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

    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:38 pm

    Exocet? they could not even stop Skyhawks with dumb bombs!!! And the Argies only had 6 exocets.

    They had different variants of Exocet, and they had more than 6.

    An exocet missile is a smaller target than an Skyhawk and they both move at the same speed so the Exocet is the harder target for air defences.

    But as you say they failed in a lot of ways... but after the war it is OK they said because the Soviets don't have any sea skimming missiles.... hahahahahaha...

    Russia can rain ASMs on a carrier group.

    They can, but so what?

    They can rain ballistic missiles on Europe should Europe stop wasting its time with big huge airfields and SAMs too because they are just sitting ducks and they are expensive too...

    The US carrier group is only powerful against very weak foes.

    A US surface ship group without aircraft carriers is vulnerable to much weaker threats than Russia... aircraft carriers don't make the USN weaker... right now they just don't make them strong enough...

    Those are becoming increasingly rare as missile tech and drones keep improving. waterborne drones will also be a HUGE threat to carriers in the not too distant future.I think carriers yes, but smaller ones.

    Smaller carriers will be less useful and less capable than bigger carriers... so they will increases costs but wont increase protection...

    Look at the Falklands war... if it had happened in the mid 70s and the Brits still had the HMS Eagle and upgraded it to operate Phantom fighters and Buccaneer strike aircraft and proper ship based AEW aircraft the Argentines would have had no chance and the Brits probably would not have lost any ships.

    By having slow weak short ranged fighters they had to keep their carrier back and safe from attack which rendered it even more of a token than it would otherwise have been...

    Any attack on a Russian ship implies the same penalties as attacking a US carrier. If a Russian ship was attacked by US planes, there would be a) either some very tense talk of b) Russia would attack a US base or ship.

    But you are missing the point... having an aircraft carrier nearby will stop any "accidental" attack... it was a radio call from a nearby aircraft carrier in the Middle East to say F-14 Tomcats were inbound that stopped the Israelis hammering the USS Liberty and trying to sink her...

    It's not bull at all go do research, you are crossing how a carrier is designed verse how someone uses it.

    So if the Russians wanted US type carriers, please tell me which aircraft were the strike planes? They had Su-33s and Su-25s on board but all the Su-25s were unarmed and were only two seaters with no weapon pylons and were used for training to land on the carrier. The Su-33 had no air to ground weapons capability except for dumb bombs and unguided rockets.

    If they wanted a strike carrier then the MiG-33 would have been a much better choice... being fully multirole... but they rejected it.

    Etc a gun is built the same way but it can be used in different applications

    Of course, but it will be best suited to the applications it was designed for... a 9mm Makarov pistol can be used as a squad support weapon... but not very effectively.

    A Corvette with a Helicopter pad could carry a Ka-52K helicopter and be used as an aircraft carrier.... but not very effectively either.

    Which I find funny because US carriers are designed to protect air power and provide air cover to a battleground, not to overthrow a government.

    How does an aircraft carrier protect air power? What air power does it protect... the only air power in the area of a carrier is embarked on that carrier... but if the carrier protects itself then why the AEGIS class cruisers?

    The aircraft carrier has fighters for CAP and also strike aircraft for deep strike missions into enemy airspace... the fighters protect the ships but are also there to protect the strike aircraft. The AEGIS class cruisers are there to protect the carriers and the other ships.

    You really need to chill on your Anti-US rants for when its actually makes sense to do em

    Oh please... if anything I am too nice to America...

    Russian wants US-style carriers, they have said so. So you are lying end of story.

    Yeah... America is the pinnacle so any country that wants better has to copy America... except if they did want US style aircraft carriers they would be talking about 100K ton ships with strike aircraft and more fighters to protect them... instead they are talking about 70-90K ton carriers...

    I don't think the VMF would want CVNs optimized only "for land attack or for naval strike and fleet air defence"- they'll prefer them "modular"- i.e. flexible platforms capable of all of the above, regardless of their size. It all will depend on the composition of AWs & ordinance carried.

    The VMF are navy, they want any attack or strike to be navy ship based... not aircraft based.... by the time these CVNs hit the water they will likely have drones that could perform strike missions and then return to refuel and rearm... Sending manned planes into enemy airspace means SEAD missions and fighter top cover... in other words for every single bomber you send you have to add inflight refuelling planes and fighters and jammers and enemy air defence suppression aircraft... pretty soon you have dozens of aircraft in the air and the cost even if you don't lose any will be a large fraction of the cost of a cruise missile which will be much stealthier or faster and therefore much more likely to get to the target and destroy it.

    Russia has such ships too-

    Large flat topped ships that aircraft can land on are no substitute for an aircraft carrier... you need to carry troops and fuel and ammo for the helicopters... and just normal civilian ships are horribly vulnerable to military action.

    In the Falklands war several civilian support ships were sunk because a group of ships was attacked... the military ships popped smoke and decoys and jammers, but the civilian ships were sitting ducks... the military ships decoyed the missiles away from them but the civilian ships had no decoys or EW kit and they were hit. But then military ships were also hit too...

    What I am trying to say is that trying to do it on the cheap leaves you with poor capabilities and a fragile ship that is easily sunk... in comparison something like Kuznetsov has 192 naval TOR missiles ready to fire, and about 8 Kashtan gun/missile systems and AK-630 gun turrets... not as individual systems but as a network all working together to protect the ship using the main search radars to detect threats and also the information from any Ka-31 helicopters that might be airborne too. It also has chaff and flare launchers and jammers and smoke rounds and EW systems too... and also fighter aircraft...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1949
    Points : 1949
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Aug 23, 2020 1:46 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't think the VMF would want CVNs optimized only "for land attack or for naval strike and fleet air defence"- they'll prefer them "modular"- i.e. flexible platforms capable of all of the above, regardless of their size. It all will depend on the composition of AWs ordinance carried.

    The carrier for sea control can of course carry planes and weapons for land attack, but it is not designed to confront land based forces nor to deliver the amounts of payload a USN supercarrier does. They have created them as a super-expensive and super-specialised tool for political gain but they have lost sight of many very important issues and have completely lost control of costs too. A better tool for naval warfare can be created at a fraction of the cost.

    GarryB wrote:The VMF are navy, they want any attack or strike to be navy ship based... not aircraft based.... by the time these CVNs hit the water they will likely have drones that could perform strike missions and then return to refuel and rearm... Sending manned planes into enemy airspace means SEAD missions and fighter top cover... in other words for every single bomber you send you have to add inflight refuelling planes and fighters and jammers and enemy air defence suppression aircraft... pretty soon you have dozens of aircraft in the air and the cost even if you don't lose any will be a large fraction of the cost of a cruise missile which will be much stealthier or faster and therefore much more likely to get to the target and destroy it.

    Land attack by the navy has little future altogether, it doesn't matter if you use aircraft or missiles, at least against any country which is not badly underdeveloped. Any land based ASBM has more range and much more punch and speed than the sea launched equivalent. And even San Marino has enough space for hundreds of them...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4457
    Points : 4453
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:25 pm

    How does an aircraft carrier protect air power?
    I think he means "power projection".

    except if they did want US style aircraft carriers they would be talking about 100K ton ships with strike aircraft and more fighters to protect them... instead they are talking about 70-90K ton carriers...
    A style isn't a direct copy of anything. The French CVN, although much smaller, but still is a US style flattop with catapults & angled deck. China will also have smaller flattops with catapults & angled deck. 

    Large flat topped ships that aircraft can land on are no substitute for an aircraft carrier... you need to carry troops and fuel and ammo for the helicopters...
    Large bulk carriers/tankers can be modified to carry to carry troops and fuel and ammo below the flight deck. They can free space on smaller UDK/TAKR/CV/Ns; together they can act as a CB/SG.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 24, 2020 5:30 am

    Land attack by the navy has little future altogether, it doesn't matter if you use aircraft or missiles, at least against any country which is not badly underdeveloped. Any land based ASBM has more range and much more punch and speed than the sea launched equivalent. And even San Marino has enough space for hundreds of them...

    If anti ship ballistic missiles which I think you are alluding to with ASBM... which would be anti sub ballistic missile in Navy speak... AShBM would be best defeated with early warning and very large ships able to carry S-500 level air defence systems and missiles... so effectively the countries best able to defeat countries with such weapons would be the navies with real Carriers and not small half arse helicopter carriers with a few F-35s on board.

    I think he means "power projection".

    And that is the difference.... the US uses carriers for power projection, while the Russians use surface ships for power projection... with the US the aircraft are the power and deliver the bombs and shoot down the enemies planes while all their ships protect the carrier and the landing ships, whereas the Russian ships will be projecting the power and the carrier is there to protect the ships from enemy action and counter attack.

    A style isn't a direct copy of anything. The French CVN, although much smaller, but still is a US style flattop with catapults & angled deck. China will also have smaller flattops with catapults & angled deck.

    If you are going to call it a style then it would have to be British Style because most of the things used in modern carriers they invented and developed including the angled deck and the mirror based landing system and the catapults...

    Large bulk carriers/tankers can be modified to carry to carry troops and fuel and ammo below the flight deck. They can free space on smaller UDK/TAKR/CV/Ns; together they can act as a CB/SG.

    They could but they will be the first ships to be lost... the British had most of their heavy helicopters for landing and moving cargo (as opposed to naval helicopters designed for SAR and anti sub duties) on a transport ship called the Atlantic Conveyer... and when it was sunk it was a huge blow to the operation because it meant there were never enough helicopters so everything took longer and was much harder to achieve... as I said if they had a real aircraft carrier like the Eagle and swapped the 14 Buccaneers for say 6 Buccs and 8 Phantoms they would have wiped the floor with the Argentinians... the extra speed and range of the fighters and the ability to launch BVR missiles at extended ranges even with a low PK meant the Argentinian pilots would not have even gotten close to the ships with bomb loads or anti ship missile loads.... they would have dumped their weapons to evade the Sparrows... or in this case the Sky Flash missiles... whether they hit them or not it would be a mission kill. The AEW aircraft would offer much better warning and the carrier could come in close with the other ships and offer much better protection from low flying fast targets.

    The Skyhawks with bombs were a danger for ships operating near the islands themselves they would come in low and fast from the land side hiding amongst the radar returns from the land so the ships radar would not spot them.

    It is interesting that one of the things they found was that even rifle calibre machine gun fire could upset the accuracy of the enemy pilots... it was not long after that war that Soviet ships were seen to have 12.7mm HMGs mounted all over them on the sides near the bridges and other places too... they were clearly paying attention and I am sure they got a huge laugh out of the British Navy saying sea skimming missiles were a problem they couldn't deal with but it was OK because the Soviets didn't have any.... note the 3M80 Sunburn entered operational service in 1980 and was being deployed on ships by about the end of the Falklands war...

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4457
    Points : 4453
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Aug 24, 2020 6:22 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I think he means "power projection".

    And that is the difference.... the US uses carriers for power projection, while the Russians use surface ships for power projection...- they'll use subs for that as well- with all remaining Oscar SSGNs now being converted to carry up to 72 LACMs.

    If you are going to call it a style then it would have to be British Style because most of the things used in modern carriers they invented and developed including the angled deck and the mirror based landing system and the catapults...- The Nimitz/Ford CVNs r the styles of their own, due to their layout & size.

    They could but they will be the first ships to be lost... the British had most of their heavy helicopters for landing and moving cargo (as opposed to naval helicopters designed for SAR and anti sub duties) on a transport ship called the Atlantic Conveyer... and when it was sunk it was a huge blow to the operation because it meant there were never enough helicopters so everything took longer and was much harder to achieve... - They were trying to retake the Falklands, while the VMF will supposedly try to prevent friendly islands/coasts blockaded or falling into enemy hands.
    NP Sevmorput could be used as a floating helo/UAV base & supply ship, stay close to UDK/TAKR & escorted by FF/DDGs & subs. Besides, it could carry many missile containers: 
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput
    One of the main features of the vessel was its adaptability to the use of new means of off-road unloading: two KA-32 helicopters with a carrying capacity of 5 tons each on an external sling and two air cushion platforms with a lifting capacity of 40 tons. Their use made it possible to exclude heavy manual work on transshipment of cargo to coastal vehicles, and unloading by helicopters could be carried out regardless of ice conditions, sea waves, bottom and coast relief. The aircraft complex of the vessel included a take-off and landing and three cargo platforms, a hangar with a device for transporting helicopters, a command post, radio technical flight support, a helicopter refueling system, an aviation fuel storage system, a system for recharging helicopters with compressed gases, washing them with water and heating them with hot air.  http://mycity.kherson.ua/organiz/sudozavod/lihterovozy2.html

    https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/russias-project-23900-lhd-to-be-able-to-operate-in-the-arctic/


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Aug 30, 2020 2:57 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1949
    Points : 1949
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 24, 2020 2:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:AShBM would be best defeated with early warning and very large ships able to carry S-500 level air defence systems and missiles... so effectively the countries best able to defeat countries with such weapons would be the navies with real Carriers and not small half arse helicopter carriers with a few F-35s on board.

    Against such weapons the AEGIS vessels are perfectly equipped, since high flying missiles can be detected by surface level radars and DDGs and CGs are big enough to carry substantial amounts of interceptors. What is clear is that they will never have the magazine depth to match the land-based assets of a big power. Maybe DEW help in the future, and there nuclear carriers or cruisers should be the best equipped both in terms of power generation and size. But I agree that LHDs disguised as carriers have no advantage in this regard, rather the opposite


    And that is the difference.... the US uses carriers for power projection, while the Russians use surface ships for power projection... with the US the aircraft are the power and deliver the bombs and shoot down the enemies planes while all their ships protect the carrier and the landing ships, whereas the Russian ships will be projecting the power and the carrier is there to protect the ships from enemy action and counter attack.

    By projecting power do you mean attacking land targets? If yes, I have to disagree again, this should not be the main goal of the VMF at all. CMs are ideal to avoid risks for aircraft and their crews, but they are of course incomparably more expensive than dumb bombs launched in a strike sortie and can hardly create the volume of fire needed for real effect on the capabilities of any serious military. The amount of surface combatants needed to create a salvo size of subsonic CM able to overwhelm a decent air defence is extremely high, as we saw in Syria... it simply does not pay off.
    GarryB
    GarryB

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

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 25, 2020 6:11 am

    If you are going to have two and probably four helicopter landing ships in your navy, don't you think there will be situations where you will be attacking land based enemies with your navy.

    The bulk of any land attack capacity will come from ships and subs, but why ignore potential capacity from aircraft.... especially if they are Su-57 based and therefore also fully multirole?

    Their role might be limited to approaching the enemy coast at altitude and launching anti radiation missiles at major SAM sites and radar bases to blind the enemy to the incoming low flying cruise missiles. Of it could be a coastal launch of very long range AAMs being fired towards the main enemy airfields as your cruise missiles approach...

    Against a particularly weak enemy sending a few Su -57s with glide bombs launched from high altitude to attack critical targets might be considered the best solution.

    I don't think they will navalise the Su-32 and carpet bomb the crap out of their equivalent of the viet cong.

    Surgical strikes against specific targets are generally best done with cruise missiles... most flexible strikes against other targets make sense to be sophisticated bomber with dumb unguided bombs... or gun artillery if their 152mm naval guns will be reaching 170km.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1949
    Points : 1949
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 25, 2020 12:09 pm

    The question is what kind of conflict you end up in: maybe an US proxy meddling with your allies needs to be remembered their place, maybe there is some geographically limited operation like restoring security in sea choke points where naval intervention makes sense. In general, the navy should not engage strong land based forces or wage a sustained land war effort, it is not intended to do so and trying to develop it that way leads you to where USN is now, wasting billions and walking into obsolescence.

    That been said, for strike missions I guess UCAV will largely replace both CMs and manned aircraft, since they have some of the best characteristics of both. Some may be capable of being launched from ships other than flattops, but the vast majority and the most capable ones will still be the ones on board of carriers.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 36 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:43 pm