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


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 17, 2020 6:52 pm

    But the QE-2 is 10K tons heavier than the Kuznetsov so why not just use Flankers and Fulcrums... they already work...
    the VMF may well get a smaller ship that will be cheaper & faster to build.
    Helicopter/landing ships are better used for their intended purpose because as proper aircraft carriers they are shit.
    Adm. Gorshkov-Vikramaditya & Adm. K/Varyag/Liaoning is/r based/follow on of the Kiev class. If they can't afford a Storm/Ulyanovsk size CVN, that will leave them with UDK/CV/TAKR hybrid. The Japanese r now modifying their "helicopter DDG" into a CV: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/23/national/izumo-needed-upgrade-mere-show-force/

    If Argentina had decent fighters in 1982 the British would have been screwed.
    True, but I bet the USN/AF &/ Chilean AF would help the UK. It was a matter of principle: if those islands were lost, US-UK alliance would go down the drain & other nations claiming islands would feel free to invade them.

    The whole point of aircraft carriers is to make Russian surface ships independent of land based air support...
    unfortunately for them, that may not be achievable in the foreseeable future. Even the USN CSGs r not completely "independent of land based air support"- they rely on MPA to help them sail through choke points, CODs for supply, big tankers & AWACS for sustained ops.
    Unlike the USN with its CVNs, SSNs & SSGNs, the VMF has not only SSN/SSGNs, but also SSKs & a TAKR/CV. UDK/CV/TAKR hybrid would fill the gap nicely even w/o any CVNs.
    an Oscar with Kalibrs could sail in to 1,000km away from the coast and launch a dozen or more 2,500km range cruise missiles and then leave...
    that's why including them & SSNs in the CBG would be a good idea- to fight/sink subs, ships, & launch LACMs.
    Russia can use her Tu-95/142/22M/160s to make up for lack of deck fighters. The US bombed Libya with LACMs, B-2/1Bs, F-15E/16s, A-10s & Harriers w/o any CSG: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney. Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Forces_committed


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:06 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 496
    Points : 526
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  mnztr on Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:17 am

    GarryB wrote:

    If Argentina had decent fighters in 1982 the British would have been screwed.


    They were a lot closer to being screwed then that. If the Argies had fused their bombs and exocets correctly, charged their torpedos properly, then the British would have lost. If they had 10 more exocets, the Brits probably would have lost.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:15 am

    The RAF would bomb their air bases with Vulcan bombers &/ BMs from subs. Even if the retaking failed, the RN would blockade the Falklands, Argentina itself, rearm, & try again. Canada, Australia, S. Africa & NZ, not to mention the US, would probably help as well.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25949
    Points : 26495
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 18, 2020 2:05 pm

    the VMF may well get a smaller ship that will be cheaper & faster to build.

    The Kuznetsov is smaller and cheaper and faster to build...

    If they can't afford a Storm/Ulyanovsk size CVN, that will leave them with UDK/CV/TAKR hybrid.

    If you can't afford to buy a proper aircraft carrier a smaller much less effective model will cost too much and not provide the protection you want it to... you would actually be better off with nothing at all...

    The Japanese r now modifying their "helicopter DDG" into a CV

    Good for them, but their situation is completely different from Russia... they are focussed on China and North Korea.... they wont be sending ships to Venezuela or Africa any time soon.

    True, but I bet the USN/AF &/ Chilean AF would help the UK.

    But they didn't.

    It was a matter of principle: if those islands were lost, US-UK alliance would go down the drain & other nations claiming islands would feel free to invade them.

    America is a former UK colony, why would they care if the UK loses another colonial territory that was generally stolen anyway... The UK doesn't give a shit about the islands or the people... it is about fishing resources and oil potential...

    unfortunately for them, that may not be achievable in the foreseeable future. Even the USN CSGs r not completely "independent of land based air support"- they rely on MPA to help them sail through choke points, CODs for supply, big tankers & AWACS for sustained ops.

    The USNs problems are not really relevant in this case... it is about Russian surface ships operating away from Russian land forces, and is achievable...

    Unlike the USN with its CVNs, SSNs & SSGNs, the VMF has not only SSN/SSGNs, but also SSKs & a TAKR/CV. UDK/CV/TAKR hybrid would fill the gap nicely even w/o any CVNs.

    CVNs make rather more sense than anything they have now or have planned. These new helicopter carriers will be helicopter carriers and landing ships... they will not be CVs and would be more useful with anti sub helicopters than VSTOL fighter aircraft.

    Russia can use her Tu-95/142/22M/160s to make up for lack of deck fighters.

    How on earth could large heavy aircraft like that perform the CAP missions of deck fighters?

    The US bombed Libya with LACMs, B-2/1Bs, F-15E/16s, A-10s & Harriers w/o any CSG: The United States deployed a naval force of 11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS Mount Whitney. Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, two B-1B bombers,three Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, P-3 Orions, and both McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and F-16 fighters were involved in action over Libya.

    That is a meaningless bullshit example... the US broke a country... big fucking deal... why would Russia ever want to do that?

    Things they would want to do include landing forces to support a local government under attack like Venezuela or Cuba or North Korea or Syria or even Iran perhaps... they will have plenty of launch tubes with cruise missiles to hit fixed ground targets... what they need is air power in the form of interceptors to defend the airspace around their ships to prevent them being attacked by enemy air power.

    Once enemy air power is dealt with they could send their fighters like Su-33s on attack missions with cheap dumb 500kg bombs to deal with land targets...

    The RAF would bomb their air bases with Vulcan bombers &/ BMs from subs. Even if the retaking failed, the RN would blockade the Falklands, Argentina itself, rearm, & try again. Canada, Australia, S. Africa & NZ, not to mention the US, would probably help as well.

    The Vulcan bomber attack was incredibly risky and probably could not be repeated... if the UK attack was repelled they could consolidate their position and extend the run ways on the islands so their aircraft could operate from the islands instead of from the mainland.

    Moving military forces to the island and building up defences... Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa were in no position to help much at all...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 496
    Points : 526
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  mnztr on Sat Jul 18, 2020 5:19 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The RAF would bomb their air bases with Vulcan bombers &/ BMs from subs. Even if the retaking failed, the RN would blockade the Falklands, Argentina itself, rearm, & try again. Canada, Australia, S. Africa & NZ, not to mention the US, would probably help as well.

    Nonsense, the task force was already at the very limit of British power projection capability. The Vulcan attack was at the absolute limit of their air power and the second time around the Argies would have easily shot them all down with SAMs or fighters. All the Balistic missiles on UK subs are actually leased from the USA so they cannot really use them without US permission and there is no way in hell the UK would go nuclear over the Falklands. Yeah Canada and Australia are gonna wind up their awesome militaries and engage Argentina. At the very most US sanctions but US is not gonna fight Argentina over the falklands. The only thing they could have really done is a naval blockade, which is what they should have done in the first place.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Jul 18, 2020 6:56 pm

    The Kuznetsov is smaller and cheaper and faster to build...
    they r not China to do that in 2 years as with their CV-17.

    If you can't afford to buy a proper aircraft carrier a smaller much less effective model will cost too much and not provide the protection you want it to... you would actually be better off with nothing at all...
    it's not a 0 sum game. Adm K. is a case in point: w/o it, the VMF would be a laughing stock. The same with the RTN carrier. They r still useful even if deficient.
    Good for them, but their situation is completely different from Russia... they are focussed on China and North Korea.... they wont be sending ships to Venezuela or Africa any time soon.
    the JMSDF may deploy it to the W. & S. Pac/Indian Ocean to show the flag, on hum. assist ops &/ exercises with others. Even if/when the VMF has CVNs, sending them to Venezuela or sub Saharan Africa won't be worth the risk & $.
    True, but I bet the USN/AF &/ Chilean AF would help the UK.
    But they didn't.
    the UK won in the end, no need for extra help.
    America is a former UK colony, why would they care if the UK loses another colonial territory that was generally stolen anyway...
    it's also about strat. location on SLOCs (in case Panama Canal is blocked; CVNs r too big to fit in & must go around Cape horn or the World to transfer between fleets) & next to the Antarctic.
    The USNs problems are not really relevant in this case... it is about Russian surface ships operating away from Russian land forces, and is achievable...
    but at what cost? they have more pressing needs than spending $Bs on a new arms race like the USSR did.
    These new helicopter carriers will be helicopter carriers and landing ships... they will not be CVs and would be more useful with anti sub helicopters than VSTOL fighter aircraft.
    if they r sent to fight another Argentina of 1982 vintage, it will be enough. The Tu-95/142/22M/160s have more un/refueled range than the Vulcans had.
    How on earth could large heavy aircraft like that perform the CAP missions of deck fighters?
    VTOLs &/ MiG-29Ks can do them.
    what they need is air power in the form of interceptors to defend the airspace around their ships to prevent them being attacked by enemy air power.
    they would deploy subs, ships (incl. CGNs with powerful AD), VKS fighters & bombers there as soon as any hint of trouble is detected. CVNs r not indispensable for the VMF, at least in the foreseeable future.
    Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa were in no position to help much at all...
    they could help with blockade.
    All the Ballistic missiles on UK subs are actually leased from the USA so they cannot really use them without US permission and there is no way in hell the UK would go nuclear over the Falklands.
    I doubt the UK has no operational control over them; conventional warheads could be used to destroy naval bases, airfields & planes on them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25949
    Points : 26495
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:09 am

    they r not China to do that in 2 years as with their CV-17.

    No, they are not China... they need to be able to use CVNs they build so taking 6-10 years is a good thing because they need to build up the land based infrastructure and sea based infrastructure to support it in operation which is not going to take 2 years...

    it's not a 0 sum game. Adm K. is a case in point: w/o it, the VMF would be a laughing stock.

    Those who don't take Russia seriously laugh either way... if there is an Adm K they claim they smoke like chimneys, so if when they don't have it at sea they will whine it is never available... who gives a F^%k about those censored they wouldn't say anything nice about Russia even if Russia cured cancer and gave away the medicine for free.

    You need to stop listening to what others say or think, they are not your friends and their criticism is not constructive but destructive.

    In fact when they are criticising hardest you know you are doing something right.

    The same with the RTN carrier. They r still useful even if deficient.

    All types of carrier are expensive but if you want to go with helicopter carriers and landing carriers and put a few pissant half assed fighters on it you are totally wasting your money.... it is OK.... if you can't afford a fixed wing CATOBAR carrier then you also can't afford to pretend you can land troops or use helicopter carriers.... because without proper air cover they are going to get slaughtered and you might as well not bother.

    It is like saying I want to go mountain climbing but I can't afford life insurance... I'll go anyway... my wife can sell one of our 16 children if I die to pay the bills.

    the JMSDF may deploy it to the W. & S. Pac/Indian Ocean to show the flag, on hum. assist ops &/ exercises with others. Even if/when the VMF has CVNs, sending them to Venezuela or sub Saharan Africa won't be worth the risk & $.

    When they completed Corvettes and Frigates they sent them on long distance testing runs... do you think they will keep a new CVN let alone an upgraded Kuznetsov at the pier just in case and to save money?

    it's also about strat. location on SLOCs (in case Panama Canal is blocked; CVNs r too big to fit in & must go around Cape horn or the World to transfer between fleets) & next to the Antarctic.

    Rubbish... before Argentina attack Britain and the US never gave the region a second thought and even afterwards they really don't care that much about the area until it comes time to extract oil of course...

    but at what cost? they have more pressing needs than spending $Bs on a new arms race like the USSR did.

    It has nothing to do with an arms race... I am not suggesting building 150K ton carriers and needing 20 at least to overmatch the USN... this is about making the Russian Navy a global force that can go where it pleases for as long as it pleases without being too vulnerable.

    if they r sent to fight another Argentina of 1982 vintage, it will be enough.

    There are no Argentinas of 1982 vintage and even if there was you can guarantee instant US and UK and likely French support which makes them rather more dangerous. More importantly you complain that it might take 10 years to make a proper new CVN... it would take rather longer to get a VSTOL fighter that actually works working and on ships operationally anyway.

    The Tu-95/142/22M/160s have more un/refueled range than the Vulcans had.

    They do, but without somewhere to land locally they are just long range cruise missile carriers... and even Russian corvettes can carry cruise missiles.

    The current Kalibre cruise missiles the Russian Navy uses are 533mm calibre so they can be launched from subs torpedo tubes. New models that are 750mm calibre and are longer and fill up the UKSK launch tubes should have much better range... the current Kalibrs are about 6m long and 533mm wide and are comparable to the air launched Kh-55 in terms of range... 2,500km... but the Kh-55SM has external conformal fuel tanks for a range of 3,000km. The current missile is the Kh-101 which is longer at 7.5m and wider too and its flight range is 4,500km. The UKSK tubes take missiles up to 10m long and 750mm wide so the new naval launched cruise missiles for UKSK launchers can be that big which would allow much greater flight ranges..8-9,000km... or 4,500km with a much bigger warhead.

    VTOLs &/ MiG-29Ks can do them.

    They don't have any VTOLs and if they have MiG-29KRs then they have fixed wing carriers which makes long range strike aircraft redundant.... an S-70 with a solid rocket booster to get it airborne would be an excellent naval strike drone... instead of folding wings you could roll them up to a machine that the wing itself rests upon... the undercarriage can be raised and then the machine rotates them so that the drone is held with its nose vertically down... you could stack dozens in a very small space... without any wing folding BS.

    they would deploy subs, ships (incl. CGNs with powerful AD), VKS fighters & bombers there as soon as any hint of trouble is detected. CVNs r not indispensable for the VMF, at least in the foreseeable future.

    What are you talking about? If the ships that need protecting are visiting the Russian base at antarctica how are they going to be bombers and fighters there at the hint of trouble?

    The point of a carrier is that it can move anywhere around the world with the ships it is operating with.

    they could help with blockade.

    What we did at the time is probably about all we could do... we sent a ship to Britain to perform duties that freed up another British ship so it could go down to the Falklands to support the operations. I seem to remember the Aussies did the same.



    I doubt the UK has no operational control over them; conventional warheads could be used to destroy naval bases, airfields & planes on them.

    Conventional warheads would make them useable, but a few problems leap to mind... first of all they don't exist, and second of all attacking mainland Argentina would be an escalation... remember there were British regiments on the Falklands when the Argentinians invaded... for every Argentinian killed on the mainland they might have just executed a local and a solider they had as prisoners... hell the best way to win is to simply execute all the Falkland Islanders and send Argentinian civilians to replace them... and let the Falkland Islanders to vote for their own future like the US and UK demands when they know the result will suit their interests and not when they know it wont.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 496
    Points : 526
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  mnztr on Sun Jul 19, 2020 7:27 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    I doubt the UK has no operational control over them; conventional warheads could be used to destroy naval bases, airfields & planes on them.

    USN only began exploring conventional warheads in the 2000's. To engineer a conventional warhead for a SLBM in not an easy exercise. The you have the reality that there are only 1 British boomer available at any time with 12 missiles with 2800 KG of payload each. And at 70M a shot, really quite ludicrus as a tactical weapon

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Jul 19, 2020 8:15 am

    No, they are not China... they need to be able to use CVNs they build so taking 6-10 years is a good thing because they need to build up the land based infrastructure and sea based infrastructure to support it in operation which is not going to take 2 years...
    in the meantime, UDKs/LHA/Ds would fill the gaps- so not only the Adm. K. is used for training & real ops.
    Those who don't take Russia seriously laugh either way...You need to stop listening to what others say or think, they are not your friends and their criticism is not constructive but destructive.
    Regardless what others say, having self respect is what matters- a nation next to 3 oceans surrounded by NATO/US fleets & bases must have at least 1 CV/TAKR with its escorts.
    if you can't afford a fixed wing CATOBAR carrier then you also can't afford to pretend you can land troops or use helicopter carriers.... because without proper air cover they are going to get slaughtered and you might as well not bother.
    they won't go overseas- in the Black, Baltic, Med., Arctic & Okhotsk Seas the VKS will provide CAPs.
    do you think they will keep a new CVN let alone an upgraded Kuznetsov at the pier just in case and to save money?
    The USAF can mine & "carpet bomb" the Caribbean & S. Atlantic/Indian Oceans off Africa with B-1B/52s the same way VKS can E. Med. & Japan Seas with Tu-22/95/142/160s; sending CVNs there would be suicidal in a real naval war. China still has to show the USN that it also applies to the SC Sea.
    Rubbish... before Argentina attack Britain and the US never gave the region a second thought..
    that proves the point: nothing is left the chance, after losing Cuba & Nicaragua.
    I am not suggesting building 150K ton carriers and needing 20 at least to overmatch the USN... this is about making the Russian Navy a global force that can go where it pleases for as long as it pleases without being too vulnerable.
    then, at least 3-4, if not 5 CVNs will be needed- will the RF economy be able to pull this weight?
    More importantly you complain that it might take 10 years to make a proper new CVN... it would take rather longer to get a VSTOL fighter that actually works
    not after the Yak-141 influenced F-35B is operational. China can give them stolen F-35 data if she didn't already.
    They do, but without somewhere to land locally they are just long range cruise missile carriers...
    they'll have Cuban, Venezuelan, Sudanese, Syrian, Iranian & S. African bases to land on.
    They don't have any VTOLs and if they have MiG-29KRs then they have fixed wing carriers which makes long range strike aircraft redundant....
    even large UDKs won't have space for more than a few of them + helos & UAVs.
    What are you talking about?  If the ships that need protecting are visiting the Russian base at antarctica how are they going to be bombers and fighters there at the hint of trouble?
    they may even deploy them there ahead of time, to leave nothing a chance; every station/base there has an airfield.
    The point of a carrier is that it can move anywhere around the world with the ships it is operating with.
    it can, but it can't avoid detection for long & operate with impunity.
    we sent a ship to Britain to perform duties that freed up another British ship so it could go down to the Falklands to support the operations. I seem to remember the Aussies did the same.
    still, it did help the RN: 2+3=3+2.
    hell the best way to win is to simply execute all the Falkland Islanders and send Argentinian civilians to replace them...
    no, it would be better to forcefully remove them to the mainland or Belize or to the Tristan da Cunha/S. Africa like the Brits did to Diego Garcians. Let them taste their own medicine!
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:25 am

    As I was saying- Russia may build something similar, faster & for le$$ than CVNs:
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t2634p150-chinese-aircraft-carrier-program#289122


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Jul 24, 2020 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:59 am

    He is of the same opinion as me:
    In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2084
    Points : 2086
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:He is of the same opinion as me:
    In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/


    Meh... some apparatchik in the Russian MIC wants the gov to spend more money on carriers.  Why am I not surprised.   Suspect

    Build a pair of LHDs first (to bolster Russias ability to impose hard power along her periphery and near abroad) while simultaneously building up a new blue water fleet that can serve as effective escorts for any new large carrier.  Then build the carrier and rely upon the modernised Kuznetsov until then.

    Putting the cart before the horse is always a fucking stupid idea.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9376
    Points : 9458
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:56 am


    If you want light carriers you need to have light fighter jets first

    And since when nobodies get to decide on military procurement?

    He is probably one of those morons who still whine about Bykov-class not having enough missiles to kill a whole CVN plus escorts (I greatly enjoy watching them make asses of themselves)

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:10 am

    The Soviet Kiev class TAKRs carried more helos than planes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23900_amphibious_assault_ship

    With 20 helos, they will be "helicopter carriers" that later could be adopted for fixed wings, just like these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Hy%C5%ABga

    If you want light carriers you need to have light fighter jets first
    Russia has them, & works on a better plane:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130#Specifications_(Yak-130)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:24 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 818
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:01 am

    GarryB wrote:

    It has nothing to do with an arms race... I am not suggesting building 150K ton carriers and needing 20 at least to overmatch the USN... this is about making the Russian Navy a global force that can go where it pleases for as long as it pleases without being too vulnerable.
    .

    They do not need 20 when each fighter can launch a 2 or more Zirkons, they do however need supercarriers because a carrier without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces.

    Light carriers are a joke built by small countries that want to pretend that they actually have a proper fleet, a destroyer is a whole lot better than a light carrier and a missile cruiser is likewise better than a medium carrier.

    Well as I was saying Russia would not need more than 5 supercarriers to outmatch the pindos.

    Perhaps they could create specialised nuclear powered escorts that have less UKSK cells but more S500 and Redut in order to increase the autonomy and endurance of the fleet.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6204
    Points : 6196
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:12 am

    without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces

    Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.

    Also carrier based AWACS are not as good as bigger ones like A-100.

    It's good to have them but not critical. A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:21 pm

    A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.
    I doubt it- its huge antennas need a big area which CVNs don't have, & emissions may interfere with communications/other radars.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 818
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:53 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of thier Zirkons.

    As for medium carriers, if they can launch fully loaded heavy fighters armed with missiles such as Oniks and Zirkon or a dozen AAMs then they will do, but as of yet I have my doubts. Though ofcourse my skepticism in regards to the feasibility of such a carrier may prove to be groundless.

    The primary concern that I have when it comes to carriers is some impressionable moron calling for the construction of a light carrier like the ones of smaller western aligned nations, a toothless waste of space that cannot launch a fighter with anything more potent than a few short or medium ranged AAMs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:44 pm

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of their Zircons.
    to do that, Tu-95/142s escorted by MiG-31s & refueled by IL-78s would be needed. That's why it's better to use Oscar/Yasen SSGNs that can patrol well away from a CBG & acusticaly detect & ID ships before attacking them with Zircons & other ASMs.
    ..a light carrier.., a toothless waste of space that cannot launch a fighter with anything more potent than a few short or medium ranged AAMs.
    if it's not enough, their escorts will have S-400/500, & helos/tilt-rotors can carry heavier AS/LACMs.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6204
    Points : 6196
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:03 pm

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of thier Zirkons.

    Russia has some sort of specially laws of phisycs for their radar ?

    Carrier based awacs are small, with less powerfull engine than bigger ones and a smaller radar. If the A-100 can't have 1000km range don't expect them to make a small one with such range. They don't even have experience with such awacs.

    About technology, Russia uses US electronics in their hardware even in S-400. US stuff isn't obsolete and they lead in awacs technology.

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 818
    Points : 866
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:24 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Russia has some sort of specially laws of phisycs for their radar ?

    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Carrier based awacs are small, with less powerfull engine than bigger ones and a smaller radar. If the A-100 can't have 1000km range don't expect them to make a small one with such range. They don't even have experience with such awacs.


    If fighters can have radars with a range of 400km then why would a larger aircraft dedicated to carrying a radar not be able to carry one with a range of 1000km.

    About technology, Russia uses US electronics in their hardware even in S-400. US stuff isn't obsolete and they lead in awacs technology.


    They use foreign components as sub standard placeholders for domestic production models, I have not read any account of them continuing to use foreign components after the domestic industry required to build such components was repaired.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4460
    Points : 4456
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 7:27 pm

    ..Russia uses US electronics in their hardware even in S-400.
    even if they had, I'm sure there r only Russian components there now.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6204
    Points : 6196
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:35 pm

    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Do you have any real comparison ? US radar are very good.

    If fighters can have radars with a range of 400km then why would a larger aircraft dedicated to carrying a radar not be able to carry one with a range of 1000km.

    That's not the same. First 400km radar for fighter is the irbis on su-35 and it need the powerfull su-35's engines which no carrier based awacs has. Then fighter's radars scan a smaller area when used while the Awacs scans a bigger volume. It is also not the same wave band. And then the range depend on the target. Irbis can spot a Yak-44 at more than 400km and fire a salvo of r-37M at it. Yak-44 may detect it also at such ranges but it won't have time to send fighter when the r-37M is flying at mach 5 at him. Against a su-57 it's even worse because it has a smaller rcs even in L band and the awacs would spot it maybe at 200km whike its byelka should allow him to see the awacs at 500km if not more.

    If it was possible A-100 or US E-2 would already have 1000km range.

    IMO AWACS are becoming easy targets and not really needed anymore. They are good to cover a fleet and spot attack from further and with a datalink guide AD missiles at them.

    They use foreign components as sub standard placeholders for domestic production models, I have not read any account of them continuing to use foreign components after the domestic industry required to build such components was repaired.

    I was just pointing out that US have better technology since russians have to use their stuff in critical areas.

    Their domestic industry wasn't repaired. It catched up.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6800
    Points : 6947
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kvs on Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:31 pm

    Isos wrote:
    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Do you have any real comparison ? US radar are very good.


    The evidence is indirect but very strong. The US is obsessed with the notion of stealth. This sort of thinking originates
    from the 1950s and 1960s primitive radar tech. Basically monochrome crap that could be easily defeated with stealth concepts.
    But things now are vastly different from those bad old days. But for some reason the US is still fixated on the notion of
    defeating radars as if nothing has evolved on the radar front for the last 50 years. This indicates that the US radar tech
    is still primitive and that gives them the notion that all radar tech is at their level since, after all, they are the exceptionalist
    chosen ones who dominate the world in knowhow, innovation and gumption.

    Modern radar systems such as those in Russia make stealth a has been. They are wide-band, networked and incredibly
    more sensitive than anything from the 1960s. So tiny backscatter of photons is detected whereas before it was invisible.

    So there must be a tech difference between Russian and US systems. The US would not be so invested in stealth (going
    so far as to claim that B-2 bombers will participate in a decapitating first strike on Russia when they actually have to fly
    into Russian territory and hope not to be blasted out of the sky) if it possessed radar systems that would defeat stealth.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6204
    Points : 6196
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:42 pm

    That's true but that has more to do with their doctrine of puting all their eggs in the same basket, i.e the attack. Stealth participes for that in the way that it facilitate the attack even against IADS.

    Russia on the opposite invest more in defence which makes them have better IADS and AD systems.

    But that doesn't mean russian radars are better since US invest much more in airborne radars than Russia.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 28, 2020 8:45 pm