Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:00 pm

    The islands there r not that far from the mainland & act as natural a/c carriers; it's not the same as the relatively remote islands that China claims in the ice free SC Sea that need protection with the help of the CV/Ns.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:54 pm

    Russia is no worse than others, so it will not have a new aircraft carrier for at least 15 more years:
    http://www.ng.ru/columnist/2019-06-06/100_kolonka060619.html?print=Y
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 1994
    Points : 1984
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  hoom on Sat Sep 07, 2019 9:01 am

    There was an interesting quote on Balancer the other day from US post Iraq 1 war analysis: with slightly over 2* more planes & significantly fewer person hours/sortie the US Airforce produced 6.5* more sorties than the USN carriers.

    So as long as you're operating within range of shore bases land based aviation is significantly more efficient.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22300
    Points : 22844
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:39 am

    There was an interesting quote on Balancer the other day from US post Iraq 1 war analysis: with slightly over 2* more planes & significantly fewer person hours/sortie the US Airforce produced 6.5* more sorties than the USN carriers.

    So as long as you're operating within range of shore bases land based aviation is significantly more efficient.

    Yeah mate, you are not understanding this properly.

    US experience attacking Iraq means very little to what we are talking about... Russia doesn't need aircraft carriers to it can invade a country like Syria... it needs aircraft carriers to carry aircraft that can operate as air defence for a group of their ships operating away from any land bases or friendly countries.

    If they don't have aircraft... ie fighter planes and AWACS aircraft, their ability to see incoming sea skimming anti ship missiles will be seriously limited and any enemy force could easily overwhelm them if they were clever enough... you say US naval aircraft operating from carriers were less efficient at striking ground targets in Iraq... so what... Russian carriers are not there to strike ground targets... that is what they have Calibre in their UKSK launch tubes for, and why their Yasen class SSGNs have 40 odd cruise missiles and why all of their anti ship missiles now have a land attack capacity.

    Carrier aircraft are not there to attack ground targets, they are to stop enemy air attacks and find targets for Russian long range anti ship missiles.

    Do you think they spent money developing Zircon missiles with 1,000km+ range and Mach 9 speed so they could send a subsonic fighter plane with a Kh-35 to attack a US carrier group? Of course it could fly supersonic and halve its flight radius... but it will never get to 1,000km range, and nothing like mach 9.

    On the other hand having a MiG-29KR with a light air to air load and perhaps some drop tanks operating at high altitude might detect the signals from a US AWACS platform in the middle of the ocean... it could approach and look for aircraft and ships on the surface... anything it detects can be transmitted directly back to the Russian surface fleet so it can initiate an attack, while the MiG might launch an RVV-BD at the AWACS platform and then turn and get out of there before they start to open fire on him... turn and dive and accelerate to high speed at low level and just try to jam any missiles that are launched at him from the US ships and aircraft... if his missile knocks down the AWACS platform they will be blind while they launch another and he should be able to leave the area quickly enough to survive but the data he collected is already being used to formulate a missile strike on the surface ships that is going to be coming at Mach 9 and probably at 40-50km altitude.... why would that MiG pilot bother attacking any ground target?

    Air to surface weapons tend to be big and heavy and high drag so if he flys around all the time with anti ship missiles of any type his flight range will be dramatically shortened... and his top speed limited.

    If he comes across a weak enemy... say a single British frigate on its own they might not bother wasting a Zircon on it... they might launch a Flanker or another MiG with an air to surface anti ship weapon and attack them with that instead, but Russian carriers wont be strike carriers... they are air defence carriers... any cruiser operating with the carrier like a modifed Kirov.... I mean the US Navy and NATO navies combined don't have 80 carriers, and the new 20K ton cruisers will likely carry rather more than 80 missiles... they are all for surface and subsurface targets...

    Helicopter carriers are different and are intended to support landing operations and disaster relief ops.... sending such carriers to the locations of major fires for instance would be a great way of providing large numbers of helicopters and a platform that can carry lots of aviation fuel that amphibious fire bombing aircraft could land nearby to be refuelled during extended fire bombing operations... they could also have a few extra flight crews so they don't get too tired.

    Hell, they could even send them on good will visits... if there is a construction project on an island they could take a carrier that could fly to all the remote villages and offer medial assistance, or even take a helicopter like an Mi-26 to install equipment for construction without needing to build roads that would cost too much... or move heavy objects around the place as needed... perhaps some joint venture or just move heavy equipment to a plateau so an air strip can be built instead of clearing it manually and manually moving all the materials up by hand...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:39 am

    Soviet Ulyanovsk and American Nimitz: nuclear, aircraft carriers, but why are they so different?

    IMO they'll need universal, not ASW/AD TAKR-type carries. That's why the Adm. K was sent off Syria- to train for that. Their SSBNs will stay in the well protected bastions & surface ships will have long range SAMs. Just recently the USN sent a CSG into Atlantic w/o a CVN, as noone were ready.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22300
    Points : 22844
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:54 am

    It is the west that traditionally relies on air power to get jobs done... in fact they prefer it to other types of warfare...

    Whether it is their Army expecting their Air Force to protect them from air attack, or their Navy who has their own air component to protect them from air attack, both their AF and Navy prefer to use aircraft to deliver munitions to fight the war... in the Navy the other ships in the carrier group are there to protect the carrier and the carrier is there to deliver the attack via aircraft.

    With the low cost of iron bombs and onboard weapon aiming systems allowing precision delivery of cheap dumb weapons, the Russian Navy tested strikes against ground targets in Syria... a test that was seriously effected by problems with aircraft recovery on the Kuznetsov having problems.

    For long term COIN ops or support ops to help allies fight drug lords or terrorist groups then such things make sense but if the enemy is seriously well armed and well equipped then they wont have enough aircraft on board for dedicated strike packages and all the support aircraft needed to penetrate contested airspace and hit defended targets... Hypersonic missiles on the other hand can do this quite effectively... that is what they were designed for in fact... what is a modern ship or carrier group other than one of the most concentrated IADS and SAM and anti aircraft gun systems on the planet... why risk planes for anything but finding targets and identifying targets and checking what damage is done and if a follow up attack is needed or not.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8371
    Points : 8455
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:13 am


    ‘We don’t need aircraft carriers, we need weapons to sink them with’ – Russian defense minister

    https://www.rt.com/russia/469353-russia-weapons-aircraft-carriers/
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22300
    Points : 22844
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:00 am

    Well they have the means to sink enemy carriers... what they need is a few aircraft carriers to support operations globally with the aircraft carriers providing air support and air defence for the surface ships to allow them to perform their mission.

    Just like they don't need 3,000 stealth fighters to match NATO and they don't need 12 x 100K ton fixed wing aircraft carriers either... that would totally kill their navy just on operational costs alone.

    Instead of having bases all around the world like the US does, perhaps Russia should develop ties and relations where they will share bases that are locally owned and operated but can be loaned for deployments and exercises...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:24 am

    In Russia, thoughts about the "underwater aircraft carrier"
    https://lenta.ru/news/2019/07/25/nautilus/

    If they r needed for mostly fleet AD, hard to communicate with submarine a/c carriers won't be needed, as the ships & subs in the CBG will help to defend it.
    Submarine a/c carriers will make a lot of noise during flight ops & thus will be more vulnerable to detection, tracking & destruction. Easier to attack distant land/sea targets using SSGNs & VKS bombers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22300
    Points : 22844
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:34 am

    Yeah, silly idea really.

    An aircraft carrier needs to provide air defence and air support to surface vessels and therefore needs to remain surfaced pretty much all the time.

    Making an aircraft carrier submersible would be complex and expensive and the only time it would be safe from air attack is when it is useless for air defence.

    I remember in the late 1980s there was a computer game on the Amiga 500 called "Interceptor".

    It was totally amazing because although it used wire frame graphics like previous games the wire frames were filled in, making them look like solid objects... if very angular and blocky.

    The game pretty much takes place in San Francisco, and there were something like 6 missions and you could fly from an F-16 on land or an F-18 from a carrier, and the enemy was a mysterious MiG-29 (that was actually a black F-16 depicted in the game).

    Missions were intercepting aircraft and cruise missiles including a nuclear cruise missile you had to chase down... it was all rather fun.

    The last mission you flew up to the north left of the map to find a surfaced submarine with a landing deck and cables and you have to fire air to air missiles into the subs tower to defeat it (you also had to shoot down aircraft it has launched in two waves from memory...)

    Once you destroy it it does not sink... you get told you won, but you can keep flying so I used to land on the sub... which was exciting and fun.

    The real issue is that as a sub it is going to be enormous which will make it vulnerable, and when surfaced it is going to be pretty damn big too, which makes it also vulnerable on the surface as well.

    When transitioning from being on the surface to underwater or the other way it is going to be deaf and blind and unable to deploy its main weapon... AWACS and Fighters.

    Even a huge sub wont carry many aircraft at all... it just has too many flaws to be realistic outside movies or video games.

    Interceptor was also the first flight sim where you could see the control surfaces on the aircraft move when you manouvered, but you could only see the weapons when they launched.... they appeared and then flew to their targets.

    Bob Dinnerman designed it I think, and it had a code wheel to stop people using pirate copies.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3001
    Points : 2999
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:40 pm

    Russian & Chinese SSBNs can still hide in the Arctic/SC Sea, not to mention Okhotsk Sea - the enemy SSNs & aircraft will need to get there 1st & survive long enough to release their UUVs:
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-nightmare-meet-1-thing-could-make-submarines-obsolete-83486

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:03 pm