Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1081
    Points : 1079
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Dec 01, 2017 10:40 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I disagree- now it became @ least as important as the AF, which has mostly tactical nukes & some anti-ship capability, while the Navy has  tactical nukes, strategic SLBMs, & substantial anti-ship/ASW aviation.
    Why Russia does not need aircraft carriers
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-01/1_975_aircraft.html

    He means "supercarriers" & has a point. But China & France r also continental powers; unlike the RF, they have only W. Pacific & Atlantic/Med.Sea "waterfronts", respectively; while the former has the Pacific, Arctic & Black Sea "waterfronts" adjacent to N. Atlantic, Med.& Red Seas, respectively; & those r dominated by NATO members.
    Once small CVs r built, 2-4 CVNs- 1-2 in the NF & 1-2 in the PF won't do much harm, if any!

    Okay what you consider important for Russia military the brass who control this stuff do not. I am not saying they don't need a navy no they do.

    All I said was the Navy to the current Russian government is the least important branch, so if anyone is going to face massive cuts its going to be them.

    I do not think Russia needs supercarriers no.

    I don't see why you are trying to argue with me over this.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 01, 2017 11:17 pm

    The alone Russian modern project of aircraft carrier presented until now is the Project 23000. And we know Russia will have shipyards that can begin the production of this ship in the short term. This is the reality today.

    No, it's not the reality as u describe, but a wishful thinking:
    However, the carrier and the Lider-class destroyers have been postponed by President Putin, they are not [even] mentioned in the military plan for 2020-2025 released in May 2017.[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E
    As for the Navy, the 2025 program will again prioritize the construction of new nuclear submarines and small (no larger than frigate-type) surface combatants. Although Russia’s new Borei- and Yasen-class submarine fleets have yet to be completed, the 2025 program calls for a new fifth-generation ballistic missile submarine known as the Husky class. ..
    What was most telling about Putin’s 2025 modernization planning session was what didn’t make the cut: specifically the construction of a new aircraft carrier and the development of a nuclear-powered destroyer. ..Russia simply doesn’t have the shipyard capacity for large surface ships [& it takes years to build/upgrade them] (most large Soviet ships were built in Ukraine) or the engineering know-how for reliable diesel-powered turbines (also built in Ukraine).
    While a nuclear-powered destroyer may sound like overkill, it makes sense for the Russian shipbuilding industry: their expertise is in nuclear propulsion systems, said Luzin. As for a new aircraft carrier, it only makes sense in the context of Russia’s great-power ambitions. And as a status symbol, the existing, yet outdated aircraft carrier Kuznetsov works well enough. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/05/26/russia-s-putin-drafts-new-rearmament-program/
    The bottom line: CVNs r "on the back burner" as there's "bigger fish to fry" that must be eaten before the right condition to build them r in evidence. It took China, the #1 shipbuilding country now, until very recently to announce the news about the start of a conventional CATOBAR carrier construction, only after completing the ex-Varyag & launching the Type 001A.  http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a25009/chinas-second-aircraft-carrier-shandong/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_002_aircraft_carrier

    Let me also quote a Russian proverb: "don't divide a skin of a bear that isn't dead yet!"
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:49 am

    Lots of intoxication around. Like in the case of the Tu-PAK-DA. Lots of pro-US media workers trying to make a fake narrative. Nothing official ruled out the Project 23000 and the Project 23560.

    Obviously Russia wants to see their most advanced missiles in as many ships as possible. The main effect of this is not in new ships, but in the current fleet, with many ships to be upgraded, in some cases at minimum cost. It is necessary to take into account that the missiles are in fact ammunition, and the new missiles are not of very big size. Not all the current ships will be upgraded, of course, but it would be a surprise for me if there is some project of current warship (from corvettes to aircraft carriers), submarine (nuclear and conventional) or missile boat that can not be upgraded to the modern missiles, except the Project 1204.

    And the main focus in the construction of new ships will be in to continue with the orders underway, about which we have detailed reports in this topic, and that are of types mentioned by Borisov. The current orders ongoing are a lot, and surely no-one will be cancelled.

    But this does not mean anything about the development of the mentioned two projects that are of segments where Russia developed nothing since the Soviet Union. Despite some unfair media reports, Russia will work to achieve the capability of producing ships of every type and this means the development of these projects until the first unit is completed, because the production capability on ships means not to have only the project (achieved), also there is an effort on shipyards (almost achieved with the pilot ship in construction), and there in an effort on production to form the teams, to win experience, and all it, that is very important, and that only is assured when the first unit is completed. I'm sure this need is ranked very high in the Russian Navy.

    PS: If you want to see about the state of the upgrade of the Russian shipyards to allow the construction of aircraft carriers, there are good comments explaining it in the topic called "Future Russian aircraft carriers".

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t2631p825-future-russian-aircraft-carriers#203791

    From this comment, where there is a real reference to official statements about the capacity of the shipyard, to back.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18352
    Points : 18912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:59 am

    One of the problems of the Soviet fleet was that each vessel was largely unique with its own array of weapons and sensors and propulsion and indeed purpose.

    The Udaloy class and Sovremmeny class are very similar in size but due to their differing roles the ASW role of the Udaloy gives it anti sub missiles that do have a secondary anti ship role, but also gas turbine propulsion for high speed chases.The Sov on the other hand has different propulsion and different missiles and weapons.

    The replacement destroyer will not just be more powerful in having rather more weapons, it will carry one type of launcher for large weapons that can be loaded with anti ship, anti sub, and for the first time land attack missiles, which can be loaded in any mixture needed to get the intended job done.

    Not only that but the new Onyx is superior to Moskit, and Zircon will be even better still, and the 91RE2 is a mach 2 ballistic rocket that delivers the torpedo payload rapidly out to 40km from the ship in its export version.... it is only 6.5m long so a larger model with a heavier booster could easily be used to extend range and improve speed in a domestic version... compared with the SS-N-14 subsonic missile that delivers a torpedo to target.

    Plus it can also deliver land attack cruise missiles of 2,500km range and excellent proven accuracy.

    The important thing is that three different launchers are not needed... just one can be used... and three different ships are not needed... if the plan is a massive land attack strike you can load all your tubes with land attack cruise missiles that day.

    They also share sensors and weapons and communications so they are actually much more alike than they used to be and they use the same propulsion, which further makes them easier to operate and support and supply.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:24 pm

    eehnie wrote:Lots of intoxication around. Like in the case of the Tu-PAK-DA. Lots of pro-US media workers trying to make a fake narrative. Nothing official ruled out the Project 23000 and the Project 23560.
    It's u that seems to be intoxicated! In both topics, I also quoted Russian non pro-US media workers/analysts who, unlike u, use critical thinking before posting something. Ruling out Projects 23000 and 23560 will unnecessary embarrass a lot of folks & create problems later if/when they r able to actually cut metal for them. Also, "don't believe everything u hear & only 1/2 of what u see"! Ambiguity goes both ways: the phrase "all options r on the table" isn't only for USA to utter. The Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard is too far for suppliers in the Central Russia & will drive the cost of construction even more. The state rearmament program may not go as planned &/ terminate in 2025. They don't even have enough $ to complete the latest SSBN: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/tag/sevmash/
    Project 23000 or similar CATOBAR or even STOBAR carriers will be even more expensive. Before u can run & jump, u must learn to crawl 1st & then walk 2nd.
    Construction of a new CV poses a challenge for Russia. The KIEV and KUZNETSOV Class carriers were built at Chernomorskoye Shipyard in Nikolayev, Ukraine, now unavailable to the Russians. Two shipyards in Russia that could solicit such a contract are the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg and Sevmash Shipyard in Severodvinsk. These two shipbuilding enterprises reportedly have requested to be retooled and reequipped. They also want new technologies to be introduced in order to increase their plant’s production efficiency. However, there have been plans to close Baltic Shipyard by the 2020s and ambitious shipyard development plans for Sevmash have been discussed. In addition to manufacturing issues, the Russian Navy will have to solve issues of basing, support, new frigate/destroyer escorts, training, and billeting for thousands of carrier crew members. Although recent statements by the naval leadership continue to promote the construction of aircraft carriers, it is likely that there will be extensive discussion and debate before final decisions are made. In light of the extensive work required to enable Russia to build an aircraft carrier, construction is not likely to begin until about the mid-2020s." http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-navy-report-you-missed-need-read-now-14659
    So, time will tell, but it's not on Russia's side!
    .. three different launchers are not needed... just one can be used... and three different ships are not needed...

    But, isn't there a danger of using wrong missiles against wrong targets? Those who load them into tubes r not the 1s who decide to launch them & who actually press the buttons! How can u prevent that mix up?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:31 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Ruling out Projects 23000 and 23560 will unnecessary embarrass a lot of folks & create problems later if/when they r able to actually cut metal for them. Also, "don't believe everything u hear & only 1/2 of what u see"! Ambiguity goes both ways: the phrase "all options r on the table" isn't only for USA to utter.  The Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard is too far for suppliers in the Central Russia & will drive the cost of construction even more. The state rearmament program may not go as planned &/ terminate in 2025. They don't even have enough $ to complete the latest SSBN: https://russiandefpolicy.blog/tag/sevmash/
    Project 23000 or similar CATOBAR or even STOBAR carriers will be even more expensive. Before u can run & jump, u must learn to crawl 1st & then walk 2nd.

    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap compared to anywhere near Europe. They are just not willing to commit on having a serious Navy, at all. Corruption plays a major part here too, it seems large, complicated Navy vessels (with associated weapon systems) require massive and advanced Project Management skills that exceed Russia's capability in the field. See Ivan Gren, Gorshkov and Grigorovich classes being stuck to low, limited production numbers of 3 vessels (or less) in each class, for over 1 decade. Some aren't even officially accepted.

    It's a huge mess.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7103
    Points : 7197
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:46 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:........................
    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap ...............

    They can but they won't simply because they don't need them. Supercarriers are dinosaurs of age long gone by.

    In any modern war with even remotely comparable enemy they will be lit up like Christmas tree several minutes in and several minutes before everything else on the planet gets the same treatment.  

    Their only use today is to go around punking third world countries and looking fancy doing it. And you can do that without a problem with simple STOVL carrier. Which is precisely what RuN will be building if they ever do decide that they need carriers.

    Missile ships, corvettes, frigates. Maybe some super-frigates later. That is it. That's all they need and all they should be spending time and money on when it comes to surface fleet.

    Everything else is just entertainment.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:50 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:........................
    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap ...............

    They can but they won't simply because they don't need them. Supercarriers are dinosaurs of age long gone by.

    In any modern war with even remotely comparable enemy they will be lit up like Christmas tree several minutes in and several minutes before everything else on the planet gets the same treatment.  

    Their only use today is to go around punking third world countries and looking fancy doing it. And you can do that without a problem with simple STOVL carrier. Which is precisely what RuN will be building if they ever do decide that they need carriers.

    Missile ships, corvettes, frigates. Maybe some super-frigates later. That is it. That's all they need and all they should be spending time and money on when it comes to surface fleet.

    Everything else is just entertainment.

    I'm not a STOVL hater per se. I just don't see any planes for it, hence I find it risky.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:01 pm

    Or they can follow China by building a conventional STOBAR with EM catapults: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/11/09/tech-breakthrough-chinas-next-carrier-could-feature-electromagnetic-launch-system/
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7103
    Points : 7197
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:05 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:.....................
    I'm not a STOVL hater per se. I just don't see any planes for it, hence I find it risky.

    And we won't be seeing those planes for quite a while.

    If they have decided to design them it means that they are just getting started. And ships that will carry them will be coming even later, most likely derivatives of one of helicopter carrier projects.

    In the meantime they have more urgent matters to attend to in the form of standard combat ships. Priorities first.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:16 pm

    PapaDragon wrote: If they have decided to design them it means that they are just getting started.
    Even then, in large part, they'll be based on the old Yak-141, so it won't be like starting from scratch!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:41 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:........................
    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap ...............

    They can but they won't simply because they don't need them. Supercarriers are dinosaurs of age long gone by.

    In any modern war with even remotely comparable enemy they will be lit up like Christmas tree several minutes in and several minutes before everything else on the planet gets the same treatment.  

    Their only use today is to go around punking third world countries and looking fancy doing it. And you can do that without a problem with simple STOVL carrier. Which is precisely what RuN will be building if they ever do decide that they need carriers.

    Missile ships, corvettes, frigates. Maybe some super-frigates later. That is it. That's all they need and all they should be spending time and money on when it comes to surface fleet.

    Everything else is just entertainment.

    A single supercarrier, i.e. a U.S. one, means around 60 combat aircrafts, plus 4 AEW aircrafts, plus a dozen helicopters for ASW and CSAR. Its standard escorts, one Ticonderoga and at least two Burke, mean three separated AN-SPY-1 and something around 300 VLS able to launch anything between ESSM up to Tomahawk.

    There is nothing else, both on land and on sea, that could deliver such an amount of force in a coordinated and concentrated way.

    And there is very little that could harass a CVN and its escorts, unless they choose to get close to an opponents stronghold.

    Even supposed ballistic antiship missiles should prove to be able at start to get a tracking on some vessels sailing hundreds of miles away from launching stations, and second to be able to overcome the ships' own defenses, that are already pretty good at intercepting IRBM missiles, and likely will get ever better at it over the time.

    Maybe in the near future carriers will prove more vulnerable than today, but up to now they are threated mainly by SSNs only, and even when the ballistic antiship missile concept would prove itself viable, they will remain the most powerful tool at sea.

    In the worst case, the carriers will have to combat on equal terms, until now and barring tactical errors, they choose when and where to strike and have very little to worry.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18352
    Points : 18912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:20 am


    But, isn't there a danger of using wrong missiles against wrong targets? Those who load them into tubes r not the 1s who decide to launch them & who actually press the buttons! How can u prevent that mix up?

    How do fighter pilots manage to remember which weapon is under which weapon pylon?

    They get a mission and they get a loadout that suits that mission and then they go into the combat area and perform that mission.

    If they mission is anti sub and they have mostly anti sub missiles and a target becomes available that is a land based target if they have a land attack missile they can use it... if they don't then the target will be passed on to another platform that does have a weapon to engage the target.

    There will be plenty of times when a fighter plane detects a SAM and does not have an anti radiation missile handy... tough.... but if you are a fighter plane and you run out of AAMs because you have anti ship missiles and anti radiation missiles and other crap then that is a mission fail.

    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap compared to anywhere near Europe. They are just not willing to commit on having a serious Navy, at all.

    Yeah... China and North Korea can build one each and they can be based with Russias Mistrals right?

    There are some things you don't get other countries to build for you... ICBMs are another thing.

    Corruption plays a major part here too, it seems large, complicated Navy vessels (with associated weapon systems) require massive and advanced Project Management skills that exceed Russia's capability in the field.

    hahahahaa... they can't build Frigates but you want them to get China or Korea to build them some carriers... what a joker jocolor

    I'm not a STOVL hater per se. I just don't see any planes for it, hence I find it risky.

    They wont build STOVL carriers, just like they wont build super carriers.... they will build medium sized 50-70K ton carriers, except with decent air defence and cruise missile capacity.

    A carrier that can defend itself... with S-500 and S-400 and S-350 missiles and Pantsir-SM.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 Dec 03, 2017 2:57 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote: If they have decided to design them it means that they are just getting started.
    Even then, in large part, they'll be based on the old Yak-141, so it won't be like starting from scratch!

    You mean on F-35? right ? respekt respekt respekt
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 03, 2017 12:36 pm

    GarryB wrote:They wont build STOVL carriers, just like they wont build super carriers.... they will build medium sized 50-70K ton carriers, except with decent air defence and cruise missile capacity.

    A carrier that can defend itself... with S-500 and S-400 and S-350 missiles and Pantsir-SM.

    A recent project of aircraft carrier of this size seems to have been cancelled recently.

    http://www.deagel.com/Fighting-Ships/Russian-Aircraft-Carrier_a002357001.aspx

    According to the report, this project (without technical numeration) was proposed in 2009, and later cancelled (included not in the State Armament Program 2011-2020).

    Like I do not expect subpar aircrafts for future Russian aircraft carriers, I do not expect subpar future Russian aircraft carriers.


    Last edited by eehnie on Sun Dec 03, 2017 1:08 pm; edited 4 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 Dec 03, 2017 3:40 pm

    I am not sure why there is all that argument about?

    This is not about "lack of PM skills" respekt respekt respekt (this was a good one, I must have cleaned my coffee from my keyboard)
    neither docks enough large
    not black magic.

    Perhaps Occam's razor helps? You can do virtually everything but it costs time & money. Any skills, any product, ship etc.

    But budget consist of finite sum of money. With assumed time-frame (18-25) you have both time money constrains. Thus you set priorities to ensure you can defend yourself and protect own interests in most efficient way.

    Apparently withing current constrains no supa doopa AC are needed to fulfill tasks. Perhaps STOVL/VTOL fighter is planned (kinda Yak-141/F-35) to be flown around 2025 thus ACruiser is postponed till thsi time?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18352
    Points : 18912
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:44 pm

    And yes both PRC and ROK can supply to Russia everything they need for a CV. Sub-systems, wiring, raw materials, steel or even ready-made sub-sections and of course electronics, sensors and so on.

    And so could the united states or UK or Japan... what you haven't explained is why they should do that?

    Like I do not expect subpar aircrafts for future Russian aircraft carriers, I do not expect subpar future Russian aircraft carriers.

    If they want a super carrier (ie 100K tons) then they will only get one and it will be like the Kuznetsov in that it might not be available if needed because it might be in dry dock having an overhaul and there is no second or third carrier available to use.

    If they get a carrier very similar to the K then they could probably make two, they will be able to fit cats and embark a good AWACS platform on board which should greatly improve air to air performance. Air to ground performance will be Zircon and Kalibr based.

    Except in small limited operations like Syria where there is not enemy air component so medium altitude bombing with dumb bombs by Su-33 and MiG-29K can be more than enough most of the time.

    In comparison a small carrier will be a very limited support vessel that lacks range or speed and will be equipped with sub par fighters made to a budget that are fragile and weak.

    After all... out of 10 worlds biggest shipyards with highest dry dock turn rate... 6 are South Korean

    The Russians paid the South Koreans to upgrade their main shipyard in the far east (Zvezda) on the model the South Koreans use to make ships.. do you really think after just getting that upgraded shipyard up to speed they are going to then get Korean ship yards to build their most important ships for them?


    And ofc ships price is dropping with huge shipyards China and Japan have, after 2007. ship orders went down. Guy pulling cables and carrying paint buckets in South Korean shipyard is paid more than surgeon in 80% of the world.

    So how can they build ships cheaper than Russia.

    And by the way, even if SK or China could do it at half the cost of a Russian shipyard it still makes sense to build in the Russian shipyard as that money is spent in the Russian economy and not the SK or Chinese economy.

    Amusing that you bitch that the Russians don't make their own shipyard cranes but think building CVNs should be done in China or SK.

    As I have said several times before the Russians don't need a big expensive super carrier right now or in the next 5 years.

    Maybe in 15-20 years time they can start making medium sized carriers when they have cruisers and destroyers to form a surface group that needs aircraft to defend it.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 04, 2017 10:58 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:........................
    Korea and China are right next door, ready to provide anything a CV project needs. Russia can build carriers in the Far East very comfortably and on the cheap ...............
    A single supercarrier, i.e. a U.S. one, means around 60 combat aircrafts, plus 4 AEW aircrafts, plus a dozen helicopters for ASW and CSAR. ..And there is very little that could harass a CVN and its escorts, unless they choose to get close to an opponent's stronghold.
    Even supposed ballistic anti ship missiles should prove to be able at start to get a tracking on some vessels sailing hundreds of miles away from launching stations, and second to be able to overcome the ships' own defenses, that are already pretty good at intercepting IRBM missiles, and likely will get ever better at it over the time.
    Maybe in the near future carriers will prove more vulnerable than today, but up to now they are threatened mainly by SSNs only, and even when the ballistic anti ship missile concept would prove itself viable, they will remain the most powerful tool at sea.
    In the worst case, the carriers will have to combat on equal terms, until now and barring tactical errors, they choose when and where to strike and have very little to worry.
    No, normally a USN CVN has 4 helicopters: 2 for ASW and 2 for SAR.
    China will soon start building new SSKs with an auxiliary nuclear powerplant to recharge batteries instead of AIP- then they can stalk CVNs well outside of the 1st Island Chain! https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/leaked-slides-detail-chinese-navys-shipbuilding-plans  
    At least this ABM system isn't as good as advertised: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12
    The Russian Zircons & new US AShMs will degrade both RF & US carriers' utility as their fighters don't have the range needed to be launched from farther away to avoid being sitting ducks!
    With sanctions in place against firms dealing with NK & RF, I doubt PRC & SK will risk supplying anything of value to Russian shipyards, especially while their own yards r already busy!
    Just because all those big "sexy" projects r there, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll move beyond the design stage; as I said before, I'll believe it when I see it!

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Tue Dec 05, 2017 10:37 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    No, normally a USN CVN has 4 helicopters: 2 for ASW and 2 for SAR.
    China will soon start building new SSKs with an auxiliary nuclear powerplant to recharge batteries instead of AIP- then they can stalk CVNs well outside of the 1st Island Chain! https://maritime-executive.com/editorials/leaked-slides-detail-chinese-navys-shipbuilding-plans  
    At least this ABM system isn't as good as advertised: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12
    The Russian Zircons & new US AShMs will degrade both RF & US carriers' utility as their fighters don't have the range needed to be launched from farther away to avoid being sitting ducks!
    With sanctions in place against firms dealing with NK & RF, I doubt PRC & SK will risk supplying anything of value to Russian shipyards, especially while their own yards r already busy!
    Just because all those big "sexy" projects r there, it doesn't automatically mean that they'll move beyond the design stage; as I said before, I'll believe it when I see it!
    [/quote]

    Actually, whenever deployed to perform missions against land targets,, U.S. carriers embark far more rotary wings assets than a couple for each mission.

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    It's take or leave the same that assuming a fixed land base could be a threat to a mobile army. it's a concept proven wrong more and more times, from ancient era to nowadays.

    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.

    Even deploying MPA won't be a safe business, because escorts could easily detect a MPA even before the MPA detect the carrier, and the CAP could easily force the MPA to break contact, if not shoot it down.

    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.

    A last word about those prospective hybrid chinese SSKs: my bet is they are speaking of using one or more RTG.

    If this is the case, power output could be enough to give enough power to passive sensors and/or life support equipment, but hardly enough to increase underwater speed or range.

    RTG's power output and power density (and efficiency too) is not that great.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 Dec 07, 2017 12:28 am

    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7 both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression. First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32 Tu-22Ms and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.





    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5952
    Points : 5979
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 12:55 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why  AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:  

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7  both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression.  First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy  and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not  Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32  Tu-22Ms  and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava  cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.






    Russia atm has no satelites dedicated to roles of tracking enemy naval assets as it did during Cold War as far as we know, so that is debatable, at best. OTH radars for most part cant track naval targets at the ranges you have in mind. You cant track something half of the Pacific away with radar, US cant, Russia cant, its called laws of physics. Also.. what hundreds of cruise missiles are you talking about, Russian coast is so wast that less than 1% of it is defended in any way whatsoever. AC groups are not some random fishing trawlers they have own assets, stop looking at everything black and white.

    Anyways for most part we do know where everyones naval assets are, information flow is far greater today than it was just 20 years ago.

    And stop pulling nukes into story every 10 minutes its getting annoying abit. US has as many destroyers attached to AC groups as Russia has TU-22Ms almost, its disbalance of immense proportions.

    "US has 10 AC battlegroups and..." - YES BUT RUSSIA HAS THE NUKE. Dont you say... a nuke...

    What you are imagining in your head would also require a teleport to transfer assets across whole Russia in seconds, and as far as we know there is currently none available.

    What bothers me is that you ppl do not know how hard is it to do certain things and how things go. Missiles in Ekaterinburg, bombers in Murmansk, cruiser in S.Peterburg half of its crew in train to Vladivostok, fuel frozen in Novosibirsk... wrong spares come to Engels... its a mess, thats how it is on the ground. Its same for the other side, black and white doesnt cut it.

    Its not "strap a nuke to a bomber and destroy aircraft carrier".
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:08 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:

    Anyway, assuming long range missiles could per se represent a threat to a carrier group is quite debatable.

    I wonder why  AC can have undisputed superiority against land/air assets nd usage of ASMs is debatable? Could you elaborate your point?
    I see it that way:  

    1) Russians track all carrier groups 24/7  both satellites/subs and over horizon radars

    2) There is no way AC group can pop up by Russia coast in no time and start aggression.  First anyway would be cruses missile massive volley.

    3) Russians developed both navy  and air force to deal with amphibious forces not to mention land based Bastion/Bal batteries not to mention layered air defenses




    Peŕrier wrote:
    And it is always to be debated which way to provide detection and tracking for those long range missiles against a moving target.


    Debated with technology form 40s yes not now. Satellites/over the horizon radars do the trick. Thousands kilometers from shores. And continuous tracking.



    Peŕrier wrote:
    Reality is, to defeat a carrier group you need a lot of air assets, and having such air assets right where the carrier group chooses to engage and strike, requires the capability to move around both the air assets and their logistical support.


    The reality is Russia is not  Libya. You do not need to fight fighters if you destroy carrier. One tactical nuke like 250kt should to the tric.
    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32  Tu-22Ms  and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava  cruisers?



    Peŕrier wrote:

    In a word, to defeat a carrier group you need a carrier group.


    sorry you provided no argument to support this statement so far.

    I think an aircraft carrier group can be defeated from land, Russia is prepared for it. But at same time to call for nuclear war if some aircraft carrier goes near Russia is not as easy.

    I see positive the policy of deterrence that Pérrier is leaving to see. It would be positive for Russia to have an aircraft carrier group on par with US standard aircraft carrier groups. To have some deterrence value an aircraft carrier group must be on par, if not its alone option is to go away when one superior comes. The US loves to have superiority, without it the US does not the same. Small aircraft carriers for Russia only helps to keep the current superiority of the US aircraft carrier groups.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:27 am

    Right, but also, if other systems fail or knocked down, a few reconn. MiG-25s (still the fastest combat fighters) can be used to spot CBGs from 40 km altitude, besides new AEWC A-50/100s that can detect ships from ~400-600 km away & "..can be in the air up to 6 hours at a distance of 1000 km from its base.", if not more, as they can be refueled mid-air. http://www.russiadefence.net/t4867p150-awacs-airborne-command-posts-of-ruaf
    http://files.hangame.co.jp/blog/2012/63/cae1b573/07/06/38862608/cae1b573_1341551758401.jpg
    https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2015/12/24/beriev-a-50-airborne-early-warning-and-control-aircraft-aewc-russia/
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/beriev-%D0%B0-100-airborne-early-warning-control-aewc-aircraft/

    OTH Radar range is good enough considering the range of threat CVN's air wing. If Tu-22M3 #s r not enough, Tu-95/142/160M/2Ms could also be used, not to mention Oscar/Yasen SSGNs, & Kilo (aka "Black Hole") SSKs.
    Any CSG packs dozens of CMs, so if "shit hits the fan", using a tactical nuke against it is well within the current RF military doctrine.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1081
    Points : 1079
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 1:50 am

    The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Second Russia drops a nuke it's own military infrastructure will start getting nuked in return or do you think it's enemies would be like "Naw guys they nuked us but it's okay we won't use nukes in return"

    Why don't you try going to a terrorist giving him a gun and ask him not to kill you.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 963
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:08 am

    At the end of the day, a USN CSG isn't worth losing NY, LA, Norfolk and/or San Diego - so deterrence works both ways.
    But this thread is about Russian naval plans, & they'll consider the current long-time operators of CVNs experience in the cost -benefit analysis regarding their possible future CV/Ns in the Russian context. The Ulyanovsk CVN project is outdated now, & by the time they can actually start building Storm CVN, it may become outdated as well.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 7:47 pm