Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4138
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Admiral Kuz

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:05 am

    Can u imagine it transiting the Suez, Indian Ocean, the Malakka Strait & the China Seas escorted by a tug, just in case? All coastal states, not to mention NATO & PRC, will laugh at them!

    US would also escort its big ships with tugs if it had not all those bases around the world. The dogs like japan or italia will provide the tugs if they need some.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:51 pm

    I guess changing the launching tubes from Granit to UKSK size is cheaper than modifying the whole space for other uses like hangars or supplies? It sounds reasonable, but it does not mean it is that actually that useful for a carrier. RuN is not now in desperate need of CM and ASM carriers, since the size of the newer missiles has enable many smaller displacement ships for the task.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2381
    Points : 2379
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Hole on Sun Mar 17, 2019 4:27 pm

    And now they can also put them on trucks. Very Happy
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6664
    Points : 6731
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:52 pm

    Hole wrote:And now they can also put them on trucks. Very Happy
    You can fit a lot of trucks on the K Laughing
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3133
    Points : 3131
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:55 pm

    RuN is not now in desperate need of CM and ASM carriers, since the size of the newer missiles has enable many smaller displacement ships for the task.
    It's better to have them on Adm. K too besides its escorts for added firepower; small boats can't stay at sea for as long w/o resupply & get rolled a lot more in heavy seas.
    As TAKR, it can go in/out of the Black Sea at will, unlike a CV.
    Their SSBNs don't patrol in the N. Atlantic, their Arctic bastion is well covered by other ships, subs & the NAF, so there no need for a TAKR there; $ & time can be saved by homeporting it in the Black Sea with closer access to the Med. & Red Sea, as well as the Atlantic for any possible future transits to L. America, Africa & Indo-Pacific.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:If they r going to replace Granits on 2 CGNs & Oscar SSGNs, why not on the Adm. K?!

    why do you ask me?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect  you need to  ask RuN.

    BTW  Anteys will not have Granit tubes changed only 3 Kalibrs per Granit tube fitted.






    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Their SSBNs don't patrol in the N. Atlantic, their Arctic bastion is well covered by other ships, subs .

    not necessarily 18-20 ASW helos is always welcome
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:00 am

    JohninMK wrote:
    Hole wrote:And now they can also put them on trucks. Very Happy
    You can fit a lot of trucks on the K Laughing

    truck loads so to speak lol1 lol1 lol1
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3133
    Points : 3131
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:04 am

    It was a rhetorical question; unlike some others here, I don't see any mistake in what the VMF is doing with CMs & don't need to ask them anything. Russian articles:
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/4203521

    It's not official, but to what end would they lie?
    This article covers everything:
    https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/170979/

    He doesn't believe in putting CMs on it, but all things considered, the VMF is not & doesn't need to be like any other navy.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:31 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4138
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:04 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    RuN is not now in desperate need of CM and ASM carriers, since the size of the newer missiles has enable many smaller displacement ships for the task.
    It's better to have them on Adm. K too besides its escorts for added firepower; small boats can't stay at sea for as long w/o resupply & get rolled a lot more in heavy seas.
    As TAKR, it can go in/out of the Black Sea at will, unlike a CV.
    Their SSBNs don't patrol in the N. Atlantic, their Arctic bastion is well covered by other ships, subs & the NAF, so there no need for a TAKR there; $ & time can be saved by homeporting it in the Black Sea with closer access to the Med. & Red Sea, as well as the Atlantic for any possible future transits to L. America, Africa & Indo-Pacific.

    The first one to launch thousands of missiles on the other side will win the war. If it stays conventional. That's why russia use them from any possible carrier.

    They can load all the carrier in matter of days if the missiles are already build and if they have enough in stock. Then they can launch thousands of them in 30 minutes and 2 hours later the enemy will loose many equipment, command center, communication.... and the war will be over.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS on Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:03 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It's better to have them on Adm. K too besides its escorts for added firepower; small boats can't stay at sea for as long w/o resupply & get rolled a lot more in heavy seas.
    As TAKR, it can go in/out of the Black Sea at will, unlike a CV.
    Their SSBNs don't patrol in the N. Atlantic, their Arctic bastion is well covered by other ships, subs & the NAF, so there no need for a TAKR there; $ & time can be saved by homeporting it in the Black Sea with closer access to the Med. & Red Sea, as well as the Atlantic for any possible future transits to L. America, Africa & Indo-Pacific.
    It would be good to put CMs in the carrier if it would not mean unnecessarily increasing the costs and complexity of the ship and, more importantly, reducing the number of planes on board and the ability to service them. Carriers carry planes which are their defensive and offensive means. If you don't believe this is better than sea-launched missiles, then you don't need carriers to start with (!!) Why to spend on a carrier if the real power lies in missiles?

    The issue of Black Sea is not so clear to me. Basing a tool of global reach like a carrier behind choke points like Bosphorus and Gibraltar / Suez / Aden and many thousand km from the Atlantic or Indic Ocean makes no sense to me. Mid term you could keep a LHD or small carrier in Hmeimim to cover possible tasks in the Mediterranean, but a carrier in the Black Sea is as useful as a boat in your bathtub. I am not sure that a pure carrier would be with certainty against the Montreux Convention, at that time there were no carriers to start with.

    They will have carriers in North and Pacific fleet, with unrestricted access to the World Ocean IMO. And of course a carrier could be very useful to help defending the Arctic, where airbases are scarce and far from each other and weather conditions are so bad.

    This article covers everything:
    https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/170979/
    Very good article, thanks!

    Isos wrote:The first one to launch thousands of missiles on the other side will win the war. If it stays conventional. That's why russia use them from any possible carrier.

    They can load all the carrier in matter of days if the missiles are already build and if they have enough in stock. Then they can launch thousands of them in 30 minutes and 2 hours later the enemy will loose many equipment, command center, communication.... and the war will be over.
    What kind of war and against who? As submitted in the STOVL thread, you may no live to launch thousands of missiles I your fleet gets annihilated by air launched ASMs before reaching their launching positions...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3133
    Points : 3131
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:37 am

    ..reducing the number of planes on board and the ability to service them.
    To increase the #, just removing the missile compartment won't help- the hangar bay will need to be expanded forward of its current bulkhead, changing the ship's structure, etc around it as well. The CV-16 w/o CMs carry as many aircraft.
    New CMs the Adm. K it will carry have longer ranges than its fighters.
    The issue of Black Sea is not so clear to me.
    Certainly after they get new CVNs, training can be done in the balmy Black Sea & the Med. Sea, along with perhaps occasional deployments there. $ & time can be saved on transits from/to the NF bases. Su-33 update:
    https://flot.com/2019/%D0%9C%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D1%8F20/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com

    I already posted MOs on using TAKRs in the Arctic outside of the ice free areas of the Barenz Sea a while ago & won't be repeating myself again.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22599
    Points : 23143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:03 am

    Well according to the book God created man from his image, and women to accompany men.
    From that we can infer that God is a he, per what we can understand. Of course to understand a diety that exists above all these rules is an exercise in futility.

    Well, by replacing the Granits with UKSK launchers it brings flexibility to the K... Zircon clearly has a longer range than Granit, which makes using it a bit more practical, but equally if they want they could put 91RE1 in the tubes for attacking submarines in the vicinity of the carrier, which is quite useful too... there are more countries with submarines than there are with carriers...

    Universal launchers means large surface launched weapons... land attack, anti ship, and anti sub... adding UKSK means it becomes multi role if needed.

    The design of the K was pretty sensible... you don't put a section on a ship with twelve launch tubes for 7 ton anti ship missiles half of which would probably have nuclear warheads just sitting beside the aircraft hangar... so when you decide to get rid of the missiles you can just know down the wall and extend the hangar to carry a few extra aircraft. The Granit magazine would be heavily armoured and isolated from other parts of the ship... if you remove the old missiles because they are out of production... the two things that make sense would be to either put a new more flexible missile launcher there because it should already be ideal for the job, or you might use it for aircraft ordinance storage to carry more guided weapons like AAMs or medium and light air launched anti ship or anti sub weapons for helos or fixed wing aircraft.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4138
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:39 am

    What kind of war and against who? As submitted in the STOVL thread, you may no live to launch thousands of missiles I your fleet gets annihilated by air launched ASMs before reaching their launching positions...

    Against anyone you want. Cruise missiles are getting longer and longer ranges and don't need to find the target on radar before launch like antiship missiles.

    With a 4000km kalibr they can hit anyone they want but those very far. Most NATO major bases are in range of homebased kalibr. No need to go close to them. And with truck mounted kalibr it is even easier since they can follow the army advance and get closer to launch them.

    It's much cheaper to produce thousand of kalibrs and hundreds of truck and be able to destroy countries than buy thousands of f-35 and thousands of guided munitions and operate hundreds of air bases.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS on Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:57 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    ..reducing the number of planes on board and the ability to service them.
    To increase the #, just removing the missile compartment won't help- the hangar bay will need to be expanded forward of its current bulkhead, changing the ship's structure, etc around it as well. The CV-16 w/o CMs carry as many aircraft.
    Hell, if you know the details of the construction of K and can offer a professional assessment to what can and cannot be constructively modified I better shut up right now! Is that the case?

    It is very possible that modifying that area of the ship is not easy or cheap so they can use it for newer missiles. But it could be also used as magazine or fuel storage for the onboard aircraft, no need to turn it into hangar.

    New CMs the Adm. K it will carry have longer ranges than its fighters.
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...

    I already posted MOs on using TAKRs in the Arctic outside of the ice free areas of the Barenz Sea a while ago & won't be repeating myself again.
    Have not seen them sorry

    GarryB wrote:The Granit magazine would be heavily armoured and isolated from other parts of the ship... if you remove the old missiles because they are out of production... the two things that make sense would be to either put a new more flexible missile launcher there because it should already be ideal for the job, or you might use it for aircraft ordinance storage to carry more guided weapons like AAMs or medium and light air launched anti ship or anti sub weapons for helos or fixed wing aircraft.
    Exactly

    Isos wrote:Against anyone you want. Cruise missiles are getting longer and longer ranges and don't need to find the target on radar before launch like antiship missiles.
    It is a pity that they aren't intended to attack moving targets... like the carriers that will send your fleet to the bottom.

    With a 4000km kalibr they can hit anyone they want but those very far. Most NATO major bases are in range of homebased kalibr. No need to go close to them.
    I think the extended range Kalibr is a great addition, but you cannot solve all your military needs with them. Subsonic CMs flying above the sea for hours are not the most difficult target for SAMs and interceptors you know. Otherwise nobody would bother developing hypersonic missiles.

    And with truck mounted kalibr it is even easier since they can follow the army advance and get closer to launch them.
    Has this anything to do with navy or am I missing something? BTW a missile with 4500 km range does not need to follow the army to be brought close enough to its target I guess...

    It's much cheaper to produce thousand of kalibrs and hundreds of truck and be able to destroy countries than buy thousands of f-35 and thousands of guided munitions and operate hundreds of air bases.
    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether. respekt
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3133
    Points : 3131
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 19, 2019 1:06 am

    It is very possible that modifying that area of the ship is not easy or cheap so they can use it for newer missiles.
    It's clear that they try to have new CMs on every suitable platform possible.
    But it could be also used as magazine or fuel storage for the onboard aircraft, no need to turn it into hangar.
    If they planned to do any of it, some1 in the loop would have said so by now.
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...
    It's not an arsenal ship; planes, UAVs & helos have other roles besides attacking surface & ground targets. Unlike in the USN, RN, & FN, it's not even their main role.
    Have not seen them sorry
    I did it on the Future Russian Carriers thread.
    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.
    Not true. LRCMs r needed to strike locations where the dicisions r made, among other things; having them on big ships & subs r asymmetric response to NATO numerical superiority in ships, subs & aircraft, just like having the current CMs on small boats in closed seas & internal waterways that can equalize land based IRB/CM in Europe & the ability to target the ME from the Caspian & Black Seas, eliminating the need to deploy them to the Med. & Arabian Seas.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22599
    Points : 23143
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:04 am

    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...

    Well not really... long range anti ship missiles on the K means it can attack and kill ships that approach it, but they wouldn't be much use if instead of a Nimitz class carrier, they detected 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles... having several Su-33s in the air to shoot down some of those missiles would make the defence of the ships easier and better as they could probably take out some missiles themselves with missiles and guns and then track the incoming missiles and support ship based air defences trying to shoot them down too.

    I think the extended range Kalibr is a great addition, but you cannot solve all your military needs with them. Subsonic CMs flying above the sea for hours are not the most difficult target for SAMs and interceptors you know. Otherwise nobody would bother developing hypersonic missiles.

    Indeed, as a surprise first strike they might work because the enemy is not expecting them, or as a follow up strike after hypersonic missiles have taken down major radar and SAM sites and airfields and HQs and everything is in a bit of disarray...

    Has this anything to do with navy or am I missing something? BTW a missile with 4500 km range does not need to follow the army to be brought close enough to its target I guess...

    Well a land based truck mounted system formerly banned by the INF treaty suddenly becomes the simplest and cheapest method of taking out significant targets in Europe or the far east... the benefit is it is relatively cheap and easy to manage and hide... they could use standard shipping containers for launcher designs, and that would free up your navy from the burden of having to devastate continental Europe and Japan et al, so the navy can focus more on anti NATO naval activities like surface ships and subs of NATO...

    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.

    Ruling out the Russian navy for strategic attack against land based europe and Japan and the various US bases around the place... it can now focus on naval targets near and far from Russia... which should allow much more efficient use of those launch tubes...

    It's clear that they try to have new CMs on every suitable platform possible.

    Standardisation of the primary weapon just makes sense...

    If they planned to do any of it, some1 in the loop would have said so by now.

    I haven't heard anything definitive either way... I suspect all their new carriers will carry some UKSK launchers... though they might only ever carry long range anti sub missiles in them to protect the carrier from sub or torpedo attack...

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS on Tue Mar 19, 2019 11:54 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:It's clear that they try to have new CMs on every suitable platform possible.
    They are putting CMs in all combatant ships. But a carrier has something better. Not only me thinking a carrier is better off being just a carrier, many experts and designers have supported this too. It will have a escort of other ships with CMs so you don't need to bother taking up space and interfering with the flight deck because of some missiles. A carrier is a scarce enough resource to make the most out of it for its main role and not loose focus with secondary ones.

    quote]Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...
    It's not an arsenal ship; planes, UAVs & helos have other roles besides attacking surface & ground targets. Unlike in the USN, RN, & FN, it's not even their main role.[/quote]
    Arsenal ship would be if you stuff it with CMs.
    Role of the carrier is defending the fleet, and that means keeping other vessels and naval aviation far enough. As discussed, you cannot do this with CMs or ASMs only due to fundamental range issues.

    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.
    Not true. LRCMs r needed to strike locations where the dicisions r made, among other things; having them on big ships & subs r asymmetric response to NATO numerical superiority in ships, subs & aircraft, just like having the current CMs on small boats in closed seas & internal waterways that can equalize land based IRB/CM in Europe & the ability to target the ME from the Caspian & Black Seas, eliminating the need to deploy them to the Med. & Arabian Seas. [/quote
    ]
    You are mixing using navy to compensate for INF restrictions (now gone) in the surroundings of Russia with the proper use of a blue water navy, which is to defend interests abroad. The navy is your footprint in such remote areas and the enabler for quick power projection, and now we start talking about trucks with CMs? Sorry the point doesn't make sense to me.

    GarryB wrote:
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...
    Well not really... long range anti ship missiles on the K means it can attack and kill ships that approach it, but they wouldn't be much use if instead of a Nimitz class carrier, they detected 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles... having several Su-33s in the air to shoot down some of those missiles would make the defence of the ships easier and better as they could probably take out some missiles themselves with missiles and guns and then track the incoming missiles and support ship based air defences trying to shoot them down too.
    The point discussed is whether it makes sense to lose space for planes in a carrier in order to have CMs or ASMs. I am arguing that naval aviation is a scarce resource in Russian and practically any other navy so the carrier should not really bother with missiles and concentrate on what makes it specially valuable which is carrying planes. Of course I agree shipborne fighters could help intercepting enemy CMs and stopping their carriers before launch, which is the proper way of defending the fleet. Navies go to great extents to get this capability because otherwise they just remain at the receiving end of the enemy's naval aviation, and that has not worked well historically.

    Indeed, as a surprise first strike they might work because the enemy is not expecting them, or as a follow up strike after hypersonic missiles have taken down major radar and SAM sites and airfields and HQs and everything is in a bit of disarray...
    Unexpected, coming from a well located surface fleet, is not how I would describe it. We have seen in Syria what is the difficulty of shooting down subsonic CMs coming from the sea, and we talk of a devastated military. Any country with some air force and AD network would shot them down by the hundreds. So these can be useful to attack certain targets but not highly defended ones, IMO

    Has this anything to do with navy or am I missing something? BTW a missile with 4500 km range does not need to follow the army to be brought close enough to its target I guess...
    Well a land based truck mounted system formerly banned by the INF treaty suddenly becomes the simplest and cheapest method of taking out significant targets in Europe or the far east... the benefit is it is relatively cheap and easy to manage and hide... they could use standard shipping containers for launcher designs, and that would free up your navy from the burden of having to devastate continental Europe and Japan et al, so the navy can focus more on anti NATO naval activities like surface ships and subs of NATO...
    True, but that was never my point. INF will be addressed properly now. In any case, would this recently freed naval capability not support my point that you don't need so many CMs in every single ship available? I remind you, UKSK is not only meant for CMs, it is meant for ASMs too. If the theatre allows it, use your CMs against ISIS and the like. If not, load Zircons in subs and even small surface combatants and spread them.

    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.
    Ruling out the Russian navy for strategic attack against land based europe and Japan and the various US bases around the place... it can now focus on naval targets near and far from Russia... which should allow much more efficient use of those launch tubes...
    Look the original statement from Tsavo Lion. You don't need a navy for the spots you reach with land based assets so this whole conversation is moot.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:07 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    It is very possible that modifying that area of the ship is not easy or cheap so they can use it for newer missiles. But it could be also used as magazine or fuel storage for the onboard aircraft, no need to turn it into hangar.Hell, if you know the details of the construction of K and can offer a professional assessment to what can and cannot be constructively modified I better shut up right now! Is that the case?

    no Russian source - official one said about CMs on Kuz, whats more important admiral Bursuk never said that . I'd treat it with grain of slt.
    LMFS wrote:
    New CMs the Adm. K it will carry have longer ranges than its fighters.
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...


    You gin look as Americans do. Kuz was never designed s CV but TAKR. Originally TAKRs had airwing as secondary force. Especially after tactical nukes which destroy fighters Kuz w able still to fight with CVNs.



    LMFS wrote:
    Isos wrote:Against anyone you want. Cruise missiles are getting longer and longer ranges and don't need to find the target on radar before launch like antiship missiles.
    It is a pity that they aren't intended to attack moving targets... like the carriers that will send your fleet to the bottom.


    so? They send Kuz in every scenario anyway

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:21 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    quote]Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...
    It's not an arsenal ship; planes, UAVs & helos have other roles besides attacking surface & ground targets. Unlike in the USN, RN, & FN, it's not even their main role.
    Arsenal ship would be if you stuff it with CMs.
    Role of the carrier is defending the fleet, and that means keeping other vessels and naval aviation far enough. As discussed, you cannot do this with CMs or ASMs only due to fundamental range issues.
    [/quote]

    Kuz will have fighters && new helos and drones after renovation. not only fighters. So it looks like its oole role will be ASW/ Landing support too. Unlike Us CVNs



    LMFS wrote:
    You are mixing using navy to compensate for INF restrictions (now gone) in the surroundings of Russia with the proper use of a blue water navy, which is to defend interests abroad. The navy is your footprint in such remote areas and the enabler for quick power projection, and now we start talking about trucks with CMs? Sorry the point doesn't make sense to me.

    And you mix CSGs with "expeditionary ship groupings" . Expeditionary itself implies locl wars/flag waving



    LMFS wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...
    Well not really... long range anti ship missiles on the K means it can attack and kill ships that approach it, but they wouldn't be much use if instead of a Nimitz class carrier, they detected 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles... having several Su-33s in the air to shoot down some of those missiles would make the defence of the ships easier and better as they could probably take out some missiles themselves with missiles and guns and then track the incoming missiles and support ship based air defences trying to shoot them down too.
    The point discussed is whether it makes sense to lose space for planes in a carrier in order to have CMs or ASMs. I am arguing that naval aviation is a scarce resource in Russian and practically any other navy so the carrier should not really bother with missiles and concentrate on what makes it specially valuable which is carrying planes. Of course I agree shipborne fighters could help intercepting enemy CMs and stopping their carriers before launch, which is the proper way of defending the fleet. Navies go to great extents to get this capability because otherwise they just remain at the receiving end of the enemy's naval aviation, and that has not worked well historically.

    ok so you dont talk about Kuz? Kuz was, is and unlikely will be CV.



    LMFS wrote:
    Unexpected, coming from a well located surface fleet, is not how I would describe it. We have seen in Syria what is the difficulty of shooting down subsonic CMs coming from the sea, and we talk of a devastated military. Any country with some air force and AD network would shot them down by the hundreds. So these can be useful to attack certain targets but not highly defended ones, IMO

    then why Russians build CM Iskanders? or building brand nex stealth Kh-50? VLO CM is dangerous, especially sea skimming with good EW protection.


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...

    Well not really... long range anti ship missiles on the K means it can attack and kill ships that approach it, but they wouldn't be much use if instead of a Nimitz class carrier, they detected 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles... having several Su-33s in the air to shoot down some of those missiles would make the defence of the ships easier and better as they could probably take out some missiles themselves with missiles and guns and then track the incoming missiles and support ship based air defences trying to shoot them down too.

    yup



    GB wrote:
    Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.

    Ruling out the Russian navy for strategic attack against land based europe and Japan and the various US bases around the place... it can now focus on naval targets near and far from Russia... which should allow much more efficient use of those launch tubes...


    no need to look for further explanations, Putin already said that naval tubes are to build defensive perimeter long Russia's borders (naval in this case)

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:27 pm

    Isos wrote:
    What kind of war and against who? As submitted in the STOVL thread, you may no live to launch thousands of missiles I your fleet gets annihilated by air launched ASMs before reaching their launching positions...

    Against anyone you want. Cruise missiles are getting longer and longer ranges and don't need to find the target on radar before launch like antiship missiles.

    With a 4000km kalibr they can hit anyone they want but those very far. Most NATO major bases are in range of homebased kalibr. No need to go close to them. And with truck mounted kalibr it is even easier since they can follow  the army advance and get closer to launch them.

    It's much cheaper to produce thousand of kalibrs and hundreds of truck and be able to destroy countries than buy thousands of f-35 and thousands of guided munitions and operate hundreds of air bases.

    true, but fighters to protect locally you or lowing Syrian wars still have value
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4138
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:27 pm

    true, but fighters to protect locally you or lowing Syrian wars still have value

    Of course. Two different things. Cruise missiles can't replace fighters but if you have enough land based cruise missiles you can use your fighters for aerial supremacy only and tactical bombing.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3133
    Points : 3131
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Mar 19, 2019 5:34 pm

    It will have a escort of other ships with CMs so you don't need to bother taking up space and interfering with the flight deck because of some missiles.
    Its flight deck isn't that busy as on USN CVNs launching strike packages & recovering aircraft for hours. They'll will plan to use CMs in advance & schedule flight ops around it. It doesn't take long to launch those CMs, & flight ops can stop & resume again right away.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS on Tue Mar 19, 2019 6:56 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:no Russian source - official one said about CMs on Kuz, whats more important  admiral  Bursuk never said that . I'd treat it with grain of slt.
    True. It depends in the end of what can be realistically done in a given time frame and with the allocated budget and available industrial resources. Probably they wont turn the K into a space ship, rather get it operational again and most importantly reliable, as soon as possible. The optimizations will be probably developed with new carriers. But as said there are professional Russian sources saying that a carrier is a carrier and doesn't need to do all the functions of the fleet at the same time, just sayin'

    You gin look as Americans do. Kuz was never designed s CV but  TAKR. Originally TAKRs had airwing as secondary force. Especially after tactical nukes which destroy fighters Kuz w able still to fight with CVNs.
    Hmmm, no I don't. USN CSGs have been used to discipline naughty countries in the rules of the empire. Russian carriers / TAKR or whatever Russia decides to call them will probably have a deterrent value + fleet protection + COIN strike functions. At least in the future we can reasonably predict. If you are foreseeing use of nukes then if you call the carriers carriers or cruisers is the least important issue as far as I can see. Given its design characteristics, it is hard for me to take at face value that the K had the air wing as secondary priority. But as said, now all surface and submarine combatant classes starting from corvettes can carry dangerous, long range supersonic (and soon enough hypersonic) ASMs, so the value of a ship big enough to carry huge Granits is simply not what it was. RuN has successfully implemented the "distributed lethality" (I feel a little weird using these US teleshop names but you will understand), so they don't need to stuff their carriers with missiles. Much better to make a small diesel sub pop-up with some Zircons and disappear again than committing a cruiser to the improbable task of frontally attacking a CSG.

    Kuz will have fighters && new helos and drones after renovation. not only fighters. So it looks like its oole role will be ASW/ Landing support too. Unlike Us CVNs
    It had helos before too, as US CVNs have...  Suspect

    And you mix CSGs with "expeditionary ship groupings" . Expeditionary itself implies locl wars/flag waving
    You expect RuN to have fully equipped and independent ESGs and CSGs, rather than operating together at a conflict zone? And I am thinking like USN right?  Razz
    Only combat deployment of K until now was in Syria for strike roles. Don't know how that fits in your theory.

    then why Russians build CM Iskanders? or building brand nex stealth Kh-50? VLO CM is dangerous, especially sea skimming with good EW protection.

    Because AD network in Europe is very weak (they don't really feel under threat from Russia despite all the theatricals), and because Russians also have other Iskanders that are 7M aeroballistic missiles as appetizers.

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Its flight deck isn't that busy as on USN CVNs launching strike packages & recovering aircraft for hours. They'll will plan to use CMs in advance & schedule flight ops around it. It doesn't take long to launch those CMs, & flight ops can stop & resume again right away.
    In order to defend the fleet you need to launch and recover your planes at thigh tempo too. I am not saying it is impossible to have missiles too, I am saying it is not really necessary, once you plan to have 22350-M with 50 UKSK cells and Liders with like 100 of them the missile department is assorted and what is needed is air wing cover. Think previously a huge vessel like the K could only carry 12 ASM, number of missiles in a fleet has grown almost by an order of magnitude in the meantime... But ok we can have different opinions, that is fine.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 78
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:18 am

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:no Russian source - official one said about CMs on Kuz, whats more important  admiral  Bursuk never said that . I'd treat it with grain of slt.
    True. It depends in the end of what can be realistically done in a given time frame and with the allocated budget and available industrial resources. Probably they wont turn the K into a space ship, rather get it operational again and most importantly reliable, as soon as possible. The optimizations will be probably developed with new carriers. But as said there are professional Russian sources saying that a carrier is a carrier and doesn't need to do all the functions of the fleet at the same time, just sayin'

    me thinks too.  Kuz will definitely have new self defense, radars, power plant   but first of all new flight management system... for netcentric warfare + better airwing management.  







    LMFS wrote: USN CSGs have been used to discipline naughty countries in the rules of the empire. Russian carriers / TAKR or whatever Russia decides to call them will probably have a deterrent value + fleet protection + COIN strike functions. At least in the future we can reasonably predict. If you are foreseeing use of nukes then if you call the carriers carriers or cruisers is the least important issue as far as I can see. Given its design characteristics, it is hard for me to take at face value that the K had the air wing as secondary priority. But as said, now all surface and submarine combatant classes starting from corvettes can carry dangerous, long range supersonic (and soon enough hypersonic) ASMs, so the value of a ship big enough to carry huge Granits is simply not what it was. RuN has successfully implemented the "distributed lethality" (I feel a little weird using these US teleshop names but you will understand), so they don't need to stuff their carriers with missiles. Much better to make a small diesel sub pop-up with some Zircons and disappear again than committing a cruiser to the improbable task of frontally attacking a CSG.


    how great you agreed with me this time  cheers  cheers  cheers  Just small remark. US CVNs are for colonial as major wars alike. They're implementation of sea control concept. Same with Kuz carrying CMs but since Russians are beefing up everything they can use Antey trick - 3 Kalibrs in one Granite tube Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

    As for small subs I think this is in making. I mean AIP drone subs.  Long range, can go in tens with "expeditionary ship grouping" ( let me call ESG Smile and move forward by 100-200kms if needed -range of AAD/ASh protection of surface combatants.


    LMFS wrote:
    Kuz will have fighters && new helos and drones after renovation. not only fighters. So it looks like its oole role will be ASW/ Landing support too. Unlike Us CVNs
    It had helos before too, as US CVNs have...  Suspect

    Kuz originally AFAIK should carry
    26 fighters
    18 ASW helos
    4 AEW
    2 SAR
    so proportions are bit different then US CVNs since function was different too.


    LMFS wrote:
    And you mix CSGs with "expeditionary ship groupings" . Expeditionary itself implies local wars/flag waving
    You expect RuN to have fully equipped and independent ESGs and CSGs, rather than operating together at a conflict zone? And I am thinking like USN right?  Razz
    Only combat deployment of K until now was in Syria for strike roles. Don't know how that fits in your theory.

    No, my point i there will be no CSGs  in Russian navy planned.  CVN will be part of ESG.  Difference is that airwing here wont be so high and have more defensive nature (air air is least probable) or antiship (navalto extend ASh range/ASW coverage)  




    LMFS wrote:
    then why Russians build CM Iskanders? or building brand nex stealth Kh-50? VLO CM is dangerous, especially sea skimming with good EW protection.

    Because AD network in Europe is very weak

    if bases and navies in Europe have weak defenses   then where it is is strong?  dunno  dunno  dunno

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 14 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Dec 11, 2019 12:54 am