If Russia would have not strong naval armament, that allows an effective support from land, a naval block of Russia would be relatively easy because most the Russian coast is in front of the US and Canada, and there are only a few exits.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:11 pm

    Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

    That's what I'm trying to tell you. This can't happen because if the carrier is out of range of russian land based fighter then the carrier can't attack russia because its fighters have smaller legs than Sukhois so there is no war. And the carrier will still be in range of Tu-22/95/160, maybe even Su-34 could reach it with Il-78 support.

    Why can't you understand that ?

    The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

    What did Iraq have to Attack US with ? Nothing. Same for all countries attacked by USA. The only operation they tried was and Attack with 2 Mirages F-1 covered by some 2 Mig-29 I think. Against 2500 fighter and almost 100 ships around you, you can't do a lot with 2 Mirage and 2 mig.

    Where were the ships that fired those missiles ? 2500 km from Iraq or just near it ?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 219
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:13 pm

    Isos wrote:

    How do you fire thousands of missiles ? If they have onlyy cruise missiles in their VLS, the destruction of the carrier and its escort group will be easier.

    What sea blockage ? In the north they will be stuck in the ice quickly and will be destroyed by russian aviation. In the black sea Turkey won't follow USA, in the Pacific you block Chinese sea roads for russian gaz and oïl that they desperately need so they will also Attack US ships and in the Baltics most of the countries their will stay neutral and won't touch Russia.

    Russian bases that host Russian bombers are not reachable by cruise missiles nor US carrier aviation and even if they reach they will be easily destroyed.


    Carriers are good for naval warefare in the middle of ocean. Near the cost of a modern country with good aviation like Russia or china they are dead meat. Get over it.

    Well, US Navy right now has around two Ticonderoga cruisers and six Arleigh Burke destroyer operative for every carrier.

    A typical carrier task group woul have at least one Ticonderoga and two or three Arleigh Burke, and that's the usual carrier's escort group during easy missions like against Irak and the likes.

    A Ticonderoga has 122 VLS, an Arleigh Burke around 90, so even a minimalist escort group of a single aircraft carrier has around 300 VLS.

    Even loading only half of that with cruise missiles, it would make up for over 150 cruise missiles, to add to those air launched employed by embarked aircrafts. Let's say a single carrier group could at the very least launch over 200 cruse missiles in a really short time if required, but in some serious deploymet, let's say against a peer opponent, it would be reasonable to have a larger escort group, so at least three or four Arleigh Burke if not even a second Ticonderoga.

    That would mean a single carrier strike group could launch easily close or around to 400 cruise missiles almost in a single salvo.

    And no, they won't sail in the Kara sea, nor they would need. From russian northern shores there are two only routes: eastward and westward.

    That means the only waters that means are the Barents sea and east Siberia sea, than by the point of interest of sea communications, eastern Russia and Western Russia would be cut off with each other.

    So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 219
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:28 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

    That's what I'm trying to tell you. This can't happen because if the carrier is out of range of russian land based fighter then the carrier can't attack russia because its fighters have smaller legs than Sukhois so there is no war. And the carrier will still be in range of Tu-22/95/160, maybe even Su-34 could reach it with Il-78 support.

    Why can't you understand that ?

    The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

    What did Iraq have to Attack US with ? Nothing. Same for all countries attacked by USA. The only operation they tried was and Attack with 2 Mirages F-1 covered by some 2 Mig-29 I think. Against 2500 fighter and almost 100 ships around you, you can't do a lot with 2 Mirage and 2 mig.

    Where were the ships that fired those missiles ? 2500 km from Iraq or just near it ?

    The problem is that sending an handful of bombers against a carrier group, better to say looking for a carrier group sailing some hundreds km from the shores is an almost suicidal mission.

    Soviet Union had many dozens of Tu-142, whose missions comprised amongst other tasks, to search and track NATO's surface task groups.

    At the moment those precious aircraft are just a pair of dozens, so there is a proportionally reduced capacity to scan vast sea areas, and their most relevant mission is ASW, to help secure russian SSBNs operating areas.

    And anyway, the carrier task group fighter aircraft are not short legged at all, and CAP's aircrafts flying with only AA armaments will have far larger operating radius than comparable aircrafts loaded with heavy and bulky AShM.

    So Su-34s would have zero range advantage against a carrier's CAP, barring the problem to find the carrier group before the opposite happens.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:44 pm

    And no, they won't sail in the Kara sea, nor they would need. From russian northern shores there are two only routes: eastward and westward.

    That means the only waters that means are the Barents sea and east Siberia sea, than by the point of interest of sea communications, eastern Russia and Western Russia would be cut off with each other.

    So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

    Tomahawks don't have 10 000 km range. Russian main bases are not on the costs. You can't just put your stupid tico and burkes at 2000km from the shores and destroy everything. That won't work. Specially against Russia that can jam the stupid GPS.

    Even loading only half of that with cruise missiles, it would make up for over 150 cruise missiles, to add to those air launched employed by embarked aircrafts. Let's say a single carrier group could at the very least launch over 200 cruse missiles in a really short time if required, but in some serious deploymet, let's say against a peer opponent, it would be reasonable to have a larger escort group, so at least three or four Arleigh Burke if not even a second Ticonderoga

    It means only 150 anti air missiles.

    2 yassen armed with 40 missiles + 2 future kalinas with 8 missiles + 50 Su 34 with 6 antiship missiles each + easily 100 su 24 with 2 missiles + 69 Tu22M with 3 Kh-23 each + 4 improved Oscar with 72 missiles.

    It is 1019 antiship missiles. And I didn't even count maximal numbers of their hardwares. They will have more yasen and more diesel subs equiped with VLS. They also have almost 200 Su-30/35/57 to shot down your stupid F-18 and F-35 , future Mig-35, they have 29SMT able to lunch air to ship missiles, they have Tu-160 and Tu-95 and anti ship version of kh-55, they have frigates and small corvettes armed with 600km Oniks, they have ground lunchers of Oniks and they for sure have container Kalibr that can be put on civilian ships. They also plan new SSGN on the husky base.

    If you think you can win against that with 150 anti air missiles and some Phalanx.

    The thing is as I already said US navy can't use its carriers against a big country.

    The numbers don't help you ...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 7:51 pm

    The problem is that sending an handful of bombers against a carrier group, better to say looking for a carrier group sailing some hundreds km from the shores is an almost suicidal mission.

    Soviet Union had many dozens of Tu-142, whose missions comprised amongst other tasks, to search and track NATO's surface task groups.

    At the moment those precious aircraft are just a pair of dozens, so there is a proportionally reduced capacity to scan vast sea areas, and their most relevant mission is ASW, to help secure russian SSBNs operating areas.

    And anyway, the carrier task group fighter aircraft are not short legged at all, and CAP's aircrafts flying with only AA armaments will have far larger operating radius than comparable aircrafts loaded with heavy and bulky AShM.

    So Su-34s would have zero range advantage against a carrier's CAP, barring the problem to find the carrier group before the opposite happens.

    Tu-142 were send in the middle of the pacific and atlantic. Now the battle would occure near Russian shores. Again a stupid comment. They can even use Su-35 to look for the carrier and find it in 5 minutes. 500km range against such target for sure. 4 of them can cover 2000km of cost and they can defend against anythreat from US navy ...

    Russian have Il-78 ...

    You don't know when they will Attack. You will have only a few fighters in the air at the moment and won't be able to lunch all of your fighters once the Attack occurs. Even if you can they will lunch their anti ship missiles from 300km and go away. Good luck hunting a Sukhoi with a f-35 fromo behind lol1

    Su-34 will be supported by Su-35/57 armed only with air to air missiles too. Good luck destroying them with F-35 and Super Hornets.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 219
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:19 pm

    Don't do dick measuring contests, are meaningless, and anyway you will loose them always and ever.

    You are comparing the task to strike fixed targets with the task of stopping a mobile, well armed and equipped force.

    You are measuring all the available assets against a subset of enemy's assets. Just to say, against those two Yasen it could be accounted for even a single Ohio SSGN, armed with over 100 cruise missiles and an handful of SSN chasing right those Yasen and Kalina.

    There would not never be 50 Su-34, even half of that number would not be available to chase a single carrier group because in case of confrontation there would be a very long front starting from Saint Petersburg down to Crimea to be accounted for it the west, and another equally critical running from the Bering straits to Vladivostock, plus there could be the need for some of them south toward the Caucasus.

    And carrier groups to care for would be more than one.

    By the way, 150 tubes means a bit more than 150 missiles, because ESSMs come quad-packed in a VLS' tube: that means that behind let's say 100 SM-2 missiles would come 200 ESSM, plus obviously the carrier's own missiles, plus those launched from CAP aircraft.

    Plus the fact that those estimate is far short from what an escort group could field, given the fact that every single Arleigh Burke would add another 90 VLS.

    So, the point is: which way a defense could be credible against an opponent with those characteristics?

    The answer is a smart, and flexible defense, and a flexible defense requires mobile forces. Subs are an excellent tool, but they alone just are not enough.

    And land based combat aircrafts are not a flexible tool.

    A mobile naval task group with an organic air combat wing, along with subs, form together a flexible tool.

    Land based defenses are just strongholds, useful to boost mobile forces effectiveness, but are never an answer to a mobile threat.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:35 pm

    You first came with numbers and now that I gave you real numbers of the russians equipment it is meaningless ?



    You are comparing the task to strike fixed targets with the task of stopping a mobile, well armed and equipped force.

    Fixed targets over russian territory which most of them are too far for your hornet f 35 or tomahawks. Your carrier is still a box of 330m long full of explosives that will have to come close to be able to reach some targets at a pathetic speed.

    Its mobility against bombers and supersonic or hypersonic long range missiles is meaningless. Once detected it is easy to follow just some radar pick up every two hours. In two hours it can move less than 100 km which for radars is nothing so they will h1ve time to send bombers.

    Yassen and oscars will wait silent that it come close at hundreds of km 600m under sea where US SSN can't go and lunch their missiles. Detection against modern subs is something like 20 km. Imagine what you need to secure the sea around your carrier with such parameters. They lost against numerous subs in exercice in close range. Let not talk about yassen at 500 km.

    Even if they can't mobilise 50 su 34 they will have naval su-30 and su 24 plus those of the air force.

    All I'm saying don't come from my head like you. It is what russian admirals plan for over 70 years ...

    Get over it you are losing the argument. Even US expert don't believe anymore in carriers against china and russia.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 219
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:41 pm

    Please, at least try to write substantives correctly: it's Yasen, with just a single S letter.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:44 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Please, at least try to write substantives correctly: it's Yasen, with just a single S letter.

    Do you have better arguments ?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 219
    Points : 219
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:48 pm

    Maybe, but I do not see any need to use them.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1942
    Points : 1967
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:56 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Are not we talking about an scenario where the US aircraft carriers sits just out of the range of the land based Fighters?

    That's what I'm trying to tell you. This can't happen because if the carrier is out of range of russian land based fighter then the carrier can't attack russia because its fighters have smaller legs than Sukhois so there is no war. And the carrier will still be in range of Tu-22/95/160, maybe even Su-34 could reach it with Il-78 support.

    Why can't you understand that ?

    The amount of Tomahawks fired vs Iraq in 2003 was bigger than 800, and it was about 1/3 of the available amount.

    What did Iraq have to Attack US with ? Nothing. Same for all countries attacked by USA. The only operation they tried was and Attack with 2 Mirages F-1 covered by some 2 Mig-29 I think. Against 2500 fighter and almost 100 ships around you, you can't do a lot with 2 Mirage and 2 mig.

    Where were the ships that fired those missiles ? 2500 km from Iraq or just near it ?

    About the first part. It was explained in the initial comment. The Russian Tu-22 and the Su-34(+Il-78) only can attack with Kh-55/101/102 because can not go inside the range of the US figherts without the protection of the land based Russian fighters or air defense because would be destroyed. only would be able with the protection of the fighters and the air defense of a Project 23000 aircraft carrier and its escort.

    About the second part, you was asking how would be able the US of firing thousands of missiles. Now you know they did it before.


    Last edited by eehnie on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 8:58 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:Maybe, but I do not see any need to use them.

    lol1 lol1 lol1 You could at least say that your vision of carriers against well equiped countries is little bit optimistic. Russia is not afghanistan or Iran. They spend 70 years to counter US carriers. I never said carriers are useless, in open sea they will be better than anything but near russian borders like I tried to explain to you they will lose maybe they will destroy some fighters some bases but at the end some missile will go through AEGIS and ESSM and destroy it. Losing a ship of 100kT with 6000 poeple inside hurts more than losibg some building and hangars for russians.

    But if you want to believe stupid things it is your problem. I explained very well what I think and your reaction proves I'm right...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1232
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:06 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    About the second part, you was asking how would be able the US of firing thousands of missiles. Now you know the did it before.

    They are limited by the range of the tomhawks. That's what I'm trying to tell. Most of the big bases are well inside russia unreachable by them. They will need to come close to the shores if they want to attack some valuable targets and put in danger themselves. Russian planes can use small airfield to reload and refuel in 20 minutes or Il-78 and go attack them. Even if destroyed they only need to rebuild the runways. Those bases will also be protected by better defences than the carrier.

    Iraq couldn't attack the ships, russia can attack them and even defend against US missiles. And just like some missiles will go through russian IADS, some russian missiles will go through less capable US defences. And they are active radar missiles while US will be gps guided so esily jamable.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 588
    Points : 584
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:34 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:

    So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

    Interesting, the carriers / US ships are ice classified ?
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 588
    Points : 584
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:44 pm

    https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:29 am