Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

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.

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.

Militarov wrote:

Yet, Juan Carlos design lost in RuNAV tender for LHD aganist Mistral.

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Until the RF economy is the size of China's,

Tsavo Lion wrote:
interventions likely won't be outside of the Eastern or even Northern Hemisphere. Duplicating the USN supercarriers now isn't economically nor militarily justified or even feasible. It's the reverse of the Cold War when the USSR had the advantage in tanks but NATO had advantage in anti-tank systems along with tactical nukes, incl. neutron warheads:

Tsavo Lion wrote:
I agree: the use of tactical nukes, esp. at sea, won't automatically lead to full nuclear exchange.[/b]

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

that is anywhere enough planes to form a CBG but okay? if this is for carrier duties that's not enough space.

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

GarryB wrote:
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.

GarryB wrote:

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.

GarryB wrote:

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,

GarryB wrote:

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.

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

GarryB wrote:
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.

GarryB wrote:

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.

GarryB wrote:

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.

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

GarryB wrote:
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."

GarryB wrote:

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.

GarryB wrote:
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

GarryB wrote:
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.

GarryB wrote:

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..

Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

PapaDragon wrote:.

On the other hand we should remember that bombs are cheaper than cruise missiles so fiscal responsibility also comes into play even in post industrial neo-colonialism.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

According to military expert Alexander Rastegin, the P-800 "Onyx" missiles will be very effective weapons at least until 2030 [15] [16] [17] . American shipboard air defense does not have effective interceptors, with the exception of SM-6 missiles, recently adopted and used in small quantities [18] [19] . Other anti-aircraft missiles have a low probability of intercepting Onyx. The carrier strike group (AOG) can be guaranteed to intercept a maximum of 1-5 missiles. A massive missile attack of 10-50 rockets will lead to serious losses in the ships of the enemy AUG (the aircraft carrier almost certainly will be sunk, the protection of which is assigned to other squadron ships) [20] [21] [22]. It will also be very effective to use Onyx together with the Caliber and Kh-35 Uran missiles. Also in the near future, the Zircon missile with hypersonic flight speed will be accepted for arming, which will reduce the interception of this missile to practically zero. Probably use of 5-6 Zirkons together with 10-15 Onyx or Calibres will allow to deliver a guaranteed defeat to enemy squadrons (the first targets reach Zirkons causing primary defeats to targets, thereby disabling ship systems, making it easier to destroy the ship, then damaged ships "finish off" Onyxa or Caliber) [23] [24] [25] . An important fact is that the rockets "Caliber", "Onyx", "Zircon", X-35 "Uranus"[27] [28] .

SM6 was used aganist MRBM in tests, so i ask back, why not?

It has active seeker, but it has intertial guidance too to reach POI.

They used it also aganist GQM-163 which is beyond fast target.

Militarov wrote:

SM6 was used aganist MRBM in tests, so i ask back, why not?

It has active seeker, but it has intertial guidance too to reach POI.

They used it also aganist GQM-163 which is beyond fast target.

Isos wrote:

It still depends on the AEGIS radar. If there is no AWACS there, the interception will be in the 40 km range of the radar against low flying missiles. The small active radar will have much more chance to be jammed or confused by potential chaff or sea return parasites signals than a radio guided like naval tor or semi active radar guided missile or even a IR.

The GQM-163 like you said is just a target. The condition will never be the same in exercice as in real fight. The crew knows it is a target drone, they won't have the same feelings if they know that some Oniks are going at them and they don't know when they will be there and from where they are coming and how many of them there are. Human error is always happening at the worst time. If oniks is carying chaffs it would be very effective at very low altitude against an active radar missile that is going at mach 4 trying to hit a target at mach 2.5-3. The computer in the missile are limited.

GarryB wrote:

I also expect that at least some of her future CV/CVNs will retain Ash/LAMs under the flight deck to save on extra escorts & for basing in the Black Sea.

All new and most upgraded Russian ships from carrier to corvette and including pretty likely all subs except specialist and SSBN will have UKSK launchers.

For a carrier the UKSK offers high speed rapid reaction anti sub capability, which would be very useful.

I would love to see a naval gunfire support vessel fitted with some Koalition turrets with the twin barrels and perhaps a couple of 203mm gun turrets upgraded the same way the army 152mm guns have been upgraded to create the koalition.
.

With that sort of fire power a few long range drones  that can loiter above the target area at high or medium altitude for a day or so would be a useful loadout for one of its UKSK launch tubes... especially if it can be made recoverable with a large net for it to fly into or something for easy recovery.