Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6140
    Points : 6132
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on 15/09/20, 02:10 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    mnztr wrote:However until some 3rd world country hits a carrier with a hypersonic missile I expect the US to persist in this madness.

    Good.  Lets hope so.  Every dollar the stupid Muricanz invest in their floating Maginot line is (a) one more dollar borrowed, and (b) one less dollar available for effective power projection.

    I have no doubt that current trends towards AI, hypersonic weapons, and distributed sensor networks will render these flat-top turkeys to be liabilities in peer-power conflicts.  The age of the carrier is over, just as happened to the great armoured battleships of yesteryear.

    And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

    It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

    And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

    So US carriers will be quite safe.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 490
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr on 16/09/20, 08:35 am

    Isos wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    mnztr wrote:However until some 3rd world country hits a carrier with a hypersonic missile I expect the US to persist in this madness.

    Good.  Lets hope so.  Every dollar the stupid Muricanz invest in their floating Maginot line is (a) one more dollar borrowed, and (b) one less dollar available for effective power projection.

    I have no doubt that current trends towards AI, hypersonic weapons, and distributed sensor networks will render these flat-top turkeys to be liabilities in peer-power conflicts.  The age of the carrier is over, just as happened to the great armoured battleships of yesteryear.

    And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

    It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

    And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

    So US carriers will be quite safe.

    It does not, but bigger ships are bigger targets and the CVN is central to the entire US force projection structure. Russia tends to not do this unless invited. But yes any ships will be at huge risk to these weapons
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2072
    Points : 2074
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on 16/09/20, 05:18 pm

    Isos wrote:And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

    It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

    And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

    So US carriers will be quite safe.

    Wut? Suspect

    You're saying that Russian cruisers and frigates will also be vulnerable to hypersonics (fair point) but then conclude that "US carriers will be quite safe"?

    I was right. You are not consistent.

    BTW the issue about hypersonics is that the US depends on its navy to enforce it's global hegemony. Russia's navy is for defense and enforcing A2AD in their near abroad. The rise of hypersonics PGMs hits the US far harder than Russia, whether you choose to accept the truth or not.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25852
    Points : 26398
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 16/09/20, 05:30 pm

    But it sill doesn't have its f-35 as planned so the carrier is still not as operational as intended.

    The question is the definition of CATOBAR, and whether it requires a steam catapult... and it does not.

    The fact that EMALS cats may or may not be ready for operational service is irrelevant... when they are it will still be CATOBAR.

    The C means catapult... but not any particular type of catapult.

    It could be a mediaeval catapult using ropes and a dropping rock to pick up and hurl an aircraft into the air long enough for its engines to get traction and momentum and keep the aircraft in the air under its own power.

    Hell, it could be a massive crane that picks up the aircraft and swings it round in circles letting the cable go longer and longer until the cable is 2km long with the aircraft doing 2km circles of the carrier and then release the aircraft to go on its way.

    Roll the cable back up and pick up the next plane...

    Or an Airship that operates over the carrier... you could put an enormous radar in it so it could be your AWACS platform and it could have enormous cables hanging from it... attach your fighter planes to the cable attached to where the arrester hook is attached and use three cables to pick the plane up level... when it gets to 100m above the deck detach the other cables and just keep the cable to the area near the arrester hook attached so the plane flops down and is pointing nose down as you keep pulling it up in the air... get the pilot to start up his engines and raise his undercarriage and at say 3 or 4 km altitude release the cable and let him drop vertically down... with his engines running he should be able to accelerate to flight speed pretty rapidly and pull back on the stick and fly away...

    Its possible to improve the valving of the steam cats to gain much better control of the launch.

    I would think such a feature would be desirable, but they never solved it as far as I am aware...

    They probably considered this, but EMALS offered more advantages in the longer run. Since they are working on similar system for EM guns they probably had a good understanding that it could be done.

    They had steam catapults as a mature and working system and they have made a leap into the dark with the promise of EM cats.

    Could say the same about 5th gen stealth fighters...

    It's an issue with the maintance software use onboard of the carrier.

    The point of the carrier is to use f-35, not f-18.

    Nimitz are enough if they just wanted to keep the f-18.

    Not Russias problem and certainly not relevant to this thread topic.

    The Russians are in a position where they can either spend decades and lots of money developing steam cat technology from scratch, or a similar amount of time and money developing EM cats.

    The value of the latter is clear because the technology and materials will be useful for EM guns and also all electric drive ships and other useful technologies that will be useful for all electric aircraft and land vehicles too...

    Steam... not so much.

    However until some 3rd world country hits a carrier with a hypersonic missile I expect the US to persist in this madness.

    The thing is that most of the time super carriers are not madness, for most of their bullying they just need to make sure they don't bully the wrong country by accident...

    I have no doubt that current trends towards AI, hypersonic weapons, and distributed sensor networks will render these flat-top turkeys to be liabilities in peer-power conflicts. The age of the carrier is over, just as happened to the great armoured battleships of yesteryear.

    The big battleships didn't disappear... they could never be armoured to the point where they could withstand an aerial bomb and no way to engage something that so out ranged its guns... but as the Soviets showed... small boats could carry the equivalent of a battleships broadside in the form of anti ship missiles... but that is not to say war has changed on sea so much that air power is meaningless... a group of ships with an aircraft carrier is certainly better defended than any group of ships that does not have aircraft... aircraft are not just eyes and ears... they move so fast and can test defences and get surface ships to light up and reveal their positions without risking a ship.

    And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

    Exactly... if big ships are not safe then smaller ships are even more vulnerable.

    To think there is safety in numbers is very naive... like saying that the Soviets beat the Germans with numbers... those german soldiers would have been happy enough to mow down wave after wave of Soviet soldier... numbers didn't bother them... especially when wasted stupidly thinking numbers is the solution.

    It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

    And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

    So US carriers will be quite safe.

    I wouldn't say safe, but certainly safer than smaller navies with less ships to protect them.... right now the US could make all their ships completely safe by sailing them all to the southern atlantic... they would have enough sub hunters to keep Russian subs at back and Russian surface ships couldn't get close without being noticed in a war situation... of course it would render their fleet totally useless... but it would be safe.

    Equally Russian ships can be kept largely safe by keeping them in Russian waters under air and land coverage of air defences and missile batteries, but equally rather useless except for self defence.

    To explore the worlds oceans the Russians need bigger ships and they need a couple... not a lot... but a couple of decent large aircraft carriers to provide air defence and AEW for those ships.

    WWIII starts it wont steam to the US and take on them yankees... they will more likely try to make it to home port and add to the local air defence.


    It does not, but bigger ships are bigger targets and the CVN is central to the entire US force projection structure. Russia tends to not do this unless invited. But yes any ships will be at huge risk to these weapons

    So you are saying bigger military air bases are also bigger targets and terribly vulnerable and should be replaced with thousands of smaller airfields?

    I mean if a ship is too big to protect then a 1km long small airfield would be too... so Russia should stop wasting money on aeroplanes and just concentrate on SAMs like the British were going to do in the 70s because fighters are obsolete and missiles can do everything?   Smile

    Hint they still can't, but defences are better with planes and sams and radars on the ground and in the air... it gives depth to the defences.

    [You're saying that Russian cruisers and frigates will also be vulnerable to hypersonics (fair point) but then conclude that "US carriers will be quite safe"?

    Hypersonic manouvering missiles are new and a tricky new problem to deal with, but the best way to deal with current threats includes big ships and aircraft carriers... what makes you think the solution is small ships?

    I would expect the best way to ensure you can shoot down a hypersonic threat that is at 60km altitude or higher is a big powerful laser... now what sort of ship would be best to carry that... I would say at a guess at least a cruiser... but if a cruiser could be safe wouldn't an aircraft carrier be safe too and wouldn't it be useful to have aircraft with your ships?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6140
    Points : 6132
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on 16/09/20, 06:29 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    Isos wrote:And what makes the other ships better ? If such missiles can destroy a carrier they can destroy a cruiser like the Nakhimov that Russia is building or a simple frigate.

    It's just a matter of time before US has its own hypersonic missiles.

    And they will all have ranges to be used as stand off range. So no one will use it in fear of enemy missiles.

    So US carriers will be quite safe.

    Wut?  Suspect

    You're saying that Russian cruisers and frigates will also be vulnerable to hypersonics (fair point) but then conclude that "US carriers will be quite safe"?  

    I was right.  You are not consistent.

    BTW the issue about hypersonics is that the US depends on its navy to enforce it's global hegemony.  Russia's navy is for defense and enforcing A2AD in their near abroad.  The rise of hypersonics PGMs hits the US far harder than Russia, whether you choose to accept the truth or not.

    Russia has nothing to destroy them too so its mutual destruction.

    Then US carrier will be just as safe as they were since WW2 because US has no intention to attack Russia.

    Russian ships will also be safe because US won't risk attacking them and face Russia's missiles.

    If carriers were so useless no one would buy them yet India, China, European navies, Japan and even Russia are buying different sort of carriers.

    Hypersonic missile won't change the situation. Buyan-M and few su30 are enough off the coast of Syria to keep NATO away from attacking and removing Bashar.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 490
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr on 16/09/20, 09:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Its possible to improve the valving of the steam cats to gain much better control of the launch.

    I would think such a feature would be desirable, but they never solved it as far as I am aware...


    The choice was which one to invest in. Billions on EMALS or Billions on advanced valving, what would you do?
    GarryB wrote:
    They probably considered this, but EMALS offered more advantages in the longer run. Since they are working on similar system for EM guns they probably had a good understanding that it could be done.

    They had steam catapults as a mature and working system and they have made a leap into the dark with the promise of EM cats.

    Could say the same about 5th gen stealth fighters...

    It was not a leap into the dark. They worked on linear motors for a very long time, including working on the EM gun for Zumwalt class. (which was never deployed)


    GarryB wrote:

    The thing is that most of the time super carriers are not madness, for most of their bullying they just need to make sure they don't bully the wrong country by accident...

    The ability of the weak to fight back in getting greater and greater. With hypersonics that would increase even more. China or Russia can provide a small number of planes and hypersonics which would instantly make that country very high risk to bully.

    GarryB wrote:
    The big battleships didn't disappear... they could never be armoured to the point where they could withstand an aerial bomb and no way to engage something that so out ranged its guns... but as the Soviets showed... small boats could carry the equivalent of a battleships broadside in the form of anti ship missiles... but that is not to say war has changed on sea so much that air power is meaningless... a group of ships with an aircraft carrier is certainly better defended than any group of ships that does not have aircraft... aircraft are not just eyes and ears... they move so fast and can test defences and get surface ships to light up and reveal their positions without risking a ship.


    Who kept building big battleships after WWII? The sinking of Yamato and Mushashi showed they were sitting ducks even with the primitive air weapons on WWII


    GarryB wrote:
    Exactly... if big ships are not safe then smaller ships are even more vulnerable.

    To think there is safety in numbers is very naive... like saying that the Soviets beat the Germans with numbers... those german soldiers would have been happy enough to mow down wave after wave of Soviet soldier... numbers didn't bother them... especially when wasted stupidly thinking numbers is the solution.

    Would you rather be in a lone Tiger tank or part of a squad of 5 T-34s?





    GarryB wrote:
    So you are saying bigger military air bases are also bigger targets and terribly vulnerable and should be replaced with thousands of smaller airfields?I mean if a ship is too big to protect then a 1km long small airfield would be too... so Russia should stop wasting money on aeroplanes and just concentrate on SAMs like the British were going to do in the 70s because fighters are obsolete and missiles can do everything? Smile


    Maybe not thousands but yes, more small bases. Do you have any idea how many airbases and airstrips the USA has? Sweden has alternative secret bases, lots of countries do. For the simple fact that they are easy to disable...like carrier. Airstrips cannot sink, but they are hard to defend. They can be quickly repaired, carriers not so much. One hit and its 5 years in the dock




    GarryB wrote:
    I would expect the best way to ensure you can shoot down a hypersonic threat that is at 60km altitude or higher is a big powerful laser... now what sort of ship would be best to carry that... I would say at a guess at least a cruiser... but if a cruiser could be safe wouldn't an aircraft carrier be safe too and wouldn't it be useful to have aircraft with your ships?

    I would agree lasers are the most promising but they will not have to be big. If they can put a powerful laser in a 747, imagine what they can put on a frigate. What role would the carrier play if hypersonics are flying around and lasers shooting them down? Bait? Why not just have an arsneal ship loaded with cruise missiles and drones for recon, protected by lasers? If you consider a large carrier is 3-5B imagine how many of these you could buy and how many cruise missiles they can deploy. It will be like a massive Stalins Organ firing cruise missiles.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 490
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr on 16/09/20, 11:24 pm

    PS - the US deals with the airstrip issue by subsidizing a massive civil aviation sector, with GA airports all over the place. Russia deals with it by making their planes able to deal with more primitive airstrips, so they can quickly ready new airstrips if needed.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25852
    Points : 26398
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 17/09/20, 02:35 pm

    Hypersonic missile won't change the situation.

    They will certainly change the way carriers and other large ships are deployed and used... but no matter what the threat having aircraft and air borne radar helping you defend your ground or ship based IADS is always better than just ground or ship based IADS alone.

    The choice was which one to invest in. Billions on EMALS or Billions on advanced valving, what would you do?

    Easy...EMALS... the new technology will be much more valuable... besides most Soviet cities are steam heated... they already use that technology anyway.... they have just not applied it to launching aircraft.

    The new materials and magnets and EM and plasma research as well as new ways of storing and moving vast amounts of electricity on board a ship will be vastly more valuable across their range of large vessels that could also benefit from being all electric too... not to mention trains and buses and trucks and cars and motorbikes and armour.

    The replacement for the T-14 is going to have a 3,000hp gas turbine engine... which means it is going to be an electric drive vehicle likely with an electrically powered main gun too.

    It is the direction many things are going...

    It was not a leap into the dark. They worked on linear motors for a very long time, including working on the EM gun for Zumwalt class. (which was never deployed)

    The gun designed for the Zumwalt was as dumb as the gun designed for the Sheridan tank.... they wanted a super long range gun and what they ended up with... in both cases... was a funny calibre gun that no other platform uses.... which means unique ammo which is never a good thing in terms of cost. The ammo they designed is too expensive and probably wont do the job they want it to... in fact missiles like TOW in the case of the Sheridan and Tomahawk in the case of the naval gun appear on paper to be less effective but in actual fact are in service and can actually do a better job now than these new super guns could potentially do when their problems are sorted out.

    In comparison with the Shillelagh missile, a 152mm anti tank guided missile, whose guns other viable round was a huge HE round that could only be described as a demolition round and was totally unrelated to any gun round in the US military. The missile never worked. It was enormously expensive and highly complex and it never worked. They took it to combat several times... even made a version of the M60 tank to carry the stupid gun and while it went into combat several times there is no record of it being fired successfully let alone any confirmed or even possible kills. On paper it was amazing... in practise it was an enormously expensive lesson that a much slower missile like TOW is a fraction of the cost and a reliable weapon that usually gets the job done.

    In comparison, the Soviets designed a tank barrel launched missile, but they didn't want to make some sort of missile super tank... they wanted a guided round that could compensate for moving targets at long range to keep the high probability high against long range moving targets.

    The missiles fitted the standard tank calibres used at the time and they made families of missiles... one for the rifled 100mm gun of the T-54 and T-55, a similar missile for the 100mm smoothbore towed MT-12 anti tank gun, and another version for the 100mm rifled low pressure gun for the BMP-3, and finally a modified version for the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62. They also made several 125mm and now 152mm calibre missiles for larger calibre tank guns.

    The missiles were never intended to be standard ammo... usually the weapon load included from 4 to 8 missiles with the most common load out being 6 missiles.

    The first missiles were not amazing, but they certainly got better and now can be used against helicopters as well as tanks.

    The point is that there is a right way and a wrong way to make weapons and for a weapon that is supposed to be cheap it needs to be a standard already in use calibre and what they should have done was what the Russians did and have a joint Army Navy programme to create long range ammo and guns together... it shares the costs and the results can be shared too increasing production runs of guns and ammo which should also reduce their costs as well.

    The ability of the weak to fight back in getting greater and greater. With hypersonics that would increase even more. China or Russia can provide a small number of planes and hypersonics which would instantly make that country very high risk to bully.

    The US is already very careful as to whom it bullies and how, but having a few hypersonic missiles wont make the US impotent... if Iran got Zircon and sank a US carrier I would think the US would be seriously thinking about nuking one of their cities, or at least bombing the crap out of as many government and military targets as it could...


    Who kept building big battleships after WWII? The sinking of Yamato and Mushashi showed they were sitting ducks even with the primitive air weapons on WWII

    The Kirov class are huge... but only 25K ton because they don't have heavy belt armour... Japanese aircraft carriers were also sitting ducks... yet in the same war the US aircraft carrier were not... perhaps it had more to do with tactics and the situation on the ground.

    I don't think Germany having five full sized operational aircraft carriers would have matter much in the slightest as to how long they lasted in the war, but German forces operating away from German airpower would have been much more powerful and effective with its own organic air power.

    The Arctic convoys were attacked by subs and ships but were most vulnerable to air power... from which they couldn't run away...

    It was air power that defeated the Battleships... the US had their own big battleships but they used air power to take down the Japanese battleships because Battleships struggle to fight planes.

    They still do... which is why it is a good idea to have some.

    Not thousands... they don't need 10 CVNs.... as I keep pointing out 2 new CVNs over the next 20 odd years would be fine together with an upgraded Kuznetsov...

    Would you rather be in a lone Tiger tank or part of a squad of 5 T-34s?

    Which model T-34s? Most of the time those T-34s were given general orders but didn't have the leadership or command or the radios to work together as a team.

    A late war T-34/85 with radios and crews who knew what they were doing would murder a Tiger... earlier tank crews not so much... but then there were rarely that many Tiger tanks around compared with the number of T-34s anyway.

    Airstrips cannot sink, but they are hard to defend. They can be quickly repaired, carriers not so much. One hit and its 5 years in the dock

    The old Kuznetsov has better air defence than any airfield in the US... even the big ones... and I would think the air defence of the US carriers is currently even better because they have more big ships. Individually they don't have anything like Kashtan and Naval TOR, but they make up for that by having lots of AEGIS class cruisers and AWACS aircraft and lots and lots of fighter planes and bases around the world.

    I would agree lasers are the most promising but they will not have to be big. If they can put a powerful laser in a 747, imagine what they can put on a frigate.

    A frigate would be a waste... you would need it to operate with your carrier groups to protect your carriers and the big expensive ships that operate with them... a Frigate would not have the endurance to keep operating with them around the world.

    A Cruiser or the carrier itself will be there and has much more space.... plus for power supply you need nuclear propulsion systems and a carrier with EMALS systems will have the capacity to fire off multiple bursts of laser energy at targets as needed... laser technology is always going to be changing so start with a big space and a big power source... it might get much smaller over time... that is fine... it will never need a smaller power source and taking up less room means other things can be added...

    What role would the carrier play if hypersonics are flying around and lasers shooting them down? Bait?

    Airborne radar is still the best way to detect low flying threats at maximum distance... and having a radar on the back of a plane 6-8 metres or bigger in diameter is still the best way to detect very small targets flying low and fast or not so fast...

    Having the ability to launch Su-57s to fly at mach 1.5+ in any direction out to perhaps 1,500km and launch air to air or air to surface missiles against air or surface targets while remaining relatively stealthy is a useful thing... the excellent radar and optical systems means it can fly out and check out things that would otherwise just be a blip on a radar. Getting information about a target is valuable and will help the surface action group commander make better decisions because they will be informed decisions.

    When Israeli planes attacked a US spy ship they pretended to misidentify as an Egyptian ship and were laying into it with cannon and torpedoes launched from aircraft and small boats... they didn't notice the old stars and stripes till they intercepted a call from a nearby US carrier informing the ship that F-14s were inbound.

    Why not just have an arsneal ship loaded with cruise missiles and drones for recon, protected by lasers?

    An arsenal ship is something the west would use the next time they invade a country.... most of the time a Russian carrier group will have both Kirovs and probably a Slava class ship with it, and depending on the date a couple of updated destroyers and perhaps a new destroyer or two... and probably two carriers if they can spare them... it is not like they need to keep one in each ocean protecting the world or anything... the K and one CVN.

    With that sort of force why would they need an arsenal ship? Their old missiles were huge but capable... their new missiles are much smaller and also much more capable and that is cruise missiles and anti ship missiles and anti sub weapons as well as SAMs. The Kuznetsov had 192 naval TOR type missiles of an old design... the current models are half the size and with better range and performance... so even with no actual changes just fitting twice as many missiles means 384 TOR missiles ready to fire... and it is actually better than that because the old Klintok system had a rotary launcher so for each missile launch hatch there was a twelve missile rotary magazine below deck. In the space you could put one rotary launcher with 12 missiles around it you could probably fit five or 6 bins of 4 missiles... 20-24 missiles in the same space and these new missiles are half the size which means doubling and doubling again with simple cell launchers with the new smaller missiles.... The original 192 missiles is effectively the contents of 24 TOR launchers from the 1980s with 8 missiles in each vehicle ready to fire, so doubling them with the new fixed honeycomb cell launchers means 48 old TOR launchers or 384 missiles... but 48 new TOR launchers that use smaller missiles with longer range, higher speed, and greater ceiling and also more accurate actually carry 16 missiles per vehicle so that would be 48 x 16 which 768 missiles all ready to fire. Now to be fair unlike 48 new TOR vehicles each has tracking radar and search radar and each vehicle can guide 8 missiles to intercept four targets at a time, so essentially 192 targets could be engaged at once with 384 missiles if there were actually 48 vehicles protecting this airfield... but there aren't
    The four naval TOR guidance mounts surround the island... so it can engage 16 targets at once with 32 missiles in control to engage those 16 targets if needed.... The new missiles they normally just launch one missile per target because accuracy has improved to the point where fewer missiles are needed. (Keep in mind these are last line of defence missiles so they will use two missiles instead of one to make sure the target is destroyed... the cost of an extra missile is nothing compared with letting a target through and having the S-400 or S-300V battery damaged.

    It also has 6 AK-630 single six barrel gatling gun turrets mounted and of course 8 Kashtan mounts with a total of 16 6 barrel 30mm gatling guns and 256 Pantsir type SAMs with 64 ready to launch and the rest in under turret magazines for reload...

    So even before any upgrade it was a fairly well protected airfield... it also had fighter aircraft to defend it too of course, and upgraded systems offer even better performance.

    If you consider a large carrier is 3-5B imagine how many of these you could buy and how many cruise missiles they can deploy. It will be like a massive Stalins Organ firing cruise missiles.

    An Arsenal ship really only is any use if you want to attack something and relies on other platforms to find and identify targets... it is more about boosting available fire power that making a fleet more capable. With such underarmed vessels as we see in most HATO surface fleets I can see why they would want them, but an Arsenal ship stops being cheap when you fill it up and it will always be a bit fragile not being an actual warship and more akin to a container ship really.

    PS - the US deals with the airstrip issue by subsidizing a massive civil aviation sector, with GA airports all over the place. Russia deals with it by making their planes able to deal with more primitive airstrips, so they can quickly ready new airstrips if needed.

    The Russian method makes their aircraft tougher and more useful on strips of motorway which are becoming much more common in Russia over time...

    But airfields are still both useful and vulnerable. There is no such thing as safe in war. It is silly to think otherwise.

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 490
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr on 17/09/20, 09:10 pm

    Well of course, that is why putting too much of your combat power in a single platform is a big risk. An arsneal ship does not just have to be a barge with missiles. It can have top notch sensors and drone aviation, as well as a high degree of battle hardening. I am talking a lot more then the 80 or so cruise missiles for Kirov. Maybe 500-1000. When you manufacture cruise missiles on this scale they become pretty cheap. This amount of fire power that can deliver from long range would be more effective then a carrier. Typically carriers don't have much more then a 6-800KM operating radius. With buddy refuelling you can maybe add 500 km to that tops.

    Frigates are now in the 5000T range so the Gorshkovs would be pretty good task force protectors.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25852
    Points : 26398
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on 18/09/20, 03:56 pm

    Well of course, that is why putting too much of your combat power in a single platform is a big risk. An arsneal ship does not just have to be a barge with missiles.

    The idea of building a large ship for the purpose of carrying lots of missiles around that is not a barge and that is well defended suggests that anything you do come up with is probably not going to be that much cheaper than an aircraft carrier.

    It can have top notch sensors and drone aviation, as well as a high degree of battle hardening. I am talking a lot more then the 80 or so cruise missiles for Kirov. Maybe 500-1000. When you manufacture cruise missiles on this scale they become pretty cheap.

    1,000 active radar homing anti ship or land attack missiles are going to not be cheap... they can be cheap or they can be effective but likely not both, and amongst those cruise and attack missiles there will need to be hundreds if not thousands of SAMs to protect the ship and the ships operating with it... which also drives up costs.

    A cheap barge with thousands of ready to launch missiles of all types is probably the cheapest simplest solution and it will be expensive.

    The West needs such vessels for invasions, I really don't see Russia needing these sorts of ships and if they did they would only need one that could be sent to hotspots when needed.

    It would need to rely on the sensors and equipment on nearby ships to get target information and self defence information too... otherwise an enemy SSK could simply sneak up and sink it... it would be critical to your attack plans and the main target for your enemy.

    Arsenal ships as far as I am aware have never been built or used and are totally theoretical at the moment... apart from a few US SSBN submarines converted to carry large numbers of land attack missiles... to carry thousands of missiles you would need a container ship sized vessel.

    This amount of fire power that can deliver from long range would be more effective then a carrier. Typically carriers don't have much more then a 6-800KM operating radius. With buddy refuelling you can maybe add 500 km to that tops.

    You are not reading what I am saying... I will repeat for the millionth time... Russian aircraft carriers are air defence carriers... their purpose is not to bomb downtown Bagdad.... their purpose is to form multiple combat air patrols over the Russian surface ships it is operating with and to use its AWACS platform to scan the skies for targets and threats to protect the ships from attack.

    Russian ships will have large numbers of UKSK launch tubes and will be carrying 4,500km range land attack missiles and soon mach 10 anti ship and presumably also land attack Zircon missiles which should also be suitable for penetrating the air defences of most land and sea based targets to 1,000km range.

    They don't need carrier based strike aircraft, what they need is air based radar and fighter interceptor protection for those billions of dollars of ships they are making and sailing beyond the range of Russian land based fighters and AWACS and IADS systems.

    An Arsenal ship is something they will probably find useful whether they have an aircraft carrier or not... if they find themselves up against a weak enemy with little or no air power then an Su-33 with dumb bombs from 10km altitude is probably good enough and certainly cheaper than any missile, but even if they want to use ship or sub based missiles then having a sneaky stealth fighter like a new MiG-LMFS or an Su-57 fly into enemy airspace and listen and find targets for the ships to attack is a good thing anyway.

    The most dangerous aircraft Russia has used in Syria was not the Su-24 or Su-25 and it wasn't their Tu-22M3s or their Tu-160s and it wasn't their Su-35s or Su-34s or Su-30s... it was their Il-20s and their A-50s... their EW aircraft with all sorts of electronics that flew around and listened... in the american air force it is the same...

    The ability to hit enemy targets at 2,000km does not come from a Tomahawk or a Kh-555... it is JSTARS and AWACS and other electronics aircraft that find the target locations in the first place and can be used to find out where specific people are at particular times so attacks can be made to try to get them based on their schedule.... which creates the 4 dimensional number that kills the person. Longitude, Latitude, Altitude, and Time. The missile gets the HE payload to that location at that time and you get a good kill. Building the missile is the easy thing... getting the target data needs an entire infrastructure called all sorts of different acronyms... the most important of which are C4IR.

    Frigates are now in the 5000T range so the Gorshkovs would be pretty good task force protectors.

    It is not about weight it is about missile capacity and Gorshkovs barely have enough SAMs to protect themselves... their Corvettes and Frigates have the electronics and Comms but you need big long range SAMs and lots of big and middle and short range SAMS to cover an area around yourself.... their destroyers will be well armed to defend themselves properly and together with Frigates and Corvettes would be safe, but cruisers protect themselves and other ships in large groups... the smaller ships make a useful contribution, but on their own would be vulnerable.

    Having big ships makes the group more robust and stronger.... and having a carrier means a low flying sneak attack is much less likely to succeed which is a good thing in defence.... and in peace time you can send out fighters to check contacts to see what they are... without an aircraft carrier you might have helicopters but they are slow and short ranged and fairly easy for fighters to shoot down...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 490
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  mnztr on 18/09/20, 09:35 pm

    The missile load out will be about 1B, so for 2.5B or so you can have a ship that has no equal and can lay brimstone and hellfire from a much larger radius then any US carrier. When deployed with a Kirov and a couple of Frigates plus a landing dock, it will be downright frightening. It won't have to be that big (about 2x a Ticondoroga class) Can be nuclear powered using Submarine propulsion systems (very small R&D $$) and can be built in the existing infrastructure. The missiles will cost less then an air wing on a US carrier. It can carry 20 or so NUKEs as backup. Heck when I think about it, it could possibly even be submersible!! If you take it down 50M or so it would not be that expensive.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 36 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 21/09/20, 08:52 am