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.
Tsavo Lion wrote:https://vz.ru/society/2020/12/21/1076391.html
some readers' comments agree with what I was saying.
GarryB, franco, George1 and LMFS like this post
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...
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.
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.
The two simulators in Saki and Yevsk are extremely important, but they cannot fully substitute actual carrier experience.
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.
LMFS and Hole like this post
franco likes this post
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
|