Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 07, 2017 2:51 am

    If Russia goes nuclear against an aircraft carrier group would be do only that, and would not be waiting the answer. Russia would go also with almost all the nuclear arsenal against every target they have.

    Russia only would do this in a very, very, very, very extreme situation.

    In part this is why anti aircraft carrier deterrence makes sense. And it can not be done with subpar aircraft carriers, that leads to subpar aircraf carrier groups.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    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 3:01 am

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

    Is Russia will not use nukes in event of full scale war then why nukes? Assault of a/c group with hundreds of tomahawks launched is what according to you?


    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    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 3:39 am

    Militarov wrote:
    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.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201701141049601090-russia-liana-satellite-network-details/
    "
    The complete constellation of Liana satellites is expected to come online later this year. Military experts believe that between 6-8 satellites are necessary to monitor the Earth's surface in its entirety. The military remains hush-hush about the exact number necessary.
    "

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Орбитальная_спутниковая_группировка_России


    Looks like now has 4 , 2( or3) Lianas 2 Piona's, 6-8 is ok to cover the whole planet.



    So no there is nice sat coverage Russian shores. Satellite even if not monitoring 24/7 it will be couple o f hours back so AC cannot move over its horizon right?


    Besides Anteys and Tu-95 are flying around. Not that many as before but still.



    Militarov wrote:
    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.


    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Волна_(загоризонтный_радиолокатор)
    http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-768.html


    Volna - 3000+ km range, Nakhodka. So can monitor in radius lower south then Hong Kong till almost shores of Alaska.
    if new Container radar will have really 6000km range then most of Pacific is monitored.

    + some Sunflowers with 500km ranges.





    Militarov wrote:

    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.


    30 Tu22M3M updated by 2020 -> each can carry 3xKh32 (hypersonic, 1000km range, 40,000m ceiling)

    + 39 Tu-22M3M (can carry 3 Kh-22)

    one group can stop 10 Tus with ? 30 missiles? really? Of course you cannot move Tu around prepared airfields because Russians do not knww potential ways of US attack?





    Militarov wrote:

    "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".

    First of all nothing happens over night. AC do not come unnoticed to range of K-32/22 if so they are monitored closely.
    Second nuke is used when you need them. If attack of multiple AC groups is not enough then what is?
    How do you know that there is mes sin Russia and ot in Us navy? interesting. If level of mess is similar then we can assume more less equal chances.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3414
    Points : 3454
    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 3:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote: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.

    Russia is in no position to have as many groups as US. Look at UK. 2 ACs most and with F-35 STOVL versions. The question how lrge we will yet to see.

    I can see only the way to build large command ship with airwing and equipped with strong AAD/ASM/ASW . This with 2-3 frigates protect a group of 22800 ships and subs to do the job.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:53 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    The Hadrian Wall from Scotland border to the mouth of Danube was static allright, & the legions were mostly heavy infantry & therefore not "highly mobile"- unlike the mounted Huns who invaded Europe after their defeat by the Chinese. The Gr. Wall of China also served as a road & early warning system, & did save many lives more often than not, & was a base to mount frequent reprisal raids against the highly mobile nomads. It was breached only once, by the Mongol general Subutai who's tumens (all mounted) later went as far as Poland, Hungary, & the Adriatic Sea- on the E. borders of the Holy Roman Empire. Later, the Manchus were invited to help crash a peasant revolt & didn't have to storm any walls before seizing power there for themselves. Later, they too used parts of the Gr. Wall as a base against the Mongols.
    Like the battleships were made obsolete by naval aviation, CBGs r becoming obsolete by Hypersonic & BMs. Even as W. Arctic & Okhotsk & Japan Seas (behind the Kuril & Sakhalin islands with bases/fortresses there) aren't all covered by ice year round, I doubt CSGs will ever be sent against N. & E. Russia for the same reason LHD/As weren't sent to Crimea (CV/Ns r prohibited in the Black Sea) before Russia secured it: Bastion AshMs. China now has bases in the middle of the SC Sea making it very unsafe for any uninvited ships. So, a CBG can't safely "choose time & location of an attack" in many areas already.
    Building new subs w/o AIP but with RTG with loss of performance doesn't make sense to me, defeating the purpose of adding range, & in any case, "laying in ambush", they won't need to be chasing CBGs. Their AShMs & torpedos can do that. More likely they'll have a smaller nuclear power plant than on SSNs but will still have more output than the RTG, eliminating the need for the AIP.

    Adrian wall, as the limes in the Rhein Valley or in Pannonia plains, was a phisical border mark and a defense against plundering and raids, not against invasion.

    Every Rome's Army history book will teach the Legions were the most mobile units of ancient times, first and foremost in terms of strategic mobility, but in terms of tactical mobility as well.

    The standard daily march, with personal equipment carried on shoulders was around 35 Km on paved roads, and easily in excess of 25 Km on unpaved roads with good weather. This for many days in a row, if not weeks.

    And all the romans' military campaign were maneuver warfare campaigns, whether they were invading somebody else or defending from invasions.

    Before the Mongols appeared from the far east, there was no other army in western world as mobile as the Legions, and before mechanization there was no other Army on foot as mobile.

    About fixed defenses, the Pacific campaign in II WW should teach everybody that they are hard to overcome only until they could be reinforced as needed, when needed, by mobile forces.

    The very moment they get even for a short time unable to get cooperation from own mobile forces, they become only sitting ducks.

    But anyway, why a hypersonic missile should get aircraft carriers obsolete, when the very same missile could be launched from an aircraft, that took off from an aircraft carrier, against a land target?

    The carriers will still have the chance to launch stand off attacks and to concentrate resources, getting local air superiority.

    New technologies and weapons could give a defendant more choices and chances, or could do the reverse, but won't change the advantage inherent with mobility.

    In case somebody is thinking of carrier strike groups trying to force straits and choke points, it could be the case.

    More likely, they would employed to take out targets exposed, instead to risk to run in a mouse trap.

    And their simple existence will force any opponents to deplete resources to give dozens or hundreds of possible targets some kind of defense.

    They could even choose to not try strikes against military targets, but to hammer down roads, electrical power plants, railroads, factories, whatever could create chaos or hamper the enemy. Are there enough resources to defend everything valuable lying, let's say, within 300 Km from the nearest open sea?

    Usually the answer is no, and it is followed by the consideration that a mobile force is both cheaper and more effective in keeping at bay the potential threat posed by an enemy's fleet, than trying to defend whatever is laying within reach from open sea with fixed defenses.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:07 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:The nuke argument is perhaps the laziest and utterly most unwise.

    Is Russia will not use nukes in event of full scale war then why nukes?  Assault of a/c group with hundreds of tomahawks launched is what according to you?



    Maybe to deter others to use them against Russia?

    It is just an humble hypothesis, of course!

    Second humble hypothesis, to deter an enemy to inflict mortal damages to the country's own existence by conventional warfare?

    Before something justifying dozens millions of deaths on own population occurs, there are countless cases where a military defeat is still better than nuclear holocaust.

    Conventional forces are still, and the more, relevant because nobody would launch a nuclear attack until its own existence is in real and imminent danger.

    And imminent means something that almost certainly get the country destroyed within weeks or months.

    Even something that could get to the country end within years could be judged, in the end, better to deal with than a nuclear war.

    Quite everybody would find some more years of life expectancy very enticing.

    Peŕrier

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:22 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    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.

    Thanks, it is quite what I'm trying to say.

    Actually, when trying to defend from others and not trying to exercise force in the far abroad, the point is not if a carrier is on par with opponents' carriers.

    The point is if its own carrier is able to negate opponent's carrier air superiority.

    Land based assets, being them coastal defenses, air bases, AWACS and so on, will have still the main role, but an aircraft carrier able to contend for a while local air superiority would make the difference most of the times.

    No amount of small vessel could contend air superiority, even destroyers and cruisers would have an hard time trying to get to the carriers sailing against enemy's aircrafts. A capable carrier on own side would represent a true force multiplier both for land based defenses and surface combatants.

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7100
    Points : 7194
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:30 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:..................

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

    South Korea already solved it with Dokdo-class. Take this one, install reactor which will also halve the size of tower, kick the tower to the side, offset weight with elevator on the other end, install ski ramp and make sure front end of deck is also rectangular. Stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage. Done.
    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 9:47 pm

    Peŕrier wrote: Adrian wall, as the limes in the Rhein Valley or in Pannonia plains, was a phisical border mark and a defense against plundering and raids, not against invasion.
    And all the romans' military campaign were maneuver warfare campaigns, whether they were invading somebody else or defending from invasions. Before the Mongols appeared from the far east, there was no other army in western world as mobile as  the Legions,..
    But anyway, why a hypersonic missile should get aircraft carriers obsolete, when the very same missile could be launched from an aircraft, that took off from an aircraft carrier, against a land target?
    More likely, they would employed to take out targets exposed, instead to risk to run in a mouse trap.
    Usually the answer is no, and it is followed by the consideration that a mobile force is both cheaper and more effective in keeping at bay the potential threat posed by an enemy's fleet, than trying to defend whatever is laying within reach from open sea with fixed defenses.
    Ur history is wrong. The Hannibal's army (Carthage was a Phoenician colony, i.e Semitic people) marched from N. Africa to S. Italy; the Assyrians, also Semites, had, besides chariots, 1st recorded regular mounted cavalry & captured Babylon, Urartu, Jerusalem & Egypt - both, as already mentioned Huns, well before the Mongols, were no less, if not more, mobile than the Romans.
    The battleships could also launch light planes, but still lost against torpedo & free fall bombers. Land defences have strategic depth while CSGs must be supplied often with aviation fuel, ammo, food, spares, etc. while having vulnerability 360 degrees around them. The no-go zones created by sea-denial centered fleet with sea & land based missiles & aviation, even w/o CV/Ns, will turn semi-closed seas into kill zones- their mobility won't outrun hypersonic missiles; their few dozen fighters (or what's left of them) will have no place to recover. WWII battles between CBGs is ancient history, & the Russians & Chinese r not that stupid to engage in them. But keeping CSGs out of range makes them next to useless to the enemy.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:52 pm

    Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.



    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:10 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:..................

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

    South Korea already solved it with Dokdo-class. Take this one, install reactor which will also halve the size of tower, kick the tower to the side, offset weight with elevator on the other end, install ski ramp and make sure front end of deck is also rectangular. Stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage. Done.

    Would not be better to take example from the lord instead?

    The US solved it with this one:



    And Russia seems to be doing it with the Project 23000. Fairly correct.

    To note that to have air superiority thanks to land support it is necessary to be very near of the coast (fairly less than 1000Km), because the range of the land based fighters and air defense (still the SA-21 S-400 marks the longest air defense range from the coast) is limited. It means that a Russian aircraft carrier group must be on par in the number and quality of the shipborne fighters and air defense. Only strategic bombers and surface-surface missiles can reach longer range from the coast. This is why a see only an aircraft carrier on par, leading an aircraft carrier group on par, can make an effective deterrence vs the standard aircraf carrier groups of the adversary.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7100
    Points : 7194
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:00 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.
    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.

    That's why I said ''stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage.''

    And yes, SK are fast as ***** with this stuff



    eehnie wrote:................
    Would not be better to take example from the lord instead?

    The US solved it with this one:

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b2/USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29_underway_on_8_April_2017.JPG/1024px-USS_Gerald_R._Ford_%28CVN-78%29_underway_on_8_April_2017.JPG

    US did solve it. You got that right (even broken clock is right twice a day though...)



    eehnie wrote:And Russia seems to be doing it with the Project 23000. Fairly correct.
    ..................

    Russia is doing great by not allowing reality constrain their construction plans.

    In light of that I feel they should forgo unambitious projects like  23000 Shtorm-class and just jump onto EVA1-class.

    Much more promising project with more or less same timeframe for delivery:





    Last edited by PapaDragon on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
    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 11:05 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.




    South Korea in 2016. produced more gross tonnage in ships than twice US, Europe and Japan together... lol1
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 686
    Points : 680
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:18 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Building new subs w/o AIP but with RTG with loss of performance doesn't make sense to me, defeating the purpose of adding range, & in any case, "laying in ambush", they won't need to be chasing CBGs. Their AShMs & torpedos can do that. More likely they'll have a smaller nuclear power plant than on SSNs but will still have more output than the RTG, eliminating the need for the AIP.


    The RTG is completely unrealistic for propulsion.

    One KG of cs137 makes 140 watts (calculated from the MeV) .

    RTG efficiency is around 4-10%.

    Means one tons of Cs137 makes 14 KW .

    Enough for lights,and for same electronics.


    One commercial reactor (say VVER-1000) generate 30 kg of Cs137 per full power reactor year.

    So, for the negligible 14 kw you need to reprocess the full waste trail of a commercial reactor .

    Say,if someone get access to all waste trails of the world reactors, then it will makes possible to run one submarine with 3 MW power.


    I think it showing how useless it is.


    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 686
    Points : 680
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:19 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.




    South Korea in 2016. produced more gross tonnage in ships than twice US, Europe and Japan together... lol1


    The US has to pay with something for the occupation of south korea.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 686
    Points : 680
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:24 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:

    Russia is doing great by not allowing reality constrain their construction plans.

    In light of that I feel they should forgo unambitious projects like  23000 Shtorm-class and just jump onto EVA1-class.

    Much more promising project with more or less same timeframe for delivery:


    Or it is like Ronald's star wars program .


    Never intended to make , but good to tide up resources of the US.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 07, 2017 11:52 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.

    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.




    South Korea in 2016. produced more gross tonnage in ships than twice US, Europe and Japan together... lol1

    Well the SK's are the BEST shipbuilders in the world.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:25 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:..................

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

    South Korea already solved it with Dokdo-class. Take this one, install reactor which will also halve the size of tower, kick the tower to the side, offset weight with elevator on the other end, install ski ramp and make sure front end of deck is also rectangular. Stretch it a bit if you really want to hit the tonnage. Done.

    Would not be better to take example from the lord instead?

    The US solved it with this one:



    And Russia seems to be doing it with the Project 23000. Fairly correct.

    To note that to have air superiority thanks to land support it is necessary to be very near of the coast (fairly less than 1000Km), because the range of the land based fighters and air defense (still the SA-21 S-400 marks the longest air defense range from the coast) is limited. It means that a Russian aircraft carrier group must be on par in the number and quality of the shipborne fighters and air defense. Only strategic bombers and surface-surface missiles can reach longer range from the coast. This is why a see only an aircraft carrier on par, leading an aircraft carrier group on par, can make an effective deterrence vs the standard aircraf carrier groups of the adversary.

    US did solve it. You got that right (even broken clock is right twice a day though...)

    ...

    Russia is doing great by not allowing reality constrain their construction plans.

    In light of that I feel they should forgo unambitious projects like  23000 Shtorm-class and just jump onto EVA1-class.

    Very enlightening to say that the US solved it right, but Russia should forget the right solution.

    Just cuirious to see how some people talks about the counter the B-2 and about to follow the US on strategic bombers, where the US strategy proved to be a complete failure, and in this case, when the US does right, no-one of them wants Russia following the US. It says very much about what this people wants really for Russia.

    Despite what some people desperately wants here, difficult to distract Russia from the right way.


    avatar
    Militarov

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:44 am

    eehnie wrote:Just cuirious to see how some people talks about the counter the B-2 and about to follow the US on strategic bombers, where the US strategy proved to be a complete failure, and in this case, when the US does right, no-one of them wants Russia following the US. It says very much about what this people wants really for Russia.

    Despite what some people desperately wants here, difficult to distract Russia from the right way.[/b]


    We actually desperately wish for you to stop posting BS in general. Same 10 posts over and over with same words in different order.

    Distract Russia from what? Mockup building? Iran and Serbia do it better, sorry. lol1
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7100
    Points : 7194
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 08, 2017 4:47 am

    '
    Russia spends decades trying to develop weapon system that makes concept of supercarrier obsolete.

    They finally do it.

    And next step in their masterplan is to.... spend half a defense budget and several decades on building a supercarrier?

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense... russia
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2279
    Points : 2298
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:10 am

    The reality:

    Strategic Bombers: The US stopped the production of B-2 after only 13 years adn 21 units, but not by lack of need, because the US is now developing their following strategic bomber.

    Aircraft Carriers: The US commissioned a new aircraft carrier in 2017 and has two more in production to be commissioned by 2025. Is a new design that follows closely the previous design that was in production 42 years (between 1967 and 2009) with 10 units produced.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18348
    Points : 18908
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:13 am

    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:

    On land a defence against enemy attack via cruise missile or any other type of missile is much more effective with airpower included.

    If you only have Army based air defence forces with no aircraft then you limit your visual horizon... dramatically so in regions not totally flat.

    Add in aircraft at various bases around the place and integrate your air defence structure with them and you will find you have a much more effective defence structure from all sorts of enemy threats.

    At sea that airforce support comes from a carrier, which is of course vulnerable, but then so is everything else.

    In terms of scouting and looking for targets ground based assets would be as slow as naval vessels to find out what that blip on the radar means that is 200km away from you. Being able to send out aircraft to check is much more useful.

    Sure it puts them at risk... so send armed UAVs and armed aircraft with large long range sensors and equipment.

    Without them you either fire on a hunch, or you don't fire and take the risk you are under attack.

    Think about the situation the US commander was in when that US AEGIS class cruiser shot down an Iranian Airbus.

    Sure there was a fault with the human computer interface and human error compounded the issue because despite the tracking system giving accurate information the hyped up crew saw what they wanted to see instead of what was actually happening,.

    There were US carriers in the area I seem to remember but their aircraft were called back because of the irrational behaviour of the AEGIS vessels commander.

    In a more sensible situation the carrier aircraft could have approached the potential threat and seen for themselves that it was a climbing Airbus squawking the the correct civilian IFF codes, when through an error on the ship the AEGIS class vessel was reading the target as an F-14 in attack mode.

    Of course if it had been an F-14 in attack mode an aircraft flying out to investigate would be attacked one presumes but that would put all surface vessels on alert and allow much earlier attack options for the ship... you might lose a plane but you protect your fleet.

    More importantly if it is a mass long range missile attack a carrier based Su-33 with 8-10 AAMs could take out a significant portion of the attacking missiles strength and alert the surface vessels of the attack well before it crossed their radar or visual horizon.

    Most importantly a volley of cruise missiles would appear on IRST so could be detected passively from an aircraft flying high enough to detect them at relatively long range without giving away its position.

    An AWACS platform greatly improves that radar coverage and reach and can manage a defence so the surface vessels are even safer.

    A little corvette sitting low in the water does not have the radar or sight range to hit air targets 400km away but load it with the late model S-400 based large SAMs and provide target data from aircraft near the enemy and those small vessels could defend or attack from a huge distance away.

    The Sigma battle management system is a communications and command and control system that links the sensors and weapons of ships and subs and aircraft.... so adding the data from AWACS aircraft and drones as well as ships and subs gives you a detailed view of the water and air around your fleet, but being able to see stuff is not as useful as being able to shoot stuff.... aircraft mean that a target 200km away from a ship can be investigated and attacked by that ship if it is confirmed as being hostile using target data from the aircraft.

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

    They have developed the technology, and further improved it, but they currently only have one Kondor satellite in operation which is not enough for full planetary coverage, perhaps when they have an ocean going fleet then that will become useful and practical, for now having one operational would be very useful so they can work out the kinks of the system and it can feed data into their network to allow testing work to be done. If Russians are operating away from Russian waters the level of detail regarding low flying missiles would likely not be good enough without carrier support.

    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.

    If you listen to western navy professionals a carrier is both all powerful and can see all but also invisible and super stealthy.

    Obviously it is not, but a lack of carrier or more specifically air support a Russian group of ships would be more vulnerable without air support than not.

    Bases in Sudan or Yemen or Syria or Vietnam or Cuba or where ever means eventually they want to expand their area of operations out to the open ocean and that means they need aircraft support that can move with them.

    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

    The more they can integrate their branches the more effective they will be, but the Air Force can't follow the Navy everywhere it needs to go.

    Not every situation will warrant an expeditionary force of aircraft like the one to Syria.

    A carrier would make Russian ships safer when they operate far from Russia.

    Like I have said lots of time Russia does not need lots of carriers now.... in ten years time however, they will have upgraded cruisers and destroyers and they will have new frigates and new corvettes and likely new destroyers too and with that mix a carrier becomes a useful force multiplier for any mission away from Russian waters.

    Equally they don't need 24/7 global coverage of the sea either but as the Russian navy expands and especially as radar technology improves, they will expand their radar support network... their radar support network is one satellite at the moment but their communications satellites have been massively upgraded as has their navigation satellite network.


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

    Tracking but no reliable ID capability.

    Also if a target is detected some distance away an aircraft can go out and inspect and attack faster than a ship, but able to be recalled if the target turns out to be neutral or friendly.

    In USSR you think why they developed Kh-32 Tu-22Ms and Antey subs, Kirov and Slava cruisers?

    They also developed the Kiev class and the Kuznetsov and the Ulyanovsk etc etc.

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

    A carrier group increases the depth of the defence of a surface fleet. It does not matter how many missiles your ship has or how many targets it can shoot down at once or their range.... any missile can defeat its defences with numbers at once. A carrier wont change this, but it will dramatically increase the number of incoming missiles that will be defeated before you start losing ships.

    Aircraft also offer the possibility of engaging the enemy before they launch some of their missiles... send out a naval PAK FA with four external R-37Ms and a Zircon under its belly and it could potentially kill a destroyer before it could launch any of its anti ship missiles and shoot down one or two Hawkeyes supporting the F-35s operating nearby too.... they don't have that many Hawkeyes so the loss of even one would be devastating for them.


    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.

    In my opinion you get the same benefit of air component support from a medium carrier as you do with a heavy or super carrier, because the key is long range conventional fighters and AWACS aircraft support.

    This is why I don't think much of a small carrier with VSTOL or STOVL aircraft.

    If you get aircraft on a medium Kuznetsov sized carrier why waste money on a much bigger carrier that does not improve performance... it just means more aircraft can be carried.

    IMHO three medium carriers is better than one super carrier, but even 20 light carriers are not better than either one super carrier or three medium carriers.

    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.

    When Russian surface groups are operating around the world on a regular basis they will have medium carriers to support their operations and they will also have a dozen Kondor RORSATs.

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

    It is actually the most realistic... you will find that during the cold war of the missiles directed at each US carrier group probably between a quarter and a half would have been nukes. This is not a game, you don't get points for being the good guy.

    With 7 ton missiles you can't launch one or two and then wait for the result... you launch them all and hope they get the job done...

    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"

    If Russian surface groups are firing on US carrier groups it is already on so the nukes will be launched regardless...

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

    Don't all terrorists already have guns?

    And bullets too.

    The Ulyanovsk CVN project is outdated now, & by the time they can actually start building Storm CVN, it may become outdated as well.

    I rather doubt older or existing designs have taken into account all the changes in technology.... and these new Russian carriers are 10 years away at least so they can look at some prospective technologies we are not privy to when designing their new carriers.

    Whether it is a new stealthy 5th gen light fighter with or without vertical landing capability, or it is something totally different... it might have a tethered airship for AWACS operations for all we know...

    They have experience with the Kuznetsov in Syria and I am sure previous experience with that vessel has probably led to them realising that nuclear propulsion is a serious alternative.

    These vessels will have a huge range of uses, including potentially in Syria type situations except where there is no Russian land force or nearby Russian air bases. That means syria type accurate medium altitude bombing with dumb cheap bombs but requiring carrier based fighter escort and perhaps AWACS and jammer support too.

    Russia only would do this in a very, very, very, very extreme situation.

    Exactly. At least a quarter of the anti ship missiles will be nuke armed in any major confrontation with the west... and that is rather likely to be mutual.

    Odds are that WWIII is most likely to go nuclear at sea than any where else.

    So no there is nice sat coverage Russian shores. Satellite even if not monitoring 24/7 it will be couple o f hours back so AC cannot move over its horizon right?

    Most satellites come over every 90 minutes but depending on their path might not be able to continuously monitor one spot. With quite a few however your visibility greatly increases.

    Good to hear they have done this I was expecting them to not bother for a few years, but getting it working sooner is better... monitoring the operations of enemy ships adds to the useful information they have about things...

    one group can stop 10 Tus with ? 30 missiles? really? Of course you cannot move Tu around prepared airfields because Russians do not knww potential ways of US attack?


    It is funny because the accelerated the retirement of the F-14 because they said the Russian threat was reduced and F-18s were good enough... but with no Phoenix missiles they are much more vulnerable to even Kh-22Ms let alone Kh-32s.

    Not that F-14Ds upgraded with AMRAAM could hit Kh-22Ms at 40km altitude on their approach.

    Personally, size wise I think Kuznetsov is a good example: give it facilities to manage a little more fixed wing aircrafts, and to manage higher number of sorties per day, and you could deploy something equivalent a couple of air regiments wherever needed to provide air cover to land and sea assets.

    Just get rid of steam turbines, please!

    Yes, I am sure it could be radically redesigned to have a compact nuclear power plant with propulsion pods... that means getting rid of those enormous shafts and greatly improving manouver performance. With all electric drive the power plant can be placed almost anywhere in the hull.

    Having UKSK launchers that are much more compact than the Granit launchers means the internal aircraft hangar could be enlarged... they could configure it to operate large UAVs as well, or even tethered air ships...

    The battleships could also launch light planes, but still lost against torpedo & free fall bombers.

    The little float planes carried by battleships were generally AEW to spot to make naval gun fire more accurate at long range.

    To stop torpedo bombers or free fall bombers they would need high performance fighters... floats made that a contradiction in terms... you either had a one use fighter that might help the battleship survive one attack from one bomber but then have to crash in the sea unless it was close to a friendly port, or you had a plane with a float that could be reused but would not have been a very good fighter that was at risk of getting shot down by the bombers defensive guns.

    Dokdo-class is far too small to fit 20 aircraft for example.
    That said goddam can they build those things quickly two years from start to commission.

    And they designed the upgrade for the Zvezda shipyard....

    US did solve it. You got that right (even broken clock is right twice a day though...)

    No if it is broken because its hands have fallen off...

    The S-500 "..system will be highly mobile and will have rapid deployability. ..The targets it has been announced to defend against include: ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, low-orbit satellites, and space weapons launched from hypersonic aircraft, drones, and hypersonic orbital platforms.. Operational range: 600 km (370 mi) [321.5 nmi]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missile_system#cite_note-S-500specs-1
    "The very long range of the S-500 makes the complex an ideal weapon against the largest and most inconspicuous targets." .. AWACS.. EW planes will be in much greater danger and, most likely, will be forced to operate outside the radius of the S-500,..
    https://ria.ru/radio_brief/20161109/1481022560.html"

    For the first 5-10 years the S-500 is in production it will be primarily used to defend strategic targets from ballistic missile attack... the Navy likely wont get its hands on any for quite some time.... and when they do they will likely be ship based missiles launched from cruisers and carriers and perhaps destroyers.


    Well the SK's are the BEST shipbuilders in the world.

    I saw a documentary of them building a large cruise liner and all the project leaders and design people sounded Dutch.

    Russia spends decades trying to develop weapon system that makes concept of supercarrier obsolete.

    They finally do it.

    And next step in their masterplan is to.... spend half a defense budget and several decades on building a supercarrier?

    Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

    No.

    For decades the Soviet Union was under threat of attack from mainly US carrier groups and they developed over the years lots of large powerful missiles to defeat those carriers and lots of platforms to carry those large powerful missiles.

    Now they have optimised the design so almost any Russian ship corvette and up, and of course any conventional or nuke powered sub can carry in significant numbers.

    What they have not said is that now we want to travel out into the worlds oceans and explore and build economic and political ties and to do that we need to protect our ships from interference and attack... we don't need super carriers to invade somewhere, we need AA carriers to support our surface ships and subs away from Russian land mass.

    For this mission a super carrier is too much.

    Strategic Bombers: The US stopped the production of B-2 after only 13 years adn 21 units, but not by lack of need, because the US is now developing their following strategic bomber.

    I don't agree... the cold war ended and the B-2 was eye wateringly expensive and still not guaranteed to be effective in a first strike role. In a retaliation strike role where the enemy air defences have already been hammered by SLBMs and ICBMs then even a B-52 can do the job for a fraction of the price.

    Only now are the Americans actually serious in trying to develop a replacement.

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

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

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Dec 08, 2017 10:18 am

    Ahuh.....and we had missiles pointed all over the USSR. Point is second a nuke starts flying everyone starts dying.

    Nukes are never intended to be used and if Russia plans to deal with Carrier groups and hostile forces was nukes.

    There would be ZERO points in building a conventional army, just build thousands of nukes place them all over and go "come at me bro".

    You don't comprehend the cost of firing a nuclear warhead, firing EVEN one of those off would lead to the destruction of this planet basicly since it would start a chain reaction.

    If the Us was to fall to Russia I'd be against my country firing off nuclear warheads, and if Russia was to fall to the US they would be better off not using their own warheads.

    civilians are a clueless bunch, you simply cannot imagine the scale of death that firing off a nuke would incur.

    In all cases the fall of the government is much better than the use of Nuclear Weapons.


    Has for the shipyard....are you going to tell me Russia can make ships at the pace of the SK's cause if you are. That shit is beyond hilarious. Rusia wishes even with it's new shipyard it could produce shit at HALF the rate the NK's do. There is no country on earth that can out build the SK's when it comes to ships.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7100
    Points : 7194
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:47 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:In all cases the fall of the government is much better than the use of Nuclear Weapons. 

    I don't think that people who came up with expression "better dead than red" shared your passion for philanthropy.

    Fact is that any war between USA and Russia would stay in conventional phase for couple of hours at most before one of two things would happen:

    A) End of hostiles and retreat of both sides to original positions

    B) Nuclear exchange

    Everything else is just sales pitch for defense companies.

    Granted there is some wiggle room where one of lesser "volunteer" nations would get incinerated and exterminated as a warning that stuff just got serious.
    avatar
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-12-30

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic on Fri Dec 08, 2017 3:03 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Ahuh.....and we had missiles pointed all over the USSR. Point is second a nuke starts flying everyone starts dying.

    Nukes are never intended to be used and if Russia plans to deal with Carrier groups and hostile forces was nukes.

    There would be ZERO points in building a conventional army, just build thousands of nukes place them all over and go "come at me bro".

    You don't comprehend the cost of firing a nuclear warhead, firing EVEN one of those off would lead to the destruction of this planet basicly since it would start a chain reaction.

    If the Us was to fall to Russia I'd be against my country firing off nuclear warheads, and if Russia was to fall to the US they would be better off not using their own warheads.

    civilians are a clueless bunch, you simply cannot imagine the scale of death that firing off a nuke would incur.

    In all cases the fall of the government is much better than the use of Nuclear Weapons.


    Has for the shipyard....are you going to tell me Russia can make ships at the pace of the SK's cause if you are. That shit is beyond hilarious. Rusia wishes even with it's new shipyard it could produce shit at HALF the rate the NK's do. There is no country on earth that can out build the SK's when it comes to ships.

    It is quite a bit offtopic, but they could use.tactical nukes.inside their.own.territory against.the advancing enemy army...


    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:57 am