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

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1852
    Points : 1842
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:45 pm

    Even modern Russian radars still have to focus tons of power in small areas to detect let alone lock onto a modern Stealth craft, Russian radars are good but they have to be focused which narrows down their coverage severely to find such aircraft and track them.

    That's the same for any radar really, bigger radars don't mean.

    -Radar is on and thus it finds all the aircraft in range-.

    Mind you such radars trying to find and track stealth aircraft will be generating tons of power which will give their positions way and make them targets.

    The point of stealth aircraft isn't to hide forever from the radars its to get close enough and remain hidden long enough to destroy the AD and the radars.

    I am not going to toss around numbers because that's silly, the capability of stealth aircraft and radars are very classified and so what they can truly do is unknown to the general public no matter how smart you think you are or sound.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 607
    Points : 607
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Arrow on Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:48 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Even modern Russian radars still have to focus tons of power in small areas to detect let alone lock onto a modern Stealth craft, Russian radars are good but they have to be focused which narrows down their coverage severely to find such aircraft and track them.


    OTH radar can detect stealth aircraft from 2000km. So much for stealth technology. Russia will know exactly much earlier about stealth planes.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1852
    Points : 1842
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Aug 01, 2020 10:53 pm

    Arrow wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Even modern Russian radars still have to focus tons of power in small areas to detect let alone lock onto a modern Stealth craft, Russian radars are good but they have to be focused which narrows down their coverage severely to find such aircraft and track them.


    OTH radar can detect stealth aircraft from 2000km. So much for stealth technology. Russia will know exactly much earlier about stealth planes.

    Yeah no, you may think that's good but not really further away from the source the signal gets the weaker it gets. So a stealth aircraft will not be threatened by that when it enters maximum range, only by mid-range would the radar have a chance of getting ping to alter the crew that something could be there then they have to play around with the signal and assuming they can narrow it down in time to go "oh dang there is a plane here" then they have to deal with everything else and I don't assume I need to explain how fast a jet aircraft can go.

    A lot of work goes into finding, establishing a track, a lock on and then keeping that lock against stealth aircraft.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 727
    Points : 769
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:34 am

    Isos wrote: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.

    When I was talking about AWACS with over a thousand km range I was talking about using Zirkons, hence I was talking about detecting enemy shipping and not stealth aircraft, the carriers escorting destroyers should make sort work of thoes and then ofcourse the carrier would have SU-57s.



    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.

    If pindo tech was so great then why is thier history filled to the brim with hilarious technological failures when Russia's is not? Ofcourse Russia has had many failures, but not to the extent of pindostan ann certainly not as many due to stupidity.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5758
    Points : 5750
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:34 am

    When I was talking about AWACS with over a thousand km range I was talking about using Zirkons, hence I was talking about detecting enemy shipping and not stealth aircraft, the carriers escorting destroyers should make sort work of thoes and then ofcourse the carrier would have SU-57s.

    http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

    You would have issues with radar horizon. At 10km altitude radar horizon is at around 450km against ships.


    If pindo tech was so great then why is thier history filled to the brim with hilarious technological failures when Russia's is not?

    They have more money. They spend it to test any idea they have without thinking about it a lot.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25279
    Points : 25825
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:26 pm

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

    Even if the UK had complete control of them they are not accurate enough for conventional warheads to be effective... Air fields are enormous places... an SLBM warhead coming in at 5 km/s is not going to take out every plane on the airfield... just the one it hits... not really a cost effective use of Trident really.

    in the meantime, UDKs/LHA/Ds would fill the gaps- so not only the Adm. K. is used for training & real ops.

    By the time these two Russian helicopter carriers are built the K and probably both of the Kirov class ships to get upgrades will all be back at sea, plus likely a few more Gorshkovs and perhaps a destroyer fitting out too...

    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.

    They also need to sort out home defence first as the top priority and they are in the process of getting Frigates and Corvettes into a decent rhythm of production... once they are being build in numbers then the other ships like destroyers and cruisers from the cold war can be used with the new helicopter carriers and the Kuz for trips away from Russian waters and production of the new destroyers and then new cruisers can begin.

    If they rush it they run the risk of screwing it up... and blowing all their money on shit they can't use. The US can afford to do this all the time, but Russia cannot.

    they won't go overseas- in the Black, Baltic, Med., Arctic & Okhotsk Seas the VKS will provide CAPs.

    You don't need 25K ton helicopter carriers with 60 days endurance to operate in such places.... these ships are intended to operate further afield.

    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.

    Doing so would be an act of war which would result in the CVNs being meaningless because ICBMs and SLBMs will dictate the results, not some CV or CVN.

    Russia is not building up her navy for WWIII, they are building up the navy so they can prosper in the future economically.

    that proves the point: nothing is left the chance, after losing Cuba & Nicaragua.

    It was Americas actions that cost them Cuba... Castro asked for American help first to get rid of the US Mob and colonial white people who were the problem and they said no, so he turned to the Soviet Union...

    then, at least 3-4, if not 5 CVNs will be needed- will the RF economy be able to pull this weight?

    2 CVNs would be fine... they want to ensure Russian access to the worlds oceans.... they are not planning to invade the entire planet...

    not after the Yak-141 influenced F-35B is operational. China can give them stolen F-35 data if she didn't already.

    Beginning to think the Yakovlev design bureau sold the Americans a Trojan horse... I honestly don't think a decent supersonic V/STOL fighter is possible.

    they'll have Cuban, Venezuelan, Sudanese, Syrian, Iranian & S. African bases to land on.

    Their primary mission is nuclear cruise missile attack against the US... how in hell could they possibly complete that mission from Venezuela or South Africa... and the US would shit bricks if you started storing nuclear armed cruise missiles in any of those countries.... and for what... what the hell is a Tu-160 going to do to defend a group of Russian ships in difficulty in the south Atlantic? Buzz them at supersonic speed and look cool?

    even large UDKs won't have space for more than a few of them + helos & UAVs.

    In other words they would not be able to carry a useful number... just a token number... which is worse than useless.

    they may even deploy them there ahead of time, to leave nothing a chance; every station/base there has an airfield.

    Rated for transport planes... not strategic bombers...

    And transports don't refuel in Antarctica... they fly round trips so they don't need to use up the fuel they have down there because it is quite expensive to get it there...

    it can, but it can't avoid detection for long & operate with impunity.

    Anyone who watches the news can plot where it is roughly... might come as a shock mate, and I keep repeating this but you seem to ignore me.... a Russian CV or CVN has zero value during WWIII... no purpose, no use. In places like Syria or Venezuela it might be useful and even in Yemen where technically if Russia attacked it would be attacking Saudi forces and not western forces as such, but any western vessel tries to attack and they will get a first hand lesson on Onyx... with potential follow up lessons to come if they don't learn the correct lesson right away...

    In peace time the US and the west will go out of their way NOT to get into a shooting war with the Russian Navy for obvious reasons and the Russian Navy will likely do the same. You might have noticed they have been doing this for quite some time now.

    still, it did help the RN: 2+3=3+2.

    It wasn't critical...

    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!

    Hahahaha... you are quite right there... put them all on BA flights to London.... one way...

    As I was saying- Russia may build something similar, faster & for le$$ than CVNs:

    And end up with a pieces of crap that is fricken useless most of the time.

    A real CVN with real modern fighters like a naval based Su-57 could kick arse most of the time... any warmed over Yak-141 would be slaughtered in many parts of the world today let alone in 10 years time.

    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.

    The problem is that carriers become useless toys when they are made too small to operate effective fighters and AWACS platforms, so even if you pay 10% of what a real CVN would cost it is a false saving because you get 2% of the performance which is worse than no CVN at all.

    The Soviet Kiev class TAKRs carried more helos than planes.

    Because it essentially replaced a helicopter carrier and was intended to be anti sub... for which Yak-38 forgers were worse than useless.


    With 20 helos, they will be "helicopter carriers" that later could be adopted for fixed wings, just like these

    With 20 helos they can do exactly what they were designed to do. Later it might carry slightly less helos so it can carry more drones...

    Russia has them, & works on a better plane:

    That is the lightweight twin engined fighter MiG are developing as the new light 5th gen fighter.

    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.

    The point is that the worlds best air defences include air borne radar and air borne fighter planes... HATO air defences solely depend on that. Russian Air Defences include air borne radar and fighters and interceptors to add depth... the Russian Navy would be stupid not to want the same for their surface fleet.

    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.

    Totally agree, a light carrier would be more of a target than the ships it was trying to defend and would be less value for money than a cargo ship modified to have an enormous AESA radar stack with four enormous AESA radar panels facing all directions allowing electronic scanning and loaded up with thousands of SAM launch tubes from short range self defence missiles to super long range missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles and satellites in space.

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

    They don't need carriers to face the US... sub launched anti ship missiles would obliterate them easily enough, Russia needs carriers for peace time to ensure their ships are protected away from Russia based air power... they would not need more than two more CVNs...

    Their Corvettes and Frigates can protect and control the sea around Russia together with land based air power... so some new destroyers and cruisers and two CVNs is pretty much all they need.... in addition to the support ships and naval port expansions needed to operate from of course... they have plenty of time for that anyway.

    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.

    AWACs have a 360 degree view and can carry bigger radars that can see further... and the new AWACS planes can carry missiles to defeat incoming missiles.... remember these AWACS are not in the middle of nowhere on their own like HATO AWACS... they will be flying above some very heavily armed cruisers and destroyers equipped with enormous numbers of SAMs and radars and sensors etc... not to mention fighter escort...

    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.

    OTH radar often have a gap as big as 300km in close where they can't see properly... personally I think the best solution is an AWACS airship with a radar antenna 100m long in an airship that can operate at 40km altitude...

    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.

    If the targets are US ships then detection wont be an issue. If it is anyone elses ships then they have satellites for that these days...

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

    Their space tracking radars are actually quite ordinary... and Russia doesn't use US electronics any more... they don't have access to it...

    BTW I guess that means the SR-71 and F-35s are Soviet and Russian products respectively because they used Soviet and Russian titanium to make them...

    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.

    The energy available to power a radar on an aircraft depends on the generators used.... there were jammer versions of the Tu-22M3 and the Il-76 that were tested and they chose the Il-76 with its 4 x 14 ton thrust engines over the 2 x 25 ton thrust engines on the bomber because the Il-76 had more power to run through the jammers... on paper the difference is minor... 56 tons for the Il-76 and 50 tons for the bomber, but in actual fact the difference was enormous because the Il-76
    was able to take a lot more power off four engines than the Bomber was able to take off two.

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

    If US radars were better than Russian radars then why would Russia bother with the Su-57 and PAK DA?

    Russia was working on shooting down small RCS targets in the late 1970s.... because ballistic missile warheads are physically small...

    Even modern Russian radars still have to focus tons of power in small areas to detect let alone lock onto a modern Stealth craft, Russian radars are good but they have to be focused which narrows down their coverage severely to find such aircraft and track them.

    All radars use narrow beams to track targets... otherwise you are just wasting power.

    That's the same for any radar really, bigger radars don't mean.

    Bigger radar means better precision and discrimination performance.

    Mind you such radars trying to find and track stealth aircraft will be generating tons of power which will give their positions way and make them targets.

    In a network one radar might scan while all the rest listen for signals and returns can be collected together and analysed....

    Targeting such radars is not actually that easy because they will be defended by several layers of SAMs... and aircraft.

    The point of stealth aircraft isn't to hide forever from the radars its to get close enough and remain hidden long enough to destroy the AD and the radars.

    The point of a stealth fighter is to be able to fly into enemy airspace and start cleaning up their airfields and aircraft before their HQs and comms centres and radars and major SAMs have been taken down by cruise missiles and also those stealth fighters using stand off munitions.

    Problem is that it does not seem to work in all third world countries like Syria... so it might struggle in other places too.

    A lot of work goes into finding, establishing a track, a lock on and then keeping that lock against stealth aircraft.

    Just knowing it is present takes away a lot of its power... and for the F-35 so much effort and money has gone into its stealthiness and not into its general flight performance it is going to find itself in trouble more often than not if anything gets too close.


    They have more money. They spend it to test any idea they have without thinking about it a lot.

    They are also vastly more wasteful of money... like the people paying for the work didn't have to work to earn that money...
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 6349
    Points : 6486
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kvs on Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:55 pm

    US expenditures are a poor metric for the quality of the results. The prices in the US for military goods and services are totally insane. Before
    comparing with Russia it is absolutely necessary to normalize them with something like the PPP procedure. The oft repeated claim that the
    US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined does not demonstrate that it is that much more powerful and better.
    It only says that US prices are insane.

    The other element in evaluating US tech is that they have a business fetish. As part of their garage startup mythology, they believe that
    some private contractor can generate tech through market magic. In Russia, the development culture is based on the concept of
    university and institute research. People motivated by understanding and not money drive the process. So the engineering is based
    on science and mathematics and not on Space X shyster hacks.

    At the end of the day, the US has and its hyped tech has never been tested. Instead we have fake youtube videos purporting to
    show a T-72 being totally destroyed by a TOW missile when it is clear that the tank was packed with explosives. There is a lot
    of this sort of hoax based faith in US super duper tech.

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

    Posts : 727
    Points : 769
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Russia is not building up her navy for WWIII, they are building up the navy so they can prosper in the future economically.

    I would say the Russian navy is for both the economy and WWIII.


    And end up with a pieces of crap that is fricken useless most of the time.

    A real CVN with real modern fighters like a naval based Su-57 could kick arse most of the time... any warmed over Yak-141 would be slaughtered in many parts of the world today let alone in 10 years time.

    The problem is that carriers become useless toys when they are made too small to operate effective fighters and AWACS platforms, so even if you pay 10% of what a real CVN would cost it is a false saving because you get 2% of the performance which is worse than no CVN at all.

    Totally agree, a light carrier would be more of a target than the ships it was trying to defend and would be less value for money than a cargo ship modified to have an enormous AESA radar stack with four enormous AESA radar panels facing all directions allowing electronic scanning and loaded up with thousands of SAM launch tubes from short range self defence missiles to super long range missiles to shoot down ballistic missiles and satellites in space.

    Well finally someone who else can see this, I was getting rather sick of hearing retarded nonsense such as "they should build LHDs with VTOL fighters" and "missiles cruisers are a waste of money".



    They don't need carriers to face the US... sub launched anti ship missiles would obliterate them easily enough, Russia needs carriers for peace time to ensure their ships are protected away from Russia based air power... they would not need more than two more CVNs...

    My point was more about how much better a Russian carrier would be due to the equipment available to the Russian navy.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1550
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:Just knowing it is present takes away a lot of its power... and for the F-35 so much effort and money has gone into its stealthiness and not into its general flight performance it is going to find itself in trouble more often than not if anything gets too close.

    Of course, and US backtracking in their early narrative of such planes doing the work solo inside advanced IADS is the proof. The appearance of Konteiner type radars in RF that can track thousands of so called stealth targets already when they are heading down the runway as far as the Netherlands (and soon enough monitor the western approaches to Europe including the GIUK gap) means game, set and match for Russia in the event of an air conflict with NATO in the European theatre. Current generation of stealth technology is inconsequential to such kind of radars.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4157
    Points : 4153
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:29 pm

    an SLBM warhead coming in at 5 km/s is not going to take out every plane on the airfield... just the one it hits...
    hangars, fuel/ammo storage & barracks can be hit- the # of planes destroyed there &/ denied shelter/maintenance, fuel & ammo. won't be trivial.
    You don't need 25K ton helicopter carriers with 60 days endurance to operate in such places.... these ships are intended to operate further afield.
    occasionally, but not routinely.
    Their primary mission is nuclear cruise missile attack against the US...
    2ndary missions to protect the fleet could be performed by them as well.
    Rated for transport planes... not strategic bombers...And transports don't refuel in Antarctica...
    if they can accommodate fully loaded IL-76s, AN-12/22s, C-130/5/17s, why can't they handle Tu-22/95/142/160s & IL-78s?
    a Russian CV or CVN has zero value during WWIII...
    the WWIII is already underway, & it won't evolve into WWII style total war of attrition with even 1/2, much less full, nuke exchanges. Besides, the anti-war movements that helped to end the war in Vietnam will prevent the repeat of another US led major war in Asia or Europe, much less the ME- recent anti-police brutality & racism protests, violence, looting & riots already showed how deeply the gov. is divided by political infighting.  
    In peace time the US and the west will go out of their way NOT to get into a shooting war with the Russian Navy for obvious reasons and the Russian Navy will likely do the same.
    it will be neither peace nor war, just like during the last Cold War, with occasional deadly incidents. The Cold War II & the hybrid war r the 2 sides of the same coin, all part of the current WWIII.
    A real CVN with real modern fighters like a naval based Su-57 could kick arse most of the time... The problem is that carriers become useless toys when they are made too small to operate effective fighters and AWACS platforms, so even if you pay 10% of what a real CVN would cost it is a false saving because you get 2% of the performance which is worse than no CVN at all.
    by that logic, China shouldn't have bothered with CV-16/17 STOBARs & saved $ for CVNs, & Russia can save $ by not keeping the Adm. K. All of them r helping to learn the carrier warfare skills, conduct naval diplomacy, SLOCs patrol, & disaster relief, etc. if called upon. Before trying to make sushi, 1 must learn how to properly cook rice & cut the fish, not to mention any other ingredients that must go there.
    Because it essentially replaced a helicopter carrier and was intended to be anti sub... for which Yak-38 forgers were worse than useless.
    not only- the Yak-38s were to keep P-3s & other planes away from their subs & ships, besides hitting shore targets.
    With 20 helos they can do exactly what they were designed to do. Later it might carry slightly less helos so it can carry more drones...
    incl. for EW, reducing the need for AWACS.
    That is the lightweight twin engined fighter MiG are developing as the new light 5th gen fighter.
    which can be navalized as the MiG-29 was, & used on small carriers in sufficient #s.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25279
    Points : 25825
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:50 am

    I would say the Russian navy is for both the economy and WWIII.

    The Russian Navy will be of zero value during WWIII... Russia is developing doomsday devices like Posiedon and the unlimited flight range nuclear armed cruise missile... which by the way they could get away with bypassing the US demanding it being included in the strategic weapons and therefore limited by new START right now and any future agreements by fitting it with retractable undercarriage and giving it multiple nuclear warheads that can be dropped in flight and call it a UCAV which are not regulated...

    The Russian Navy would be recalled back to home ports in times of serious tension and would try to patrol potential launch areas looking for HATO SSBNs, but it wont be prowling the worlds oceans... its fire power and capabilities would be best used destroying anything approaching Russia... any US carrier groups will be dealt with using MiG-31 and later MiG-41 launched missiles of increasing speed and range... and their land based land launched equivalents.

    Well finally someone who else can see this, I was getting rather sick of hearing retarded nonsense such as "they should build LHDs with VTOL fighters" and "missiles cruisers are a waste of money".

    They need a balanced force, with Frigates and Corvettes that can operate from home ports and provide close in security for Russia under the air umbrella that ground based aircraft can provide, but they also need larger ships with the endurance to go places and remain there for months, and those groups of ships warrant an aircraft carrier to provide vision and reach so they can't be surprise attacked, and can defend themselves from reasonably powerful enemies.

    Russia doesn't have a huge navy, but they do have very good submarines and missiles that will sink any type of ship... Having aircraft means they get the warning of attacks in time to use their missiles to defend themselves and also attack the sources of those attacks.

    Israel attacks Syria with standoff weapons because only the standoff weapons are in danger... so there is nothing to lose and everything to gain if one slips through and you get lucky. If they were hitting Russian targets then Russia could simply start shooting down the Israeli aircraft and after losing a few they would either escalate or stop... and I rather suspect stop would be their choice.

    My point was more about how much better a Russian carrier would be due to the equipment available to the Russian navy.

    Personally I think they should look at making the carrier rather bigger than they need... That multi hull carrier they were talking about that was very wide is actually rather good for a carrier because it means wider deck and bigger internal volume for hangars and stores... even a CVN has to carry thousands of tons of aviation fuel for its aircraft to operate... if they could make a 60K ton multi hull carrier with the capacity of a 90K ton conventional carrier that could carry 96 fighters and say 8 AWACS type aircraft (including both ones fitted with radar and ones fitted out for inflight refuelling or cargo transport) and say 30 helicopters... that would be ideal... but in normal operations they might only carry say 32 fighters and 3 AWACS planes with 2 Inflight refuelling planes as well, and maybe 12-16 helicopters, but full fuel and weapons and provisions. That would mean a normal endurance of say 90 days of operations could be expanded to perhaps 160 days of operations, but if needed you could put extra fighters and helicopters onto a transport ship and ship them to where ever they are needed.

    I would think a Russian CVN would not be the same as a US one because the Russian model will likely have S-500 and S-400 and S-350 missiles and also UKSK-M launchers with anti sub missiles at the very least and probably also a few long range land attack cruise missiles too.

    The Kalibr land attack missiles they currently use are 6m long and 533mm calibre so they can be launched from torpedo tubes, but even the UKSK launch tubes can take 750mm weapons that are 10m long so they could take missiles bigger than the Kh-101 which have a range of 5,000km which are only 7.4m long and have a body diameter of 750mm. So adding 2.6m to its length would add a huge space for extra fuel if necessary...


    Of course, and US backtracking in their early narrative of such planes doing the work solo inside advanced IADS is the proof. The appearance of Konteiner type radars in RF that can track thousands of so called stealth targets already when they are heading down the runway as far as the Netherlands (and soon enough monitor the western approaches to Europe including the GIUK gap) means game, set and match for Russia in the event of an air conflict with NATO in the European theatre. Current generation of stealth technology is inconsequential to such kind of radars.

    It is not the first backtrack either... I remember in the 1980s one of the roles for the B-1B was going to be flying around deep in Soviet airspace destroying their truck mounted ICBM launchers at very low altitude... but they pretty soon realised it was hopeless after Desert Storm... the B-2 was on its way and the plans were that its stealth meant it could fly over the Soviet Union invisible to Soviet air defences and just fly around bombing targets with impunity so they were pretending the B-1B was going to do it but when the B-2 was revealed they admitted that the B-1B simply didn't have the flight range to fly around the Soviet Union at low altitude and that the B-2 was going to do it.... but the Scud ruined all their plans. They didn't destroy a single Scud missile on its launcher before launch during the entire campaign even though Iraq is much smaller than Russia and they essentially had complete air control and nothing was interfering with their satellites they still couldn't track the Scud launchers before they fired with air power... There were all sorts of claims of AWACS and JSTARS tracking them and killing them with long range bombers but it simply didn't work.... so the TOPOL killer idea for a use for the B-2 disappeared from their brochures pretty quickly...

    hangars, fuel/ammo storage & barracks can be hit- the # of planes destroyed there &/ denied shelter/maintenance, fuel & ammo. won't be trivial.

    They are spending 200 billion pounds on Trident and you think they should use them to destroy a dozen planes on the ground?

    They could probably put a few Concords back into service and use them to deliver post to the troops in Afghanistan... it will only cost a similar amount to upgrade airfields in Afghanistan and put the Concords back into fight safe configuration...

    occasionally, but not routinely.

    The places you mention would put them face to face with HATO or Japan.... further afield like Venezuela or Cuba for exercises would be much more valuable practise... landing forces can learn about sea voyages in books but it is something else to experience it... there were problems with sea sickness in the D Day landings... over very short distances... imagine trying to mount an operation to the Falkland Islands...

    2ndary missions to protect the fleet could be performed by them as well.

    Protect the fleet how? They have no capacity to shoot down enemy aircraft, and have no business trying to sink ships.... the Russian Navy has subs and ships with the weapons to do that better than the Russian Strategic component of the Air Force...

    if they can accommodate fully loaded IL-76s, AN-12/22s, C-130/5/17s,

    All those planes are able to land on semi prepared airstrips except the C-5 and none of them operate at anything like their max weights.... very heavy equipment sent to Antarctica goes by ship.

    why can't they handle Tu-22/95/142/160s & IL-78s?

    They should be able to handle Il-78s, but those other aircraft require concrete runways 3km to 5km long when operating at max weight.

    They would also be very little use to a group of ships under attack.

    the WWIII is already underway, & it won't evolve into WWII style total war of attrition with even 1/2, much less full, nuke exchanges.

    Well if you are thinking in those terms the Cold War would be WWIII and that now they are on to WWIV... the second Cold War which is all about money and resources rather than ideology.

    Besides, the anti-war movements that helped to end the war in Vietnam will prevent the repeat of another US led major war in Asia or Europe, much less the ME- recent anti-police brutality & racism protests, violence, looting & riots already showed how deeply the gov. is divided by political infighting.

    But those riots are about internal problems of racism and police brutality and ignorance... most Americans support foreign wars and could not care less about the suffering it causes... as long as oil is cheap.

    The anti war groups used to be the democrats but now the democrats are the Clintons and the Bidens and they want war as much as the Republicans do...

    by that logic, China shouldn't have bothered with CV-16/17 STOBARs & saved $ for CVNs, & Russia can save $ by not keeping the Adm. K.

    China is not in the same position as Russia... they want landing ships to recover Taiwan and to perhaps protect Hong Kong and the islands they build in the South China Sea. They can operate under the protection of land based aircraft and will enable rapid resupply and support for any troops on those islands, while allowing the landing of more troops faster in a conflict in Taiwan which will increase their chances of doing it right.

    The Admiral K is big enough to be useful, and there is no point in selling it because the money they would get for it would not be significant and would not replace the value the ship provides even in an unupgraded form. With upgrades it will be rather more use to them...

    Before trying to make sushi, 1 must learn how to properly cook rice & cut the fish, not to mention any other ingredients that must go there.

    That is true, but you want bigger more flexible ships that can grow with your navy and expand its capabilities, not something they will use to get some experience but then outgrow and discard in time.


    not only- the Yak-38s were to keep P-3s & other planes away from their subs & ships, besides hitting shore targets.

    The Yak-38s had no radar and at best were armed with 7km range R-60MK AAMs for air to air.... its performance in the air was pathetic... in the air to ground role it was not a huge amount better with unguided rockets and light bombs... they were tested in Afghanistan against ground targets and were terrible... the engine wear for all three engines was magnified by dust ingestion and they were slow easy unarmoured targets that really didn't hit their ground targets very often.

    incl. for EW, reducing the need for AWACS.

    A Drone AWACS platform would be a useful thing... that could be made to operate from small ships and make them safer by detecting low flying threats.

    which can be navalized as the MiG-29 was, & used on small carriers in sufficient #s.

    I suspect that will be the plan.

    Actually I was thinking... one of the main reasons the F-35 is a dog is because it is a fighter plane based on the F-16.

    The F-16 is a narrow fighter with a single engine and with good shaping it is agile and a capable fighter for its time... much like the MiG-21 before it.

    The thing is that needing a large lift fan means the F-35 is fatter than it should be but that extra width increases drag like the extra engine of the MiG-29 but it does not get the added benefit of an extra engine and body lift like the MiG-29 does.

    The core problem with the Yak-141 is the three engines it needs to operate as a VSTOL... unlike a normal multi engined fighter, this actually detracts from safety because it triples the chance of an engine surge or failure so rather than making it more safe it actually makes it less safe.

    The Yak idea of an engine driven fan lift engine is clever because it means cold air is being blown down under the front of the aircraft instead of hot air with some of the oxygen removed like the twin lift jets on the 141.... it means if that air goes in the front air intakes the engine wont stall on the hot oxygen depleted air, and it means less heat damage to the underneath of the aircraft and the runway.

    Having a twin jet engine aircraft powering a lift fan with full 90 degrees TVC engine nozzles and with the front fan able to move say 30 degrees in any direction could eliminate the need for puffer jets at the wingtips and the tail and the nose of the aircraft... greatly simplifying the internal design, and making it less vulnerable to battle damage and breaks.

    Having a wider front fuselage is not a problem for a MiG-35 or Su-57 type aircraft shape... which means it could remain stealthy...

    The real problem that at the end of the day it is just more complication for an ability it might never actually need... simpler TVC with two engines and a large wing area means it should be able to get airborne fairly easily... new construction designs to make the structure lighter but stronger and new materials and new engines... they were talking about two 11 ton thrust engines in a plane that might have a dry weight of perhaps 10 tons... it really doesn't need a lift fan...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4157
    Points : 4153
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:30 pm

    ..the Russian model will likely have S-500 and S-400 and S-350 missiles..
    other ships like DDGs & CG/Ns can & do carry them; sending UAVs from them or UDKs/LHA/Ds to investigate aerial threats would be enough for self-defence- no need "to use an arrow to kill a fly".
    They can also constantly communicate with a submarine 100+ miles away which can launch a UAV after an unknown aircraft is detected.
    CVNs r not that indispensable to the VMF: https://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2020-07-30/6_1102_flag.html?print=Y  
    They should be able to handle Il-78s, but those other aircraft require concrete runways 3km to 5km long when operating at max weight.
    Antarctic ice strips r no less strong:
    https://eco-business.imgix.net/uploads/ebmedia/fileuploads/90.png?auto=format&dpr=2&fit=max&ixlib=django-1.2.0&q=45&w=680

    https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/story/2019-11-26/ucsd-scripps-scientist-breakthrough-antarctic-oldest-ice

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/393924298628838134/

    Even when partially loaded, they r not lighter than big bombers.
    They would also be very little use to a group of ships under attack.
    their very presence may deter it; with long range AShMs, enemy ships can be kept at bay & attacked if need be.
    A couple dozen MiG-31s+UAVs & Su-34/35s with a few Tu-22M3/95/142/160s, IL-78s, IL-76s/An-124s for logistics & A-50/100s AWACS deployed to S. Africa/Antarctica/Argentina can control ~1/2 of the Southern Ocean 24/7 for the duration of their naval group deployment there. China also has stations there; she can help with her H-6Ks, AWACS, UAVs & IL-76/Y-20s. Let the Brits freak out!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 03, 2020 10:15 pm; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 35 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 05, 2020 9:57 am