Home
Register
Log in
https://vz.ru/society/2020/12/21/1076391.html
some readers' comments agree with what I was saying.
some readers' comments agree with what I was saying.
Russian Naval Aviation: News
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5177
Points : 5171
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Rodion_Romanovic
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 1320
Points : 1312
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
Tsavo Lion wrote:https://vz.ru/society/2020/12/21/1076391.html
some readers' comments agree with what I was saying.
It is also correct the consideration of the importance of the coordination of carrier aviation with the ship operation, and the experience in naval operation of the ship captain. In the US navy, both the ship captain and the executive officer (also a captain by rank) must be naval aviators (usually F18 pilots (formerly also F14)). What happen is that if selected for command they need to do a special school for nuclear ship operation (a 6 months school called Naval Nuclear Power School) and then they return in a carrier as Prospective Executive officer and observe the iteration between the commanding officer and the executive officer, before taking the place of the XO for 18 months.
If that was successful they are sent to command a large ship to gain experience (usually marine transport or oiler), since they are not career surface officer.
Finally only after that they become prospective commanding officer of a naval carrier (and still keep in active flight status).
This is important to ensure that the CO and XO are experienced in naval flight operation and to avoid problems.
I remember having read of some bad consequences in a british aircraft carrier several decades ago, when the ship captain (a surface officer without any aviation experience) ignored the requests and the suggestion of the chief air group (the commander of the ship air wing).
In the case of Russia, probably they should try to do the same... e.g. take 3 or 4 of the experienced mig 29k and su33 pilots and give them a naval surface command training and possibly put one or two of them in command of a large replenishment ship for a year or two.
I know that they have very few naval aviator, but that is important.
In the meanwhile try to find some way of training more pilots and keep them qualified, e.g with some exchange program with the indian navy (sending a few pilots to do take off and landings from the indian carrier and inviting indian pilots in the training facilities in saki and yevsk...
GarryB- Posts : 27335
Points : 27867
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Yeah, you could argue that having someone who used to fly planes controlling the ship and the carrier group would be good, but you could turn that around and say having pilots run your carriers groups will result in an air focus that might get your ships sunk by submarine attack.... surely the carrier commander should be a submarine captain because a sub captain has a better appreciation of the vulnerability of ships to subs and the vulnerability of ships and subs to aircraft too.
Essentially the doctrine and training for all commanders should be rich and varied and not rely on certain experiences to be had for it to be appreciated.
They don't need to be sub captains to appreciate the threat submarines represent, so needing them to be pilots would not be that critical either.
Also the requirements for airpower in the british and us navies are different from the Russian navy... in the Russian navy the carriers are essentially an extension of their IADS... their air defence network... it has recon functions but most of the time it is airborne early warning and combat air patrol that can go out and inspect suspicious things... in war time if you don't want to risk a manned aircraft sending out a naval S-70 with an optical targeting pod perhaps could be sent out to the midst of a group of air targets.... if they turn out to be Tomahawks and are heading towards the fleet it can start tracking them and perhaps take down some with onboard air to air missiles... if they are a flight of F-35s it can try and get as many as it can and also sound the alarm...
Essentially the targets will be IDed as hostile if they open fire or are missiles in route to the group... if they are 20 hot air balloons in a race in the middle of nowhere... well carry on...
The point is that with aircraft you can go and have a look without risking an entire ship...
With simulator technology what it is today pretty much all Russian commanders should get simulated experience using air power with their surface fleet and fellow air qualified commanders can try and attack them with air power to find weaknesses in their plans and tactics and it can all be reviewed and discussed later on so there is no excuse for commanders to under use their air power...
Essentially the doctrine and training for all commanders should be rich and varied and not rely on certain experiences to be had for it to be appreciated.
They don't need to be sub captains to appreciate the threat submarines represent, so needing them to be pilots would not be that critical either.
Also the requirements for airpower in the british and us navies are different from the Russian navy... in the Russian navy the carriers are essentially an extension of their IADS... their air defence network... it has recon functions but most of the time it is airborne early warning and combat air patrol that can go out and inspect suspicious things... in war time if you don't want to risk a manned aircraft sending out a naval S-70 with an optical targeting pod perhaps could be sent out to the midst of a group of air targets.... if they turn out to be Tomahawks and are heading towards the fleet it can start tracking them and perhaps take down some with onboard air to air missiles... if they are a flight of F-35s it can try and get as many as it can and also sound the alarm...
Essentially the targets will be IDed as hostile if they open fire or are missiles in route to the group... if they are 20 hot air balloons in a race in the middle of nowhere... well carry on...
The point is that with aircraft you can go and have a look without risking an entire ship...
With simulator technology what it is today pretty much all Russian commanders should get simulated experience using air power with their surface fleet and fellow air qualified commanders can try and attack them with air power to find weaknesses in their plans and tactics and it can all be reviewed and discussed later on so there is no excuse for commanders to under use their air power...
Hole- Posts : 3657
Points : 3655
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 44
Location : Merkelland
Inside Il-38N
GarryB, franco, George1 and LMFS like this post
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 1320
Points : 1312
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
they just need to be trained in anti sub warfare, as any competent ship officer.GarryB wrote:Yeah, you could argue that having someone who used to fly planes controlling the ship and the carrier group would be good, but you could turn that around and say having pilots run your carriers groups will result in an air focus that might get your ships sunk by submarine attack.... surely the carrier commander should be a submarine captain because a sub captain has a better appreciation of the vulnerability of ships to subs and the vulnerability of ships and subs to aircraft too.
Essentially the doctrine and training for all commanders should be rich and varied and not rely on certain experiences to be had for it to be appreciated.
They don't need to be sub captains to appreciate the threat submarines represent, so needing them to be pilots would not be that critical either.
Also the requirements for airpower in the british and us navies are different from the Russian navy... in the Russian navy the carriers are essentially an extension of their IADS... their air defence network... it has recon functions but most of the time it is airborne early warning and combat air patrol that can go out and inspect suspicious things... in war time if you don't want to risk a manned aircraft sending out a naval S-70 with an optical targeting pod perhaps could be sent out to the midst of a group of air targets.... if they turn out to be Tomahawks and are heading towards the fleet it can start tracking them and perhaps take down some with onboard air to air missiles... if they are a flight of F-35s it can try and get as many as it can and also sound the alarm...
Essentially the targets will be IDed as hostile if they open fire or are missiles in route to the group... if they are 20 hot air balloons in a race in the middle of nowhere... well carry on...
The point is that with aircraft you can go and have a look without risking an entire ship...
With simulator technology what it is today pretty much all Russian commanders should get simulated experience using air power with their surface fleet and fellow air qualified commanders can try and attack them with air power to find weaknesses in their plans and tactics and it can all be reviewed and discussed later on so there is no excuse for commanders to under use their air power...
However the main purpose of an aircraft carrier is to be a moving airfield for the air wing, thus is beneficial that the CO and the XO are experienced naval aviators.
For the same reason the commander of an air force base is an air force pilot.
Of course, that means that some of the naval aviators will have to go into surface command school, and have some experience commanding a ship with large displacement (e.g a Oiler, replenishment ship, or even an amphibious transport ship).
Where is the problem in that? Furthermore while good pilots can can keep their wings until late in their career, active combat pilots are normally younger men.
Not all of the good naval pilots will become Instructor, test pilots or chief of air group.
Some of them will leave the service or will end up in a non flying role within the armed forces.
Anyway, Russia needs to train more naval aviators and keep the one they have in the navy structure and with an active flight status (and current with their takeoff and landings from a carrier).
Maybe they could try to give carrier experience also to the navy pilots of land based fighters (the navy has 22 su30SM). They could include in their training also carrier qualification flights from a mig29k or a su33 and refreshers every 6 months.
Russia could also build additional carrier capable su25 for training purposes of new naval aviators,
to ease a bit the needs of mig29k and su33.
Just only for this reason the Admiral Kuznetov is fundamental.
The two simulators in Saki and Yevsk are extremely important, but they cannot fully substitute actual carrier experience.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5177
Points : 5171
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Navalized cheaper trainer planes on board a real flight deck with rump on a towed barge in the Azov, Caspian or Black Sea could be safer & less risky for pilots to train on before going on deployments.Russia could also build additional carrier capable su25 for training purposes of new naval aviators, to ease a bit the needs of mig29k and su33.
GarryB- Posts : 27335
Points : 27867
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
However the main purpose of an aircraft carrier is to be a moving airfield for the air wing, thus is beneficial that the CO and the XO are experienced naval aviators.
In western navies that moving airfield provides air defence but also attack functions too.... for the Russian navy the primary attack function comes from missiles... anti ship and land attack.
With 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles why would they need dedicated attack aircraft to penetrate enemy airspace with strike and fighter and support aircraft when an attack on a target could be achieved with a single cruise missile...
The US and UK and French navies are different from the Russian Navy and the use of aircraft carriers in the Russian Navy will be different.
In a sense in the west the aircraft carrier is the core of the carrier group and provides air defence and long range attack functions, while the cruisers and destroyers carry the surface to air missiles and radars to defend the carriers.
The Russian carriers are there to defend the cruisers and destroyers and submarines of the Russian fleet and are present to improve the defence of those surface ships... not the other way around.
For the same reason the commander of an air force base is an air force pilot.
But the commander of an air force base does not control the entire military district... in Russia the army commander is ultimately in charge on the land with the air force providing services of air defence and air strike against the enemy... but the airfield commander does not direct the land forces... just like at sea they wont direct the naval surface and sub surface forces either...
Of course, that means that some of the naval aviators will have to go into surface command school, and have some experience commanding a ship with large displacement (e.g a Oiler, replenishment ship, or even an amphibious transport ship).
Wouldn't it be easier to have ship captains do a weekend course flying drones....
Where is the problem in that? Furthermore while good pilots can can keep their wings until late in their career, active combat pilots are normally younger men.
Not all of the good naval pilots will become Instructor, test pilots or chief of air group.
Some of them will leave the service or will end up in a non flying role within the armed forces.
Anyway, Russia needs to train more naval aviators and keep the one they have in the navy structure and with an active flight status (and current with their takeoff and landings from a carrier).
How many naval pilots want to command ships?
I would think most would want to fly planes and helicopters....
Over the next few years the role of manned aircraft will likely diminish... manned fighters wont need enormous flight ranges to protect the ships they are operating with and AWACS just need to operate near the carriers they are protecting. For longer range recon missions or perhaps even strike missions against countries with poor air defence capacity... which is most of them... a few drones with cheap dumb bombs and a few self defence AAMs could probably replace all the extra air platforms needed for a manned strike package... and MALE and HALE recon aircraft can be smaller and lighter and cheaper and with better range and speed without people on board.
Maybe they could try to give carrier experience also to the navy pilots of land based fighters (the navy has 22 su30SM). They could include in their training also carrier qualification flights from a mig29k or a su33 and refreshers every 6 months.
The Su-57 is reported to be able to be used in an unmanned configuration and the new LMFS might be the same... meaning pilots might sit in carriers controlling aircraft in the future...
Russia could also build additional carrier capable su25 for training purposes of new naval aviators,
to ease a bit the needs of mig29k and su33.
They now have two land based carrier training facilities and the Kuznetsov itself... I think training more aircrew should not be too much of a problem...
The two simulators in Saki and Yevsk are extremely important, but they cannot fully substitute actual carrier experience.
They accurately simulate the physical experience much better than any flight simulator, but I would expect newer aircraft designs like Su-57 and LMFS should be able to make landing almost automatic anyway... they should be the easiest aircraft to fly... it is more like they will be managed than flown really.
Navalized cheaper trainer planes on board a real flight deck with rump on a towed barge in the Azov, Caspian or Black Sea could be safer & less risky for pilots to train on before going on deployments.
At one time they had no land based training facilities.... right now they have more land based facilities than sea based ones, which should allow training to the required standards easily enough.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5177
Points : 5171
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
Nothing beats the real thing- even with 2 NITKAS operational 24/7/364, w/o a 2nd TAKR/CV, a training CV will prepare pilots & deck personnel better for deployments. It'll also shorten the time needed for pilots' real carrier flight ops qualifications.
franco- Posts : 3716
Points : 3746
Join date : 2010-08-17
The Russian naval aviation will adopt the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, the Izvestia TV channel reports. They will go to the 98th mixed regiment as part of the Northern Fleet on the Kola Peninsula and to the 317th Pacific Regiment in Kamchatka. The Kh-47M "Dagger" hypersonic missile has a range of up to 2,000 km and a speed of Mach 10-12. A converted MiG-31K fighter is used as a carrier. The Aegis missile defense system will not cope with the Daggers. MiGs of Russian naval aviation armed with "hypersound" are capable of repelling any enemy, Izvestia.ru reports. "Dagger" is the latest Russian aviation missile system (ARC), which includes the MiG-31K carrier aircraft and a hypersonic missile. The world learned about the presence of this weapon in Russia in March 2018, and on May 9 of the same year, two MiG-31K fighters with Dagger complexes took part for the first time in the aviation part of the Victory Parade in Moscow. The complex's hypersonic missiles are capable of striking both stationary objects and surface ships: aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. ARK "Dagger" is an aviation version of the "Iskander" complex. The debut demonstration of the Russian hypersonic aviation missile kit (ARC) "Dagger" took place at the International Military-Technical Forum "Army-2020". This happened within the framework of the static display of aviation equipment at the Kubinka airfield of the Army-2020 aviation cluster. The Russian Aerospace Forces was first demonstrated by the ARC "Dagger" as part of the MiG-31K carrier aircraft with tail number 89 and the "Dagger" rocket, according to VTS "Bastion".
LMFS and Hole like this post
LMFS- Posts : 2725
Points : 2727
Join date : 2018-03-03
Link to the news above:
https://iz.ru/1105644/dmitrii-boltenkov/kinzhal-v-nozhnakh-kakie-preimushchestva-kompleks-dast-vmf
Interesting:
Thus, it seems that the future air regiments will consist of at least two squadrons, one of which will play the role of air defense and protection of the MiG-31K, and the other will include the MiG-31K carriers themselves.
So one sqd MiG-31BM and one MiG-31K
https://iz.ru/1105644/dmitrii-boltenkov/kinzhal-v-nozhnakh-kakie-preimushchestva-kompleks-dast-vmf
Interesting:
Thus, it seems that the future air regiments will consist of at least two squadrons, one of which will play the role of air defense and protection of the MiG-31K, and the other will include the MiG-31K carriers themselves.
So one sqd MiG-31BM and one MiG-31K
franco likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 27335
Points : 27867
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Nothing beats the real thing- even with 2 NITKAS operational 24/7/364, w/o a 2nd TAKR/CV, a training CV will prepare pilots & deck personnel better for deployments. It'll also shorten the time needed for pilots' real carrier flight ops qualifications.
Outside of war time the Kuznetsov spends most of its time in training. The conflict in Syria actually gave them the added bonus of using C4IR resources and planning missions as well as sending aircraft. The sending aircraft didn't last long because of arrester gear issues, but all the planning and management went on on the carrier including likely using satellites and other assets like drones or special forces on the ground to check battle damage results and evaluate missions and decide if a follow up mission is needed or not... and any change in plans or munitions are needed to make the repeat attack more effective.
With two ground based training centres, a soon to be back in the water carrier and likely quite a few computer based simulators they have plenty of potential when it comes to training pilots... rotary, fixed wing and drone pilots.
Thus, it seems that the future air regiments will consist of at least two squadrons, one of which will play the role of air defense and protection of the MiG-31K, and the other will include the MiG-31K carriers themselves.
So one sqd MiG-31BM and one MiG-31K
Makes a lot of sense because the potency of the aircraft and missile makes the airfield they operate from a very high priority target for stealthy missiles and other secret attacks. Hope there are Pantsir/TOR S-350/S-400 batteries there too.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5177
Points : 5171
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
I doubt it- from what I heard over the years, after spending a few weeks/months at sea, it stays the rest of a given the year in port or in the yard.Outside of war time the Kuznetsov spends most of its time in training.
The AW gets even less training as it's based on the Kola with bad weather most of the time.
That's why IMO they should be all based in Crimea or Novorossiysk, with much better weather, big Zaliv Shipyard, & NITKAs nearby.
GarryB- Posts : 27335
Points : 27867
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I doubt it- from what I heard over the years, after spending a few weeks/months at sea, it stays the rest of a given the year in port or in the yard.
When it had only tired old Su-33s from the 1980s then yeah... there was not much they were doing with it... now it has a new air group of modern fighters they will want to play with their new toys.
The AW gets even less training as it's based on the Kola with bad weather most of the time.
They have to train in the places they will be operating... no point going to a lake to practise because they wouldn't get it... no aircraft carriers allowed.
Operating in poor weather is more important than operating in good weather... train like the mean to fight.
That's why IMO they should be all based in Crimea or Novorossiysk, with much better weather, big Zaliv Shipyard, & NITKAs nearby.
The purpose of the carriers is mobile air power to support large ship operations... how many carrier groups will they base in Tartus?
And what would be the point of operating a carrier group in the Med... it would be like the US wanting to send a carrier group to the Caspian Sea... way too vulnerable to enemy land based air power.... they would be very quickly crushed...
The focus is the Arctic and the Far East. Screw Europe.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5177
Points : 5171
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
until they get at least 2 more CV/Ns, the focus can only be on safe training & exercises with occasional deployments to the Med. Sea.GarryB wrote:They have to train in the places they will be operating... no point going to a lake to practice because they wouldn't get it... no aircraft carriers allowed.-it's still a TAKR, not a CV with only an AW as an offensive weapon.
Operating in poor weather is more important than operating in good weather... train like the mean to fight.- there's plenty of poor & less then ideal weather in the Black & Med. Seas in fall/winter & spring; for the new pilots honing their skills, good flying conditions r safer.
The purpose of the carriers is mobile air power to support large ship operations... how many carrier groups will they base in Tartus?- the Adm. K is mostly a training ship, & it was & will be sent to E. Med. Sea many times anyway.
And what would be the point of operating a carrier group in the Med... it would be like the US wanting to send a carrier group to the Caspian Sea... way too vulnerable to enemy land based air power.... they would be very quickly crushed...- on it's way there or open Atlantic, it'll need to transit narrow N. Atlantic near Norway, GIUKG, the N. Sea, the English Channel, & Gibraltar, which will make it no less vulnerable to enemy land based air power & subs. Adm. K will have a CGN & SSN/GN escorts + the support of land based aviation from Syria, Libya, & Egypt.
The Caspian has no strait to get in it, but the Black Sea does, & unless the Montreux Convention is annulled, CVNs can't go there.
The focus is the Arctic and the Far East. Screw Europe.
|
|
|