Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    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 9:55 pm

    Many guys expecting asymmetric standing between US/russia in the event of war.

    Say the war happens during the summer time ,and the ice cap is lean, and there is no floating ice that can scrap the carriers .

    See? many expectations .

    But if any conflict happens during winter , then what? the tomahawk missiles will target the ice?and what they will do the submarines ,that using the ice cap as cover to launch onyx missiles against the carrier group?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:21 pm

    Amusing the talk about hundreds of Tomahawks... subsonic low flying slow easy targets that just rely on numbers for effectiveness... the irony is that the best defence against such an attack is a layered in depth air defence starting with long range airborne early warning and fighter interceptors armed with lots of AAMs, but also passing target information to surface forces who can also engage targets at extended ranges.

    You talk about US carrier groups like they are invincible so large Russian carriers are pointless, but the fact is that large carriers make a surface group more capable and powerful, not less so.

    Britain didn't become a world power and then build a powerful navy.... the US didn't become a world power and then build a powerful navy... to be a proper global power you need a powerful navy first...

    Whether they use that power to invade poor countries and steal their resources, and bully other countries to not object to their behaviour, or just, as I suggest use it to guarantee its own ability to trade with whomever it wants without interference and sanctions from the west comes down to what the Russian people want, but the opportunity for free trade is surely a basic need for any country with no ideology to push or impose on others.

    BTW I have seen no evidence to suggest the US Navy could defend against a single Onyx missile let alone a full scale attack of dozens.

    And Zircon will likely be ready well before any full sized carriers are even back in service let alone built from scratch...


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

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

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:51 pm

    Sats & OHRs, not to mention subs on patrol in the N. Atlantic/Arctic will detect CB/SGs & their airborne birds long before they come within their CM range. The S-400/500s will meet them:
    https://ria.ru/radio_brief/20180119/1512937172.html?utm_source=infox.sg
    Their MiG-31s supported by A-50/100s can engage CMs too:
    According to one count, there are 252 MiG-31s in the inventory of the Russian Air Force. Moscow began modernizing its Foxhound fleet to the MiG-31BM and BSM variant starting in 2010, and plans to have 100 upgraded by 2020. The BM includes modernized cockpit displays, a hands-on-throttle-and-stick (HOTAS), and a new Zaslon-M radar with maximum detection range increased to 200 miles. It also is upgraded to employ the latest generation of long-range air-to-air missiles, including the R-33S, the R-77—the Russian equivalent to the U.S. AIM-120—and the super-long range R-37—intended to be a tanker- and AWACs-killer. The new Foxhounds are also capable of mounting up to 18 thousand pounds of air-to-ground smart bombs and anti-radar missiles in case Moscow needs some additional strike planes. Finally, the BMs have new data-links integrating the MiG-31’s sensors with ground-based radars and friendly fighter planes, allowing the Foxhound to coordinate the entire air defense system. A flight of four of the upgraded Foxhounds could patrol a swath of airspace over 400 miles across.
    At 35 years old, the MiG-31 is expected to serve on until 2030.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/russias-mig-31-fighter-mach-3-monster-even-35-years-old-18376?page=show
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Electronics_suite

    The press service of Russian Pacific Fleet reported that a pair of MiG-31s, stationed in Kamchatka, successfully locked onto and destroyed a simulated cruise missile target launched from a ship in the Sea of Okhotsk at an altitude of over 12,000 meters at over three times the speed of sound. The target was destroyed using an air-to-air missile, which targeted the enemy missile on a collision course. ..
    The plane's radar systems allow it to find even low-visibility cruise missile targets. In the broad, relatively lightly defended areas of Russia's air borders, the MiG-31 serves as the main means of defense against air attack.
    https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2017/7/18/9222/?h
    The armament suite includes up to 10 R-37M or RVV-BD missiles with an operational range of 320km (198mi). The range is 189km (117.5 mi) for stealth targets. The missile is designed to shoot down AWACS and other C4ISTAR aircraft whilst keeping the launch platform out of range of any fighters that might be protecting the target. It can attack targets ranging in altitude between 15–25,000 meters (5 – 82,000 feet). ..
    The aircraft broke a record for the longest non-stop flight, spending seven hours and four minutes in the air while covering the distance of 8,000km (4,970mi) from Siberia's Krasnoyarsk region to the Astrakhan region in southern Russia with three mid-air refueling procedures performed en route.
    The super-fast interceptor can traverse vast distances to knock out encroaching bombers and missiles before they approach close enough to strike. With so many features to make it stand out among other fighters, the MiG-31BM is able to carry out long-range interception, precision strike and defense suppression missions effectively to put it on the list of ten top aircraft in the world. In the coming years, the MiG-31BM will form the backbone of Russia’s air defenses.
    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/08/16/unique-capabilities-mig-31bm-fighter-strike-imagination.html

    The Russian Navy’s Su-30SM are being equipped with an anti-ship variant of the Mach 3.5-capable Kh-31 that has a range of roughly 120 miles. The Kremlin-owned Izvestia news outlet brags the even a single such weapon would be able to destroy a U.S. Navy ship. “Even one missile is guaranteed to send a Ticonderoga-class missile cruiser—currently in service with the U.S. Navy—to the to the bottom,” Izvestia columnist Alex Ramm writes. ..
    U.S. Navy officials have expressed concerns about the capabilities of the latest Russian and Chinese supersonic anti-ship missiles—particularly the fearsome P-800 Oniks. The Mach 2.8 capable Oniks—and its Russian-Indian cousin the Brahmos—fly a particular profile that makes it difficult to intercept. However, the Navy has not been eager to share any details about exactly why that is the case for obvious reasons.
    In any case, the addition of the Su-30SM and the Kh-31 to the Baltic Sea region means that that region—which was already very dangerous for allied naval forces—will become an even more challenging problem. https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2017/01/14/russias-fearsome-supersonic-kh-31-cruise-missile-vs-us-navy-aegis-missile-defense-system/

    Su-30SM & Su-34s can reinforce MiG-31s in the North.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Fullback.html

    Even if any CMs r missed, most of their targets r deep inland & can be engaged by more MiG-31s:


    Range of AW fighters isn't going to make any difference- their CMs will be engaged regardless of their launch points. Even at max. ranges, as noted before, their SSGNs, armed icebreakers, land based Tu bombers, & AshMs can interdict CB/SGs from at least 500 km stand off range. The naval blockade of W. & E. Russian Arctic isn't going to be sustainable. The GIUK gap is farther away, but:
    The Soviets planned to use the GIUK gap to intercept any NATO ships, especially aircraft carriers, heading towards the Soviet Union. Ships and submarines as well as Tupolev Tu-142 maritime-surveillance aircraft aimed to track any threatening ships.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap#Cold_War
    Russia used Adm K. returning from the Med. Sea to train for doing the same. The US could try to close the Bering Strait, but Russia can do the same to Western ships there!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bering_Strait_crossing#/media/File:North_pole_map.jpeg

    They can also close the NSR & their airspace to all Western shippers & airlines, bankrupting many of them; by claiming the N. Pole, the whole Central Arctic around it could be closed to Western shipping:
    “As Reuters reported last year, Moscow has plowed more resources into its northern defense than at any point since the Berlin Wall fell, in some cases giving it even greater capability and reach in the region than it enjoyed before 1989. That includes creating or reopening 6 military outposts and building 3 new, large nuclear icebreakers to add to its already 40-strong fleet…While US and other NATO subs might potentially penetrate such waters undetected, Moscow’s defenses would make it all but impossible for any surface shipping to survive near Russian territory in any war.
    “The first new US icebreaker is unlikely to enter service before 2023, the US Coast Guard says — but that will be contingent on additional funding this year that is not yet guaranteed. The US military’s only operational heavy icebreaker, the Polar Star, is seen as incapable of remaining in service more than another 5 years…China’s first indigenously-built icebreaker, Snow Dragon 2, launched in December and will operate alongside its namesake, built by Ukraine for Beijing and put in service in 1994. Neither of the Snow Dragons is believed to be armed but, given the change in direction of other Arctic-operating navies, that could easily change.
    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/02/polar-silk-road-china-plans-deeper-collaboration-russia-arctic-will-affect-future-conflict-arctic-resources/
    Welcome to the small World!
    OTH, NATO has an advantage in the S. Atlantic, Antarctic & Indian Oceans with many islands there controlled by the UK, NZ & France:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean#South_Atlantic_Ocean

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Subantarctic_Islands

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Indian_Ocean#Western_Indian_Ocean

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_islands_in_the_Indian_Ocean#South_Indian_Sea

    Also to note:  
    In the W. Med. Sea,
    the Alboran Island is a small islet in the Alboran Sea [its only ~171.57 km, 106.61 miles across]..about 50 km (31 mi) north of the Moroccan coast and 90 kilometres (56 miles) south of the Spanish province of Almería. It is now home to a small Spanish Naval garrison and an automated lighthouse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alboran_Island
    https://www.distancefromto.net/
    Distance from Antarctica to Falkland Islands is 4,123 kilometers. This air travel distance is equal to 2,562 miles.
    https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-antarctica-to-falkland-islands
    Distance from South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to South Africa is 5,360 kilometers. This air travel distance is equal to 3,331 miles. https://www.distancefromto.net/distance-from-south-georgia-and-the-south-sandwich-islands-to-south-africa

    The island group is about 955 nmi (1,769 km; 1,099 mi) south-east of Port Elizabeth in mainland South Africa.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Edward_Islands#Geography_and_geology
    Bouvet Island.. lies ..approximately 2,600 kilometres (1,600 mi) south-southwest of the coast of South Africa and approximately 1,700 kilometres (1,100 mi) north of the Princess Astrid Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctica. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouvet_Island

    Those islands can be used to monitor naval activity &/ launch attacks on ships. Russian CBGs will have no chance so far from their bases & land-based air cover; even in the Arctic & N. Atlantic/Pacific their CVNs will be attacked by the land based MPA, B-1B/52s & F-15s, F-35s, Rafales, Typhoons, besides USN F-18s & SSN/Ks. Also, 1 Ohio SSGN has 154 LACMs that could be exchanged for LRASMs based on them; the 2 in the Atlantic will pack 308 of those- enough to devastate & mission kill the whole CBG- & they can be launched from at least 200nm away: https://breakingdefense.com/2017/09/tomahawk-vs-lrasm-raytheon-gets-119m-for-anti-ship-missile/
    https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/us-navy-to-re-fit-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-to-attack-ships/

    By the same token, 2 Oscars x 72 = 144 AShMs:
    Kalibr-class cruise missiles, ..can ..hit sea targets up to 350 kilometers [217.48mi., 188.98 nmi.] away
    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201703071051346598-russia-subs-missiles/
    I heard that ~30 Tu-22Ms armed with ~90 AShMs total (54 less!) were needed to mission kill a CBG.
    http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sov-ASuW.html

    1 USN submariner told me in 1993 that "a carrier is just a big target". In fact, all 3 of these r good targets for subs:


    That's also why China won't use her CV/Ns against USN CSGs either, even in ice-free W. Pac.! The Zircons & other LRAS/BMs can do it for le$$! Btw, the island hopping in the Pacific War moved US land air bases for the B-29s ever closer to Japan- but the CVs were used against the IJN & IJA around & on them, not against the mainland Japan! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging_(strategy)
    So, stationary bases r not useless- otherwise China wouldn't building islands with bases on them in the SC Sea now, turning it into a bastion for its SSBNs!
    http://www.jpolrisk.com/effect-of-south-china-sea-air-strips-on-the-range-of-chinese-surface-to-air-missiles-and-the-j-10-fighter-asean-countries-threatened-by-expanding-chinese-air-power/
    http://globalnation.inquirer.net/161614/us-map-shows-ph-chinas-crosshairs
    http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/1edf2dc62f2f729c1182c16fa4e52a3b
    https://jamestown.org/program/chinas-nuclear-submarine-force/

    Last, but not least, an EMP burst from a Trident SLBM or a B-2/52 will fry the CBG & its AW electronics- the ships crews will have to surrender, or limp back home if they can & r allowed to.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:41 pm; edited 7 times in total (Reason for editing : add link, text)
    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 Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:27 am

    A case in point:
    On January 24, during the discussion of the American response in the White House, National Security Adviser Walter Rostow expressed the idea of ​​ordering the ships of South Korea to seize a Soviet ship following the aircraft carrier Enterprise for the sake of symmetry. Such a "symmetric" response could have serious consequences, because, according to the American data, the Soviet nuclear submarine of the project 627A was following the Enterprise carrier during its transition to the Korean coast, and it is not known how its commander would react.
    FLEET GOES TO KOREAN SHORES
    Soon, by order of the president, 32 American surface ships were concentrated off the coast of Korea, including the nuclear attack aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65), the strike aircraft carriers Ranger (CV-61), Ticonderoga (CV-14), Coral Sea (CV-43), anti-submarine aircraft carriers Yorktown (CVS-10) and Kirsarge (CVS-33), missile cruisers Chicago (CG-11) and Providence (CLG-6), lightweight the cruiser Canberra (CA-70), the nuclear missile cruiser Thomas Trakstan and others. In addition to surface ships, by February 1, the Seventh Fleet of the US Navy was ordered to deploy up to nine diesel and nuclear torpedo submarines off the coast of Korea.
    In such a situation, the USSR could not remain an outside observer. Firstly, from the area of ​​maneuvering of the American squadron to Vladivostok about 100 km, and secondly, the USSR and the DPRK concluded an agreement on mutual cooperation and military assistance.
    The Pacific fleet immediately tried to observe the actions of the Americans. At the time of the capture of the Pueblo, the Soviet hydrographic vessel Hydrolog and the Project 50 patrol ship were on patrol in the Tsushima Strait. They discovered the American carrier strike group (AOG), led by the nuclear attack aircraft carrier Enterprise, when it entered the Sea of ​​Japan [The sea .. has a maximum width of about 1,070 km (660 mi). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Japan#Geography_and_geology] on January 24. On January 25, US President Johnson announced the mobilization of 14.6 thousand reservists. American media demanded to strike at Wonsan naval base and force to release Pueblo. Admiral Grant Sharp proposed to send the destroyer "Hickey" directly to the harbor under the cover of aircraft from the carrier Enterprise, and taking him to the tugboat Pueblo, take him away. Several other options were also considered for the release of the reconnaissance vessel. However, they all had little chance of success, since there were seven 183P missile boats and several patrol boats, as well as coastal batteries, in Wonsan. So, the US Department of Defense's plan was more realistic when it proposed bombing the Pueblo, without stopping before the death of the crew.
    On our side, an operational squadron under the command of Rear Admiral Nikolai Ivanovich Khovrin, consisting of missile cruisers of Project 58 Varyag and Admiral Fokin, large missile ships Uporny (Project 57 bis) and The Expendables (Project 56M ), destroyers of Project 56 "Calling" and "Vesky". The detachment was tasked with patrolling the region in readiness to protect the state interests of the USSR from provocative actions. Upon arrival, N.I. Khovrin conveyed the report: "I arrived at the place, maneuvering, the" Vegetables "fly over me intensively at low altitude, almost clinging to the masts."
    The commander gave the order - to open fire in response to a clear attack on our ships. In addition, the commander of the fleet aviation Alexander Nikolaevich Tomashevsky was ordered to fly a Tu-16 rocket carrier regiment over the aircraft carriers with low-altitude missile-launched KS-10 rockets to allow Americans to see anti-ship missiles with homing heads. Tomashevsky picked up 20 missile carriers and himself led the formation.
    Twenty-seven Soviet submarines were also deployed in the area of ​​operation of the US carrier-strike groups.
    DISCHARGE
    Since the aircraft carriers flew by our rocket carriers, two of them began to retreat to the Sasebo area (Japan). The reconnaissance of the Enterprise and the Ranger by escorting and issuing target designation for the launch of a missile strike was carried out by the destroyers "Calling" and "Vesky". In addition, their departure was photographed by the Tu-95RC. The pair of the latter were instructed to photograph the aircraft carrier "Ranger". The pilots found him in the East China Sea and photographed the ship, so suddenly, that the aircraft carrier did not even have time to pick up his fighters.
    On December 23, 1968, when the US government officially apologized and acknowledged the fact that the ship was stationed in the territorial waters of North Korea, all 82 crew members and the body of the deceased sailor were sent to the United States. "Pueblo" remained in jail in Wonsan harbor, and in 1995 was taken to Pyongyang, where it was used as a museum. [No attempt was made to recover it during transit around S. Korea.]
    I think that an episode of half a century ago should be remembered by American admirals, who direct aircraft carrier units to the shores of Korea.
    http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-02-02/9_982_pueblo.html?print=Y

    Even back then it wasn't hard to locate a CBG in a semi-closed sea!
    https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/seajapan.gif

    Other seas & oceans have many inlets, straits, peninsulas, islands, reefs, & shallows that can be used to determine location & track CBGs by various means. A good example:

    The Azores ..is an archipelago composed of nine volcanic islands in the North Atlantic Ocean about 1,360 km (850 mi) west of continental Portugal, ..about 1,507 km (936 mi) northwest of Morocco, and about 1,925 km (1,196 mi) southeast of Newfoundland, Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores
    In 1943, during World War II, the Portuguese ruler António de Oliveira Salazar leased air and naval bases in the Azores to the British Empire.[15] The occupation of these facilities in October 1943 was codenamed Operation Alacrity by the British.
    This was a key turning point in the Battle of the Atlantic, enabling the Royal Air Force, the U.S. Army Air Forces, and the U.S. Navy to provide aerial coverage in the Mid-Atlantic gap. This helped them to protect convoys and to hunt hostile Kriegsmarine U-boats. ..
    In 1945, a new base was constructed on the island of Terceira, and it is named Lajes Field. ..Lajes Field continues to support the American and Portuguese Armed Forces. During the Cold War, U.S. Navy P-3 Orion antisubmarine warfare squadrons patrolled the North Atlantic Ocean for Soviet Navy submarines and surface warships. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azores#20th_century

    The Kurils are strategically important for Russia. It has a number of military bases on the islands, which also guarantee secure access to the Pacific Ocean through the the Sea of Okhotsk. .."There are several problems, such as the Russian military bases on the islands or the possible placement of American military bases if Japan gets any of the islands which will definitely not be accepted by Russia,".. .
    http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/12/kurils-difficult-life-disputed-islands-161215105806870.html
    https://regnum.ru/news/polit/2376266.html

    http://politicalhotwire.com/current-events/142606-russia-militarise-kuril-islands-against-japan.html

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

    Together with Kamchatka peninsula & Sakhalin, they r in fact unsinkable a/c carriers!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:31 pm; edited 3 times in total
    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 Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:51 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    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.

    So in your opinion floating airfield with all its restrictions if faster than fighters bombers itself? Nobody says AC group is easy target but you seem to see it as invicible one. You never thought why Soviet Union built T-22M armada with Kh-22? Why now Russia is implementing Kh-32 and soon GZUR (1500 km range) ? Why so many Zircon capable boats are being massively built?



    You do not need 50 Su-34s to strike one group. One missile with 100kt tactical nuke is fair enough for the whole CSG. Do you think Russia will not see US groups coming near shores? Or let them come too close without reaction? There are also new weapons coming : unmanned subs, new skhval torpedoes (again with 100kt warheads) , strike drones. Sarmat/Rubezh with hypersonic warheads. In couple of years next stage or GZURs coming with 14Ma.

    And you still believe in Midway scenarios?

    Besides what would you expect Russia to build 12 GSGs? to build one is not enough to fight 1-1 , thus Russia doesn't need classical carrier . 2-3 light universal one is just fine. With good ASW capabilities.








    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    So no, ice won't mean absolutely nothing.

    Interesting, the carriers / US ships are ice classified ?

    monseneur Perrier is just lost in his statements Smile
    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 Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:13 am

    GarryB wrote:

    BTW I have seen no evidence to suggest the US Navy could defend against a single Onyx missile let alone a full scale attack of dozens.

    And Zircon will likely be ready well before any full sized carriers are even back in service let alone built from scratch...

    Zircon is shipborne GZUR with range ~1500km is airborne . I presume range means effective stopping AC groupings.

    BTW probably this would be expensive solution but can status 6 be used against CSGs? One big bomb below the whole CSG?
    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 Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:28 pm

    Just 20 Tu-16s were enough to turn 5 a/c carriers away from Korea w/o firing a shot (see my prev. post).
    Under certain circumstances such as an all out war, the Status 6 could be used near the coast, but the open ocean it may not be possible to catch a CSG in time, unless it's placed there ahead of time along a probable route. CVs were detected from space already:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Ve8GAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11&dq=liaoning++digital+globe&source=bl&ots=VtxuONEaef&sig=0W1NZKJ43Dg9ORPYMItR6Ty2ma4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW28ris5TZAhWnjlQKHQB1BioQ6AEITDAE#v=onepage&q=liaoning%20%20digital%20globe&f=false

    https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/11/16/russian-navy-brings-the-big-guns-to-the-mediterranean_648383

    In 3-4 decades, there will be spaced based weapons (faster than any CVNs!) capable of destroying targets within minutes anywhere on the Earth surface & some buried/submerged 1s as well.
    In the meantime, the US has 11 CVNs but still maintains air bases on Diego Garcia & Guam; & India will have 3-4 CV/Ns but needs bases on Maldives & other islands in the Indian Ocean:
    The real US-Indian game plan is to create a “second island chain” (similar to the one in the Western Pacific) connecting Maldives with Diego Garcia (and Seychelles, where India has a base on one of the islands and has just concluded an agreement to build an airstrip and a sophisticated “monitoring station” at a cost of US$45 million) to curb the presence of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean and to control the sea lanes through which China conducts the bulk of its foreign trade. By the way, the US and India closely cooperate in monitoring the presence of Chinese submarines in the Indian Ocean. As part of the overall US-Indian strategy, New Delhi signed a Bilateral Agreement for Navy Cooperation with Singapore last November that provides Indian Navy ships temporary deployment facilities and logistics support at Singapore’s Changi naval base, which is near the disputed South China Sea, enabling India to engage in more activity in the Strait of Malacca through which China’s oil and natural-gas imports pass. India also maintains a big naval base in the Bay of Bengal in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands near the Strait of Malacca. Clearly, institutionalized mechanisms are being put in place to monitor Chinese naval activities in both the Strait of Malacca and the Arabian Sea – and to develop “chokepoints” to strangulate the Chinese economy in the event of a confrontation. Suffice to say, control of the Maldivian atolls is a crucial template of the overall US-Indian strategy to counter China’s rapidly growing blue-water navy and its capacity to project power in the Indian Ocean. http://www.atimes.com/article/maldives-crisis-us-indian-strategic-alliance-forming/
    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 08, 2018 12:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote: Together with Kamchatka peninsula & Sakhalin, they r in fact unsinkable a/c carriers!



    1) Well, airbases in Anadyr (just close to Bering Strait) , Kotelnyi, Franz Josef or Nova Zemla close area for any aircraft carriers.  

    2)  I posted some time ago that in 2018 Russia will have at constellation tracing CSGs globally.

    3) Russians as I understand will use ASW helicopter carriers, drones, seabed detectors.  

    4) Russia's best answer is an asymmetric one. That is exactly what I can see now being implemented: helicopter-carriers for  ASW, subs, hypersonic seaborne and airborne missiles with long ranges, PAK-DA/Tu-160M2 with 12 hypersonic missiles each...


    Thus Northern Route  is virtually closed. Somehow I cannot see ho w CSG can sneak via   Scandinavian or Bering routes undetected. From west and south CSGs are not really different than land based air assault. And sea Russo-American CSGs battles are unlikely ever.

    P.S. That's why I still hope for Russian VSTOL fighter to complete hello carriers Smile





    Tsavo Lion wrote:Just 20 Tu-16s were enough to turn 5 a/c carriers away from Korea w/o firing a shot (see my prev. post).
    Under certain circumstances such as an all out war, the Status 6 could be used near the coast, but the open ocean it may not be possible to catch a CSG in time, unless it's placed there ahead of time along a probable route.



    Status 6 speed is 100kts, CSG is not more than 30kts. so each hour (even is Status 6 is chasing escaping CSG) you got 70kts difference. If it "welcomes" an incoming one you have 130kts speed so 8hrs for distance or 1000 nautical miles. The question is about detonation parameters. Perhaps going up to say 500m instead of 1000? less contamination wat]rhead more blast one? or 1 Mt is enough to blow all group.
    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 Thu Feb 08, 2018 9:02 pm

    But at 100kt it can't maneuver, so when a CVN changes course as it frequently will, that torpedo is wasted.  
    If USN CVNs r forward deployed in Canada or Greenland they could enter the Arctic Ocean unannounced, but will need a fleet of icebreakers ready; in ice covered waters/cold temp. & refreezing it won't be possible to move at sufficient speed to get wind over deck needed for CTOLs. That's why STOVLs r better suited in the Arctic!
    The Russians r reopening/expanding/upgrading airbases on their islands & mainland there.

    The term unsinkable aircraft carrier first arose during World War II, to describe the islands and atolls in the Pacific Ocean that became strategically important as potential airstrips for American bombers in their transoceanic war against Japan. To this end, the US military engaged in numerous island hopping operations to oust the occupying Japanese forces from such islands; the US Navy Seabees would often have to subsequently construct airstrips there from scratch — sometimes over entire atolls — quickly, in order to support air operations against Japan.
    Malta and Iceland were sometimes described as unsinkable aircraft carriers during World War II, making Malta a target of the Axis powers. The US military is said to have considered Taiwan since the Chinese Civil War, and the British Isles and Japan during the Cold War, as unsinkable aircraft carriers. ..
    In 1983, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone pledged to make Japan an "unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Pacific", assisting the US in defending against the threat of Soviet bombers. US Secretary of State General Alexander Haig described Israel as "the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk". In arguing against production of the CVA-01 aircraft carriers, the Royal Air Force claimed that Australia could serve adequately in the same role, using false maps that placed Australia 400 miles west of its actual location.
    During the Second World War, the United Kingdom gave some serious thought to building virtually unsinkable aircraft carriers from ice reinforced with sawdust (Project Habakkuk). A model was made, and serious consideration was given to the project, with a design displacing 2.2 million tons and accommodating 150 twin-engined bombers on the drawing board, but it was never produced.
    [Russia could probably build a giant 1 out of concrete, with NP & capable of accommodating any aircraft.]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsinkable_aircraft_carrier

    Ascension Island is ..about 1,600 kilometres (1,000 mi) from the coast of Africa and 2,250 kilometres (1,400 mi) from the coast of Brazil, roughly midway between the horn of South America and Africa. It is governed as part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, of which the main island, Saint Helena, is around 1,300 kilometres (800 mi) to the southeast. The territory also includes the sparsely-populated Tristan da Cunha archipelago, some 3,730 kilometres (2,300 mi) to the south, about halfway to the Antarctic Circle.
    ..During World War II it was an important naval and air station, especially providing antisubmarine warfare bases in the Battle of the Atlantic. ..
    The island is the location of RAF Ascension Island, which is a Royal Air Force station, a European Space Agency rocket tracking station, an Anglo-American signals intelligence facility and the BBC World Service Atlantic Relay Station. The island was used extensively as a staging point by the British military during the Falklands War.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island

    The atoll is located 3,535 km (2,197 mi) east of Tanzania's coast, 1,796 km (1,116 mi) south-southwest of the southern tip of India (at Kanyakumari) and 4,723 km (2,935 mi) west-northwest of the west coast of Australia..
    In the early 1970s, setbacks to United States military capabilities in the region including the fall of Saigon, victory of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the closure of the Peshawar Air Station listening post in Pakistan and Kagnew Station in Eritrea, the Mayaguez incident, and the build-up of Soviet naval presence in Aden and a Soviet airbase at Berbera, Somalia, caused the United States to request, and the UK to approve, permission to build a fleet anchorage and enlarged airfield on Diego Garcia, and the Seabees doubled the number of workers constructing these facilities. Following the fall of the Shah of Iran and the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979–1980, the West became concerned with ensuring the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, and the United States received permission for a $400-million expansion of the military facilities on Diego Garcia consisting of two parallel 12,000-foot-long (3,700 m) runways, expansive parking aprons for heavy bombers, ..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia#Arrival_of_the_US_Navy

    Diego Garcia is strategically located, offering access to East Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia. The base serves as a staging area for the buildup or resupply of military forces prior to an operation. ..The United States saw the atoll as the "Malta of the Indian Ocean" equidistant from all points. The value has been proven many times, with the island providing an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" for the United States during the Iranian revolution, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. In the contemporary era, the atoll continues to play a key role in America’s approach to the Indian Ocean as a flexible forward hub that can facilitate a range of regional strategies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia#United_Kingdom_military_activities

    Andersen Air Force Base played a major role in the Vietnam War. The host unit was later designated the 36th Wing (36 WG), assigned to the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) Thirteenth Air Force (13AF). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guam#Vietnam_War_and_later
    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 Sat Feb 10, 2018 12:27 am

    Beijing has responded to the US Navy’s ramped-up presence in the South China Sea – an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson has been scheduled to call at Vietnamese ports next month – with squadrons of advanced fighters including Su-35s and J-20s that will soon start patrolling the 3.5-million-square-kilometer sea.
    ..These aircraft can easily be stationed or serviced on several airstrips and bases created via dredging sand and shoals in the vast sea, after Beijing’s frenzied island-building has created a host of “unsinkable aircraft carriers” in the sea. http://www.atimes.com/article/pla-scrambles-su-35s-j-20s-s-china-sea-us-navy-sails/
    They'll send some H-6Ks & AWACS planes as well, & a sub may suddenly surface in front of &/ tail the CVN, like it did before:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html
    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 Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:35 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Beijing has responded to the US Navy’s ramped-up presence in the South China Sea – an aircraft carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson has been scheduled to call at Vietnamese ports next month – with squadrons of advanced fighters including Su-35s and J-20s that will soon start patrolling the 3.5-million-square-kilometer sea.
    ..These aircraft can easily be stationed or serviced on several airstrips and bases created via dredging sand and shoals in the vast sea, after Beijing’s frenzied island-building has created a host of “unsinkable aircraft carriers” in the sea. http://www.atimes.com/article/pla-scrambles-su-35s-j-20s-s-china-sea-us-navy-sails/
    They'll send some H-6Ks & AWACS planes as well, & a sub may suddenly surface in front of &/ tail the CVN, like it did before:
    https://www.warhistoryonline.com/history/chinese-submarine-appeared-in-the-middle-of-a-carrier-battle-group.html

    In case of China we got different situation comparing to Russia. China looks like is building 10 CSGs to protect its vital interests. This definitely is a long hand possibly to counter US one.
    Not sure how it going to end (since nature of warfare is constantly changing not only with AC )but China cases pretty different than Russia's one.
    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 Feb 13, 2018 2:24 am

    They won't need that many CV/Ns, 6-7 max. is the optimal #.
    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 Tue Feb 13, 2018 1:22 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:They won't need that many CV/Ns, 6-7 max. is the optimal #.

    So far they planned to build

    8 Type 055 destroyers cruisers

    and

    5 ACs (but 2nd and 3rd generation only in one piece this to me means series could eventually follow)
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 420
    Points : 426
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Kimppis on Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:38 pm

    So when it comes China, there's always one question: what kind of timeframe are we talking about?

    China will become a vastly larger economy than the US. Of course their geographical reality is different and even in the future they will probably prioritize land-based assets and coastal defence more than America.

    However, they will have such a massive amount of resources at their disposal that they can quite easily afford 10 or even more supercarriers by 2050-60.

    IMO, China will have atleast 4-5 carriers by around 2030.

    And atleast 6 by 2040. 2 60,000 ton ski-jump carriers (1 operational, 1 launched), 2 conventional 80,000 supercarriers with EMALS and 2 100,000 ton supercarriers, probably nuclear powered...

    After that, who knows, pretty much anything's possible. 6 is certainly the bare minimum.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 14, 2018 1:35 pm

    Why are you talking about the defences of Russia against cruise missiles Tsavo Lion... Russia does not need CVNs to fight US CVNs, nor does it need them to defend Russian airspace... it needs them to defend the airspace around a group of Russian ships operating in the south pacific or south atlantic or Indian ocean or off the coast of Africa....

    And who cares with China is doing... this thread is about Future RUSSIAN carriers.


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

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    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 Wed Feb 14, 2018 3:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:Why are you talking about the defences of Russia against cruise missiles Tsavo Lion... Russia does not need CVNs to fight US CVNs, nor does it need them to defend Russian airspace... it needs them to defend the airspace around a group of Russian ships operating in the south pacific or south atlantic or Indian ocean or off the coast of Africa....

    And who cares with China is doing... this thread is about Future RUSSIAN carriers.
    \


    Chinese do Smile


    BTW Russian ACs will first be hello carriers what makes sense especially in north as ASW ships protecting own waters. And who knows Skiff missile launching arreas possibly too. We yet to see whether and if "real ACs" will be built.

    BTW EMALS in US uses no superconductors. It is based on kinetic power storages and stgill costs 1 billion USD Smile
    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 Wed Feb 14, 2018 11:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:Why are you talking about the defences of Russia against cruise missiles Tsavo Lion... Russia does not need CVNs to fight US CVNs, nor does it need them to defend Russian airspace...
    And who cares with China is doing... this thread is about Future RUSSIAN carriers.

    Some here raised that issue since NATO CSGs & SSGNs pack dozens pf CMs & therefore can strike RF from stand-off ranges. I never postulated that Russia needs CVNs to fight US CVNs, nor to defend the Russian airspace.
    PRC & RF r neighbours & the largest countries in Eurasia, with many common interests within the SCO & BRICS context. China also bought 2 former VMF TAKRs & 1 unfinished, now CV-16, (CV-17 & CV-18 r her follow ons) + dozens of Su-27/30s, on which J-11s & naval J-15/16s r based, & a few Ka-27/31s. Her CBG employment will be similar to Russia's, at least in the Indo-Pacific. That's why the Chinese carrier programme is worth to be compared with Russia's.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17226
    Points : 17832
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:48 am


    Chinese do Smile

    They can have their own thread... Wink

    BTW Russian ACs will first be hello carriers what makes sense especially in north as ASW ships protecting own waters. And who knows Skiff missile launching arreas possibly too. We yet to see whether and if "real ACs" will be built.

    You are assuming they will put ASW helicopters on board instead of Ka-52s and Ka-29s.

    BTW EMALS in US uses no superconductors. It is based on kinetic power storages and stgill costs 1 billion USD Smile

    Yeah, they didn't get gun launched anti tank guided missiles or rocket powered torpedoes right either... Razz

    Her CBG employment will be similar to Russia's, at least in the Indo-Pacific. That's why the Chinese carrier programme is worth to be compared with Russia's.

    When we don't even know what the Russians are planning for their navy how can you state that with any certainty?

    However the problems the Chinese have are similar to the problems Russia has... a hostile west controls most sea lanes around the world and they have nothing to counter them if they decide to enter the global market.

    A strong navy for both China and Russia would promote growth and expansion and be good for both countries, though there is little room for real cooperation, their planned growth should hurt western interests so unified action against western spoiling tactics would be beneficial to both countries.


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

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

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:43 pm

    Her CBG employment will be similar to Russia's, at least in the Indo-Pacific. That's why the Chinese carrier programme is worth to be compared with Russia's.
    "When we don't even know what the Russians are planning for their navy how can you state that with any certainty?"
    At least I'm certain they can't plan something above & beyond that, after announcing the goal of having #2 Navy; & u wrote about them using CVNs to protect SLOCs, SSBNs, surface fleet, etc.- the same things the PLAN CV/Ns r intended for.
    Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchkov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable aircraft carriers. The influential U.S. Adm. Hyman Rickover [the son of Polish immigrants, the father of NP USN] shared this view. In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.
    ..In 2002, the U.S. Navy held a large simulated war game, the Millennium Challenge, to test scenarios of attacks on the fleet by a hypothetical Gulf state — Iraq or possibly Iran.
    The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom in a very short span of time. ..
    Ballistic missiles are just the most recent challenge to carrier vulnerability. “I would argue that you can put a ship out of action faster by putting a hole in the bottom [with a torpedo] than by putting a hole in the top [with a weapon like the DF-21],” former U.S. Naval Operations chief Gary Roughhead said.
    This extends to diesel submarines. ..there are reports of around a dozen U.S. aircraft carriers being “sunk” in exercises with friendly countries including Canada, Denmark and Chile.
    In 2005, the USS Ronald Reagan was “sunk” by the Gotland, an electric diesel sub that the U.S. Navy borrowed from Sweden between 2005 and 2007 and which was never detected in exercises by U.S. carrier groups during all that time..
    The world, of course, is not standing still. Missile ranges and speeds will increase. Missiles will become more elusive and accurate — and could be nuclear-tipped. Sensors will see further and more accurately, significantly reducing the fog of war. Surface ships, no matter where located, will be increasingly vulnerable. ..Above the surface, supersonic anti-ship missiles that currently travel at Mach 2 will be replaced by hypersonic missiles that will travel at Mach 5, and Mach 10 and Mach 25.
    https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8

    Did a Russian Built SSK 'Sink' a USN SSN?
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/did-russian-built-stealth-submarine-sink-navy-nuclear-attack-24567
    The Virginias may not be quieter then the Kilos & Yuans.
    NATO & its allied SSKs with AIP could do the same to RuN SS/GNs incl. those escorting CBGs.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:26 am