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


    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Isos on Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:46 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    No navy = 3rd world country.
    Albania, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Paraguay, Bolivia, NK, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan & S. Africa all have navies & 2 have nukes but they r still 3rd world countries.

    South american countries, african countries and Asian countries are all facing the same problem right now : chinese fishing flotillas that take all the fish from their waters.

    Most of them would be good with 4 Grigirovitch, 4 karakurt, 4 p-750 sub and 4 il-114MPA and 12-24 su-30 but they buy european or US made multi billion patrol boats that they can't use because they cost even more to maintain in service.

    Armed forces are not made only for 3rd world war or fighting NATO carrier groups.

    No navy = free entry in the  3rd world countries club = getting stolen by powerfull countries.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2212
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:11 am

    Isos wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    No navy = 3rd world country.
    Albania, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Paraguay, Bolivia, NK, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan & S. Africa all have navies & 2 have nukes but they r still 3rd world countries.

    South american countries, african countries and Asian countries are all facing the same problem right now : chinese fishing flotillas that take all the fish from their waters.

    Most of them would be good with 4 Grigirovitch, 4 karakurt, 4 p-750 sub and 4 il-114MPA and 12-24 su-30 but they buy european or US made multi billion patrol boats that they can't use because they cost even more to maintain in service.

    Armed forces are not made only for 3rd world war or fighting NATO carrier groups.

    No navy = free entry in the  3rd world countries club = getting stolen by powerfull countries.

    Lets not forget the arctic sea route the Russians want to open up, they will need a good navy to defend and enforce their control over it.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4883
    Points : 4879
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:22 am

    they have navies but there are weak and super small capable of nothing. Those "Navies" couldn't even protect the shorelines.
    True, but Sweden, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Mexico & Poland also have weak navies but they r backed up by other branches & forces- there r many other factors besides naval strength to be considered when judging defence capabilities of any nation.
    No navy = free entry in the  3rd world countries club = getting stolen by powerful countries.
    not always. With their coastal navies, do Malaysia, Indonesia, & NZ belong that category?

    Lets not forget the arctic sea route the Russians want to open up, they will need a good navy to defend and enforce their control over it.
    they manage it already w/o CVNs.
    There was an incident in Nome, Alaska after a USN SSN (it was returning from the Arctic mission) showed up & was mistaken for a Soviet sub- the mayor & the chief of police went to the pier to discuss the terms of surrender:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/science/18arctic.html
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2212
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Aug 06, 2020 2:37 am

    We are talking about naval assists, not other factors, that is completely irrelevant.

    You need a navy to protect shipping lanes, enforce national security means beyond your shores, there are to many reasons to list why a powerful navy is a necessity for any Superpower.

    They manage it right now because it's not open for useable all year around the second that happens they will need a sufficient naval capacity to ward off any attempts to encroach upon it
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4883
    Points : 4879
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:22 am

    True, & for the price of 1 CVN that is useless & unsafe to use even in the ice free high Arctic they can build & maintain dozens of ships & planes.
    Otherwise, the USN would have conducted a NW Passage transit of a CBG a long time ago.
    Later, artificial islands could also be built there if need be for extra bases.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:46 am

    We have IMO a good example of the limitations of land (or surface for that matter) based AD vs air power in Syria, where the Israeli can allow themselves to play cat and mouse with the Syrian AD with practical impunity.

    I don't agree... I think the example with Israel and Syria is useless for Russia because Syria cannot possibly expect to get away with escalations because it is the weaker power. If Israel started targeting Russian ships and Russian bases in Syria the Russians have a lot more options to respond and make it stop.

    If you want to compare Israeli air power and IADS in Syria you would have to admit that teh introduction of an IADS in Syria has transformed the way Israel can interfere... no more flying over Syrian airspace with impunity attacking targets at will... now we have stand off attacks from bordering countries that most of the time are ineffectual... which is an amazing transformation considering the situation and balance of power between these two has not really actually changed much... the IADS simply means the air defence in Syria is much better organised and managed and if a strike capability was added they could actually ensure their own safety from attack.

    For a fast fighter it is trivial to stay at the fringes of the SAMs engagement range and retreat at the slightest sign of detection or missile launch.

    Agreed, but it also limits the effectiveness of the attacks from that aircraft too.

    In other terms, without it the land based systems remain only in the receiving end and deprived of initiative, and therefore destined to lose.

    And it is the same at sea... a good defence will keep you safe as long as you have missiles... when they run out you have problems.

    Well it is supposed it will come back in 2022... we can discuss whether we believe that but they insist to this date that will be the case

    Why I am trying to say is that we can't be sure when they will have cruisers and a carrier ready for global use.... but the first thing they will want to do is take them for a test drive and try them out...

    No navy = 3rd world country. It's not with nuclear weapons that you defend your borders..

    If you can't defend your resources and protect your interests then you will be at the bottom of the food chain and everyone will steal from you...

    No offense but that must be one of the stupidest argument on that forum.

    What I was trying to say is that they could have a global reach without aircraft carriers to protect subs and surface ships away from Russian land based aircraft... but it is going to be a very fragile and weak reach that really is much less effective... right now they are operating without any aircraft carrier operational and things are OK now.... but over time their interests will expand and they will want more of a presence at sea around the world.

    An aircraft carrier is like an AWACS aircraft for a group of fighters... it is big and vulnerable and expensive... but having the potential to dramatically increase the effectiveness of the forces it operates with... the Americans call it a force multiplier and that is what it is...

    By making the ships and subs you send on missions safer and more effective you are getting your moneys worth.

    it could surely reach US mil. bases in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Japan, UK, Germany, Turkey, Philippines & Guam, even if only flying 1 way.

    Pointless. Useless.

    They are supposed to be strategic bombers but none of those places represent a strategic target... only superficial damage could be done hitting any or all of those targets...

    if the US SSBNs can be part of the so-called Global Strike with conventional warheads, so can be the Russian SSBNs. Also, if they happen to be the only unit in the area to engage surface ships, some extra AShMs they better carry could be launched from their torpedo tubes.

    Even if that is true and that for some reason a Russian SLBM missile launch is not taken as a nuclear attack resulting in a full nuclear response it is still only reaction... for it to be prevention the enemy needs to know you are there and have conventionally armed weapons and be prepared to use them...

    Their value otherwise is zero.

    that will signal an impending nuclear strike on the RF which would can then vapourise the Pentagon &/ SSBN bases on both US coasts, starting ur often mentioned WWIII.

    Which makes subs even less useful for anything except WWIII.

    Even NATO & USN have no 100% world wide naval presence- it's sporadic at best, esp. lately. How many surface ships they have in the Arctic Ocean, Okhotsk, Barentz, & Yellow Seas? What business does the VMF have patrolling the Mid./S. Atlantic/Pacific & Indian Ocean 24/7/365? The N/AF MiG-31/Su-34s & IL-38s can deploy to Philippines, Vietnam, Sudan, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, & S. Africa to mark their naval presence faster & as for long as a CBG.

    I think you are confusing the idea of being able to go any where you like when you want to, with being every where at once and dominating everything... the former = Russia and rational people.... the latter is the US and the west...

    he isn't saying they should all stay in RF waters- that would defeat their purpose!

    Outside of Russian protected waters they become rather vulnerable...

    yes, but w/o any success. Russia can prevent that there better, faster & with less bloodshed than in far away Africa & L. America. If OTH Russia or China tried to pull it off in Mexico or Columbia, the US would quash it by any means possible- they did it in Grenada, Haiti & Panama.

    Most of the border countries Russia could trade through via land trade routes are hostile to Russia or going that way... Finland, the Baltic States and Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia... for Russia it makes rather more sense to bypass such enemies and trade via sea routes... bypassing the middleman means they can sell what they like without the risk of neighbours getting their grubby hands on it.

    Ks of Russian tourists go there anyway, & trade helps to earn a living to both sides. More trade & exchanges, better relations. Many Georgians got disillusioned with NATO & will demand their gov. stop being hostile to Russia. Trade/investment with Turkey won't save them.

    Russia should trade with any country willing to trade on open and fair terms... most of her neighbours don't currently qualify in that regard.

    China & Japan had no ocean going junks & cut themselves from the outside World for a few 100 years & still survived on local trade- Russia can do the same until she fully modernizes & cleans her own house 1st before overextending herself.

    Expanding trade beyond her land borders will help fund her growth and expansion... and by expansion I don't mean invading or taking new territory... I mean development.

    Africa & L. America has enough local oil to make gas- no need to use SLOCs or pipelines from Russia.

    Russia could sell them the technology to process their energy sources and use it more efficiently for themselves. There is lots of stuff Russia can do that for them the only other source is the west... but the west makes demands...

    recall that all non-Russian aircraft avoided anywhere close to the VMF group off Syria- an announcement made regarding a no-fly zone above a SAG comprising of UDK, FFG/DDGs & CG/Ns armed with UAVs & S-400/500s will be sufficient.

    And which civilian aircraft flying through the region listen to military comms to hear the warning or have ground mapping radar so they know where the UDK is operating right now....

    Why spend $Bs on CVNs to save civilian lives after what happened with those Korean, Iranian & Malaysian planes, if the West could care less about them to push its agenda?

    It is not about saving civilian lives it is about getting a better awareness of what is in the air around you and being able to rapidly go out and investigate things when you need to.

    Marines/armed security with manpads will take care of them.

    So in international waters a US navy ship approaches a Russian flagged cargo vessel and sends a helicopter to land some marines on board... and Russian Naval infantry on board the container ship shoot the helicopter down? How do you think that is going to work out... those naval infantry are now sitting on an unarmed ship with a very pissed off US ship nearby that is armed...

    Even Turkey didn't dare to stop & board them transiting the Bosporus- it's called "Syrian Express" for a reason.

    We know the US has already imposed a blockade of Cuba once before and turned ships away.

    they won't make them much safer anymore than the IJN carriers did to Japanese cruisers, destroyers & trade during WWII.

    If Jap carriers had Onyx and Zircon missiles it could have gone where it pleased.

    The Soviet VMF couldn't lift the US naval blockade of Cuba

    It didn't try.

    Zircons can be put on them as well- holding an entire CSG at risk from outside the range of its AW.

    A corvette would not be able to operate for very long periods in the open ocean.

    it can disable/destroy a ship that sent a boarding party before sending her own boarding party to retake the seized ship & take them prisoner.

    You want to murder hundreds of US sailors because you are too tight to pay for a real navy... of course submarines are much more expensive per ship than surface ships so you wont even be saving any money anyway.

    not if it's well protected by a sub or FF/DDG!

    A container ship launches a Kalibre missile it becomes fair game and would have little to no self defence capacity at all...

    if u followed the news, she has done it already with Tu-95/160s.

    Only symbolically... nothing tangible.

    if need be, they can trade with India & China which together will have a dozen big & small carriers to do that- those goods could then be taken to Russia; paying a commission will still save them $Bs.

    They already trade with those two countries.... are you suggesting they don't bother looking to expand their trade links world wide?

    like they reached Syria from the Caspian? Their AshM Kalibrs can reach the Arabian Sea the same way, & N. Sea from the Baltic.

    You keep talking about reaching other countries in terms of bombing them... WTF is wrong with you?

    They have AN-22/124s & will get IL-476/96Ms with enough range to reach all continents, even if they need refuelings in friendly locations/airspaces.

    Trade by air is tiny in comparison with trade by sea... and trade by air is expensive.

    what products- do they produce more & better consumer goods than Asians? Blockading Eurasian trade will unite EU with US, China & Japan even more. With such sanctions, all will lose. Closing air routes across Russia & the NSR may bankrupt some airlines/shipping companies but will deny revenues needed to modernize her airports & other infrastructure.

    You are right... they should just create a points system based on media coverage and sanctions... so the countries with the most negative view of Russia and the most imposed sanctions get the most points... and that will be the basis for tariffs...

    so will UDKs.

    Landing craft will be landing troops and deploying equipment... they wont have space on board for sub hunters or time to hunt subs.

    should they be desperately needed, a large barge/tanker with a flight deck &/ 2 temporarily joined UDK hulls could be towed by a NP icebreaker instead, saving them $Bs.

    Yeah, and all land based airfields should be closed to save even more billions and if they need to get airborne they can just close a nearby motorway right?

    Russia does not need that!

    They can make a lot of money and develop good trade partnerships with countries that don't act like censored .

    They control Eurasia and can do all the trade they need on land-based routes. And given they have all the resources they need, nobody can asphyxiate them with a naval blockade.

    That is just feeding the economies of their neighbours... many of which are hostile rivals...

    Feeding the tiger will eventually kill you.

    Albania, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Paraguay, Bolivia, NK, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Iran, Pakistan & S. Africa all have navies & 2 have nukes but they r still 3rd world countries.

    Take away a first or second world countrys navy and they become third world too...

    True, & for the price of 1 CVN that is useless & unsafe to use even in the ice free high Arctic they can build & maintain dozens of ships & planes.

    With less and less ice each year there is less and less need for icebreakers but they are still making them in large numbers anyway.

    Why would you think an aircraft carrier they made would be unsafe or useless... do you think they are going to make a Ford class?

    Otherwise, the USN would have conducted a NW Passage transit of a CBG a long time ago.

    Most US ships are not ice rated.

    Later, artificial islands could also be built there if need be for extra bases.

    The NW passage goes literally through Canada... no artificial islands would be needed.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2283
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:53 pm

    GarryB wrote:I don't agree... I think the example with Israel and Syria is useless for Russia because Syria cannot possibly expect to get away with escalations because it is the weaker power.

    I don't want to focus on the political circumstances in Syria, but rather look at the purely military lessons that can be extracted from a low intensity combat between a few attack planes and reduced numbers of AD assets. I think it is fairly clear to see that air power, due to intrinsic advantages in tridimensional mobility / field of regard and range of sensors / kinematics of weapons has every chance to set up attack vectors against comparably static air defences that can surprise / overwhelm them or exploit any other weaknesses while remaining relatively safe. Of course there are dozens of ways of altering this balance and I think the performance of the few AD resources available to Syria is more than acceptable but still for Israel this is a low risk game they can continue to play for as long as they wish, while Syria periodically suffers material and human loses.

    And it is the same at sea... a good defence will keep you safe as long as you have missiles... when they run out you have problems.

    Air power can much faster react to a tactical situation due to having a level of mobility which is orders of magnitude apart from naval or land assets. They can redeploy faster and saturate defences, even when sustaining loses, and still win, because they could faster and more effectively exploit the evolving situation. I don't see Russia cancelling the VKS even when they have the best SAMs in the world, and doubt VMF would like to be left without the Kuznetsov and abandon the naval aviation altogether. Hell, in fact they are saying day and night they will build carriers and still the discussion persists...

    That is just feeding the economies of their neighbours... many of which are hostile rivals...

    Feeding the tiger will eventually kill you.

    I am not advocating for Russia to abandon its navy, I am saying the weird kind of logic used against carriers in general applies to the whole navy as well, because force projection far from Russia is ultimately not necessary for bare survival. If you notice it, the arguments against carriers revolve not around anybody questioning the usefulness of air power at sea, but rather its cost being too much for Russia and them better settling for other ways of projecting force or not projecting it at all. But we have demonstrated the costs of such an undertaking being almost negligible percentages of the defence budget of Russia, so the frontal refusal of the carrier seems to have a "phobia" component to it...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4883
    Points : 4879
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:21 pm

    right now they are operating without any aircraft carrier operational and things are OK now.... but over time their interests will expand and they will want more of a presence at sea around the world.
    it's in the realm of the possible- not an ironclad guarantee it'll happen. Marco Polo reached China via Russia & Mongolia, but now China reached Italy via her BRI across C. Asia & Russia, which may never rise above China in terms of trade & influence.
    Pointless. Useless. They are supposed to be strategic bombers but none of those places represent a strategic target... only superficial damage could be done hitting any or all of those targets...
    w/o at least some of those bases the USAF B-29s wouldn't have been able to strike the USSR either.
    for it to be prevention the enemy needs to know you are there and have conventionally armed weapons and be prepared to use them...Their value otherwise is zero.
    not long ago, 2 USN SSGNs visited ports in the W. Pac & Indian Ocean as a show of force to NK & China; the VMF can do the same in Africa & L. America.
    Which makes subs even less useful for anything except WWIII.
    not if they r later converted to other uses, saving $Bs & becoming huge force multipliers. 4 Ohio SSGNs r worth 3 SSNs each in their firepower. Also, they need security forces only at bases, while ICBMs need them 24/7.
    I think you are confusing the idea of being able to go any where you like when you want to, with being every where at once and dominating everything...
    a CVN isn't a magic wand to give access to all areas- the VMF can already sail anywhere with its long range SA/AShMs & supported by strategic bombers.
    Outside of Russian protected waters they become rather vulnerable...
    even the USN CBGs were vulnerable to VMF SSN/GNs & Tu-22/95/142 swarms, despite their SSNs & F-14s. Naval ops r not w/o risk for any1.
    bypassing the middleman means they can sell what they like without the risk of neighbours getting their grubby hands on it.
    that's what insurance is for, & they need to have a large volume of trade & merchant fleet to justify following in the PLAN's wake.
    Russia should trade with any country willing to trade on open and fair terms... most of her neighbours don't currently qualify in that regard.
    trade continued with China, Japan & USA during the Cold War even when relations were at all time low.
    Russia could sell them the technology to process their energy sources and use it more efficiently for themselves.
    again, no need for CVNs to do that.
    And which civilian aircraft flying through the region listen to military comms to hear the warning or have ground mapping radar so they know where the UDK is operating right now....
    don't worry, the ships will switch to civ. frequencies to warn them; if ignored, they can become another KAL 007. Besides, their own airlines & NORAD/other mil. commands should/will warn them.
    those naval infantry are now sitting on an unarmed ship with a very pissed off US ship nearby that is armed...
    A container ship launches a Kalibre missile it becomes fair game and would have little to no self defence capacity at all...
    it will have other defensive armaments, & there'll be at least 1 sub &/ surface ship nearby; they can also form a convoy for better protection.[/quote]
    A corvette would not be able to operate for very long periods in the open ocean.
    true; FFGs r not that much more expensive to build.
    of course submarines are much more expensive per ship than surface ships so you wont even be saving any money anyway.
    but they r a lot harder to find, target & sink than surface ships.
    Only symbolically... nothing tangible.
    they used Cuban & Vietnamese bases for armed Tu-95/142 patrols along the US E. Coast & in the SC Sea; the bases that Tu-160s visited could be used for future real ops.
    They already trade with those two countries.... are you suggesting they don't bother looking to expand their trade links world wide?
    that expancion, while desirable, may not even materialize- a stronger navy comes after economic success, not before.
    You keep talking about reaching other countries in terms of bombing them... WTF is wrong with you?
    a missile boat in the Black/White/Caspian Sea can hit enemy ships in the Med./Barentz/Arabian sea. No need to send Tu-95/142/22s as before. The US bombed the Talibs with B-1B/52s & F-14/18s off CV/Ns, but Russia can bomb Islamists there & elsewhere in C. Asia from the Caspian & her land bases, w/o any CVNs in the Indian Ocean.
    Landing craft will be landing troops and deploying equipment... they wont have space on board for sub hunters or time to hunt subs.
    they can have a mix of LHDs & LHAs, if 1 UDK class isn't good enough.
    Yeah, and all land based airfields should be closed to save even more billions and if they need to get airborne they can just close a nearby motorway right?
    these can't be compared with absolute terms. Russia is primarily a continental power on 2 continents- she has less of a priority for the costly blue water ops involving CBGs.
    Take away a first or second world countries navy and they become third world too...
    Iceland, Finland & Costa Rica have only coast guards/small coastal navy- there r exceptions to any rule.
    With less and less ice each year there is less and less need for icebreakers but they are still making them in large numbers anyway.
    to replace the old & with the Leaders ensure year-round safe ops.
    Why would you think an aircraft carrier they made would be unsafe or useless... do you think they are going to make a Ford class?
    the Ford saga isn't over yet, & as I said many times before, using a CVN in the Arctic is a good way to waste $, damage equipment & aircraft, & decommission it early.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/08/05/ten-performance-gains-the-ford-class-carrier-will-deliver-that-a-nimitz-never-can/#557b73d61347
    Most US ships are not ice rated.
    they could have done it w/o surface escorts, just a few extra icebreakers; CVNs have strong hulls to last decades in rough seas while doing rapid transits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Manhattan_(1962)#1969_Northwest_Passage_transit
    The NW passage goes literally through Canada... no artificial islands would be needed.
    I mean along the NSR built by the Russians.
    More naval exercises in the Arctic: https://www.ng.ru/armies/2020-08-06/1_7931_fleet.html?print=Y


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:00 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1189
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:28 pm

    LMFS wrote:Maybe we can create a thread for general navy news and another for discussion about doctrine, force structure etc. I suggest it because for instance in this case the debate was originated by some doctrinal article and it kept flowing from some topics into others. This is normal and difficult to avoid, but it is also true that looking for news and having to go through dozens of pages of debate is not very useful


    I do not know what "doctrinal articles" has triggered this debate about the profitability of aircraft carriers in today and future naval warfare situations and that truly absurd about the utility of a Navy ....... but i heavily suspect that those articles was either amateurish or very outdated.

    I begin to say that the debate about utility of a Navy for the military structure and defense organization of any serious nation is truly irrational under almost any point of view, i would consider to explain the absolute necessity for a Navy a real waste of time.

    The utility of aircraft carriers and in particular very big displacement aircraft carrier is instead a topic much more interesting and widely debated around the world.

    In particular there is a general consensus among Navy planners of the nation by far more centered around aircraft carrier - USA- that in conflict against peer enemies in today environment aircraft carrier would become an enormous liability potentially conducting to defeat instead of an irreplaceable resource.

    The concept of the new US doctrine (following similar assessment conducted already at beginning of 2000 in domestic institutes) centered around a Navy's structure constructed around medium and small low observable naval units ,united in an unique command and control and data-sharing network with several levels of backup, armed with heavy long range weapons and efficient self-defense systems all capable to disperse and attack indipentely or in a concerted way has been named     DISTRIBUTED    LETHALITY

    Those ,as example of a wide literature, are a publication and an article on the subject, read them carefully :


    https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=nwc-review

    https://news.usni.org/2020/01/29/future-of-u-s-carrier-fleet-key-issue-as-new-force-structure-moves-through-pentagon


    I go even farther : in mine opinion the same US Navy will stop construction of the Ford class aircraft carrier to no more than 4 or 5 units ,after which a sharp turn on attritable and dispersable surface units will follow.
    The entire aircraft carrier concept was surpassed already 30 years ago and situation is furtherly and heavily worsened in the latest years.



    LMFS wrote:I don't want to focus on the political circumstances in Syria, but rather look at the purely military lessons that can be extracted from a low intensity combat between a few attack planes and reduced numbers of AD assets. I think it is fairly clear to see that air power, due to intrinsic advantages in tridimensional mobility / field of regard and range of sensors / kinematics of weapons has every chance to set up attack vectors against comparably static air defences that can surprise / overwhelm them or exploit any other weaknesses while remaining relatively safe.
     

    Actually an Air Force centered military force composition is immensely inefficient and vulnerable and that for the inherent fraility, enormous costs and very low offensive potential cost-inefficiency linked to airborne platforms and useful and profitable only when a truly immense disparity of forces exist between the two sides.

    Today IAF conduct attacks at huge losses under a pure economical point of view , that say the costs of the stand-off IAF's air attacks are several times greater than those of the operation of the defensive systems and of the very limited damages it achieve on the ground and without external asstance would be completely unsutainable in a prolonged conflict also against a so poorer enemy.

    To be more clear: Israel with its actual aircraft-centrict force composition against its exact copy (identical economical, scientifical and industrial potential) constructed around an equilibrated combined force structure with emphasis on ground superiority, strong air defense/EW and ground based stand-off attacks would not endure a single week before collapsing .

    dino00, kvs and Hole like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2283
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:26 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:The utility of aircraft carriers and in particular very big displacement aircraft carrier is instead a topic much more interesting and widely debated around the world.

    I can agree on many of the problems and vulnerabilities attributed to carriers nowadays, and yet no major power is renouncing to them, on the contrary, the carrier construction plans only raise, as also raises the number of countries that try, with more or less effectiveness, to increase the use of air power in their navies trough LHDs, some of them capable of carrying STOVL aircraft.

    In particular there is a general consensus among Navy planners of the nation by far more centered around aircraft carrier - USA- that in conflict against peer enemies in today environment aircraft carrier would become an enormous liability potentially conducting to defeat instead of an irreplaceable resource.

    That is normal, as are the conclusions reached by the USN in the articles you post, given the gigantic costs of such an unsustainable approach. They are discovering that, in absence of a huge technological gap, their carrier-centric navy is vulnerable. Will a destroyer or a frigate be less vulnerable? Clearly not. They are still in denial that their preferred way of going to war (aggressively imposing their will to other countries by parking their carriers on their shores) is coming to an end and look for alternative approaches to maintain their superiority, but it will not work. That does not mean that other approaches to the use of carriers and naval air power in general are not possible. You know I highly respect your opinion, but in this case VMF statements and strategic planing is clear. They are saying that they will keep the Kuznetsov, will create a new carrier fighter, new airborne radar aircraft and new carriers. So I guess still not all is said and done and carriers still have a role to play. SAM interceptors are going to improve, as will DEW and other defences based in new physical principles (you in fact hinted about some of them in the past). What will end is the situation where USN carriers can be used against the territories of other countries with impunity.

    The concept of the new US doctrine (following similar assessment conducted already at beginning of 2000 in domestic institutes) centered around a Navy's structure constructed around medium and small low observable naval units ,united in an unique command and control and data-sharing network with several levels of backup, armed with heavy long range weapons and efficient self-defense systems all capable to disperse and attack indipentely or in a concerted way has been named     DISTRIBUTED    LETHALITY

    I am familiar and in agreement with this concept. It does not render obsolete the use of air power in the naval domain. It may well influence it, in fact it is likely that unmanned air platforms become much more frequent even in smaller units of the fleet. Still the existence of higher-end ones will allow to counter them effectively, as it happens on land.

    I go even farther : in mine opinion the same US Navy will stop construction of the Ford class aircraft carrier to no more than 4 or 5 units ,after which a sharp turn on attritable and dispersable surface units will follow.
    The entire aircraft carrier concept was surpassed already 30 years ago and situation is furtherly and heavily worsened in the latest years.

    It may be, but these sources you link talk about a reduction from 11 to 8 carriers, which are still many more than what anybody else has, and still maybe twice as many as they would reasonably need if their military posture was only to protect their legitimate interests abroad. Command in the future needs to be distributed, smaller naval units need to have much more punch, this is something which USN is missing but not the VMF, and still your planers say carriers are needed. BTW neither GarryB nor me are talking about such absurd amounts of carriers, but 2-3 in addition to Kuznetsov, which according to the estimated costs provided by designers would amount to roughly a 2-3% of the yearly defence budget for ten years, even less if the construction would take longer.

    Actually an Air Force centered military force composition is immensely inefficient and vulnerable and that for the inherent fraility, enormous costs and very low offensive potential cost-inefficiency linked to airborne platforms and useful and profitable only when a truly immense disparity of forces exist between the two sides.

    There is a difference between not having an air force centered approach and not using air force at all, which is what would happen in the naval domain in the absence of carriers, whatever the size or design they may have. As exposed above, Russian military has the best and most developed AD network in this world and nobody in its right mind is talking about shutting down VKS.

    Let us see if we can land this simple point and get one authoritative opinion on the topic: what is your view on the use of air power in the naval warfare? Does it have relevance today or is it obsolete? Why does VMF insist on developing it? If air power is still relevant, what forms will it adopt and with what basing solutions, if in absence of what we know as aircraft carriers?

    Today IAF conduct attacks at huge losses under a pure economical point of view , that say the costs of the stand-off IAF's air attacks are several times greater than those of the operation of the defensive systems and of the very limited damages it achieve on the ground and without external asstance would be completely unsutainable in a prolonged conflict also against a so poorer enemy.

    Ok, but what losses are those? Missiles are better used than left to expire in the warehouse, US gives them $ billions every year for armament, they keep their armed forces fit through those operations against live AD and the political cost is zero because their pilots and planes return home after every mission and they can claim a new "victory" over their enemies. I can understand the PGMs and CMs they use are expensive but that does not seem to prevent attacks from happening with a certain regularity. I don't know what targets are stricken on the ground and at what value, of course people killed, AD crews eliminated and in general every impact on the ground has a economic, moral and political cost for Syria. The point I wanted to make is how in this particular constellation, and due to different mobility of some military assets vs. the others, Israel gains the initiative to attack at a time of their choice without risking essentially anything. I honestly don't expect you to deny that a proper airspace defence composition implies units of the air force doing patrol or interceptors ready to intervene, nor to deny that the IAF pilots would not feel so confident if they knew a wing of up-to date, properly armed, maintained and operated MiG-29 is permanently ready to welcome them as soon as they initiate their approaches through Lebanese airspace.

    To be more clear: Israel with its actual aircraft-centrict force composition against its exact copy (identical economical, scientifical and industrial potential) constructed around an equilibrated combined force structure with emphasis on ground superiority, strong air defense/EW and ground based stand-off attacks would not endure a single week before collapsing .

    I don't dispute that.

    In general I don't see a marked contradiction between the facts you are stating and what myself or other proponents of carriers for VMF are saying, I just keep noticing this pervasive tendency to associate the operational concept of the carrier to anything the USN does. This is IMO a misconception that should be finally dispelled.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2283
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:39 am

    Some excerpts from one of the links Mindstorm posted yesterday, illustrating the aberrational way the aircraft carrier was used by the USN after WWII:

    https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=nwc-review

    First, some background about the classical mission of the navy:

    Command of the sea, rightly understood, is simply the strength relationship between two contending navies. The one that is sufficiently stronger than the other enjoys freedom of action, including the ability to move its nation’s army by sea, disperse to protect its commerce, and come to the aid of allies.

    Then, the situation as it evolved after WWII with a complete naval dominance by US:

    Since 1945 the United States has (...) enjoyed virtually uncontested command of the sea.

    The U.S. Navy’s dominance has been so complete that some writers question whether the concept has relevance anymore.


    Leading to missions being fulfilled by the USN which are characteristic of hegemonic powers and outside the scope of average navies:

    a particular dimension of command of the sea is operative especially in times of dominance—the leading nation’s ability to use command of the sea to enforce the rules of the international order according to its interests. Throughout this period, this dimension included the ability to regulate commerce but also to project power ashore.

    Inhibiting factor of the USN over the development of other navies:

    A dominant capital-ship fleet either dispersed to support such operations or lurked in the background, dissuading by its existence any potential challenger from even trying to build a competitive fleet.

    US admission about what their CSG are about:

    In a 1954 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings article, Samuel Huntington summed up the Navy’s postwar situation: “Its purpose now is not to acquire command of the sea but rather to utilize its command of the sea to achieve supremacy on land. More specifically, it is to apply naval power to that decisive strip of littoral encircling the Eurasian continent.”

    The author then warns against the use of the fleet to attack land based forces:

    It is instructive to examine three tacit operational rules for capital-ship fleets that have remained valid since the seventeenth century:
    • Keep the fleet concentrated.
    • Do not become decisively engaged with land forces unless decisively superior
    (a more general rewording of Admiral Nelson’s “A ship’s a fool to fight a
    fort”).
    • Do not sacrifice the mobility of the fleet by tying it to a geographic feature


    The second rule reflects, as generally noted, the ability of land-based forces
    to generate a higher rate of fire—or aircraft sorties—per unit time than can ships;


    So in the USN we have a carrier-centric fleet, where smaller ships have neither the command nor the offensive power to act on their own (development of advanced AShM technology is being proposed), applied to the anti-natural purpose of fighting land-based forces and trying to stay current and dominant in a world where advanced "anti-capital ship technology", as the author puts it, has developed.

    In short, a completely illogical concept of operation that has been preserved by the phenomenal dominance US managed for itself in the international arena after WWII. One that has falsely been taken as the paradigm of the use of air power in the sea, when it is nothing but a historical distortion of it.

    The author also makes a couple of comments decoupling the use of carriers from having a carrier-centric navy:

    This article will not attempt to pass judgment on whether the aircraft carrier
    and its embarked tactical air wing are in fact headed for obsolescence, although
    there exists just such a debate in the current literature. To be clear, and as will
    be discussed later, the U.S. Navy might elect to keep some aircraft carriers in
    commission even if only in support roles
    . Also, care must be taken to distinguish
    between the “capital ship” as a particular physical object and “capital ship” as a
    warfare function
    . Later, for illustrative purposes, we will explore a world in which
    the capital-ship function has been made obsolete by new kinds of weapons and
    sensors, whether or not aircraft carriers remain in the inventory
    .


    My point, and I think others share it, is that VMF already has the kind of structure, means and doctrinal approach that avoids the USN shortcomings highlighted by the author. Nothing prevents it from using air power but from a balanced approach.

    dino00 likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 07, 2020 1:00 pm

    I don't want to focus on the political circumstances in Syria, but rather look at the purely military lessons that can be extracted from a low intensity combat between a few attack planes and reduced numbers of AD assets.

    I appreciate that, but you can't ignore that one is a nuclear power with the US at her beck and call that will raise the self defence card even when they are pummelling the hell out of a neighbour that might have done nothing wrong as such, I mean a normal response to being attacked from long range with standoff weapons would be to launch an attack against the airbases these aircraft are operating from... which is exactly what, say, India might do against attacks from Pakistan or China, but which Syria cannot do because we are talking about Israel... who gets a free pass to attack anyone they please, or indeed the EU and US who are punishing Syria for a chem attack nobody believes took place in the first place and even if it did it was terrorists those EU and US countries are supporting that did it in the first place.

    I think it is fairly clear to see that air power, due to intrinsic advantages in tridimensional mobility / field of regard and range of sensors / kinematics of weapons has every chance to set up attack vectors against comparably static air defences that can surprise / overwhelm them or exploit any other weaknesses while remaining relatively safe.

    Is that a feature of air power in general or the fact that the air power is owned and directed by Israel, the EU, or the US?

    If the standoff attacks were coming from Jordan or Lebenon would Syria be unable to respond by attacking airfields or aircraft in their airspace?

    Of course there are dozens of ways of altering this balance and I think the performance of the few AD resources available to Syria is more than acceptable but still for Israel this is a low risk game they can continue to play for as long as they wish, while Syria periodically suffers material and human loses.

    I appreciate your points because no tiny country should ever think if they buy one or two batteries of Pantsir vehicles and then split them up to cover a dozen different sites with a single vehicle each that they could possibly withstand an attack by Israel or the EU or the US or for that matter Russia or China.

    I do object to the idea that you might be suggesting that air defence vehicles might be over all a waste of money because they are holding back some of the worlds most powerful countries and are not smashing them to bits... there is no magic bullet... no single system to make you safe... Russia supplying the Serbs with an S-300 battery while they were being brutally attacked by the full force of HATO would not have helped them in the slightest... it probably would have led to a concerted effort to level Serbia for every aircraft they lost... a single battery cannot defend from an entire alliance of colonial war mongers for long.

    What you can say, which actually holds for most Russian equipment actually, if it is used as designed by people who are properly trained and know what they are doing (the serbs showed excellent skills with the old outdated stuff they had and honestly made HATO look silly) it can do what it is designed to do... Pantsir is not supposed to wipe out the enemy airforce in a single stroke, and nor is a single S-300 or S-400 battery either.

    Together however and also including all the hidden and not often talked about vehicles and bits of equipment that link it all together as an IADS, it can be a very formidable defence system and with each component you add like an AA gun or radar or optical sensor or missile battery it become much more and more powerful.

    Air power can much faster react to a tactical situation due to having a level of mobility which is orders of magnitude apart from naval or land assets.

    Air power on its own in Kosovo led to a stalemate... air power can be very potent and effective on its own but also fragile too.

    Used together with ground or surface forces however it becomes vastly more useful...

    It wasn't the German army that created blitzkrieg... their tanks were well designed but didn't have the best armour and they had pretty ordinary guns to start with... it was their mobility and speed and the direct support of air power that created shock in their enemies.

    Air power today means even more because it detects threats and attacks early so you could actually detect an attack coming and flank it and crush an attack before it is properly formed and turn it into a rout...

    They can redeploy faster and saturate defences, even when sustaining loses, and still win, because they could faster and more effectively exploit the evolving situation. I don't see Russia cancelling the VKS even when they have the best SAMs in the world, and doubt VMF would like to be left without the Kuznetsov and abandon the naval aviation altogether. Hell, in fact they are saying day and night they will build carriers and still the discussion persists...

    What they are not saying is that aircraft are everything and our ships and subs will only carry SAMs with purpose of keeping our new aircraft carriers safe... our new aircraft carriers will do all the bombing so we really don't need attack and anti ship missiles any more...

    Their long range land attack cruise missiles launched from ships and subs will be their strike capacity, their air power might be able to contribute, but will spend most of its time protecting ships and subs from enemy air attack.


    I am not advocating for Russia to abandon its navy, I am saying the weird kind of logic used against carriers in general applies to the whole navy as well, because force projection far from Russia is ultimately not necessary for bare survival.

    And what I am saying is that bare survival will leave you weak and the neighbours will attack... it makes more sense to look to grow and expand... not to invade and steal territory, to grow and develop and share technology and buy technology and products from others.

    Only the very arrogant think everything is invented in the west... just look at the innovation and technology thread on this forum to see that is not true... all people are clever and different problems create different solutions... some of which solve problems in an unexpected way that is far better than other planned or expected solutions.

    If you notice it, the arguments against carriers revolve not around anybody questioning the usefulness of air power at sea, but rather its cost being too much for Russia and them better settling for other ways of projecting force or not projecting it at all.

    And to support their arguments they use figures based on the Ford class ships, but not over a decade that it would take to build.... but all at once.

    Russia is going to be challenged at sea in the future... it is not a guess, it is a fact... and if she can't send some force there to resolve it then she is basically saying spank my ass... spank me again I like it...

    Potential traders with Russia will look at that and say well... Russia is not in charge we need to ask in London or Washington or Paris and they will say... don't buy Russian stuff... buy this...

    Asia & Russia, which may never rise above China in terms of trade & influence.

    My assertion that Russia needs carriers is not to bully or damage or contain China... I wish China all the best because a strong healthy China is a good thing, and hopefully they think the same about Russia. Russia doesn't have to crush or destroy anyone... not even the west or the US to grow and develop.... but the west and specifically the US is making it so... they are using their power and their influence to try to damage both Russia and China and they are weakening themselves in the process.

    Russia and China have no reason to hurt or fight the US and the west, but the way the US and the west are acting now they have no reason to save them from their own actions either.

    The west is paranoid and think Russia and China want to steal their crown, but it was a crown the west gave to itself... it doesn't mean anything to anyone else and to be honest nobody wants it.... Russia doesn't want to rule the world and neither does China... they just want a free and fair international system that will stop picking on them and the reason it is currently picking on both of them is because it is controlled by the US and the US are censored .

    w/o at least some of those bases the USAF B-29s wouldn't have been able to strike the USSR either.

    They wouldn't have had the numbers to destroy every runway the US had access to... the numbers of Tu-4s they would have lost to Meteors and Sabres and even F-80 Shooting Stars would render them a bit pointless and ineffectual... the red army marching and invading Turkey for instance, and the complete occupation of all of Germany for a start would have been easier to achieve, and of course in the far east the complete occupation of Korea as a start...

    not long ago, 2 USN SSGNs visited ports in the W. Pac & Indian Ocean as a show of force to NK & China; the VMF can do the same in Africa & L. America.

    Did it work?

    Did China renounce all ownership claims to the islands they built, and is NK destroying all its nuclear weapons and weapon making material?

    not if they r later converted to other uses, saving $Bs & becoming huge force multipliers. 4 Ohio SSGNs r worth 3 SSNs each in their firepower. Also, they need security forces only at bases, while ICBMs need them 24/7.

    ICBM fields are normally in the middle of nowhere and relatively easy to defend... just put up signs... if you can read this you are probably already dead...

    a CVN isn't a magic wand to give access to all areas- the VMF can already sail anywhere with its long range SA/AShMs & supported by strategic bombers.

    You are quite right a CVN wont make a Russian surface group invincible, but it will make it much much harder to take on because it will be much harder to surprise and the depths at which it can shoot down a variety of different anti ship weapons expands enormously meaning hundreds of Harpoons are no longer going to work... they need Tomahawks and they need thousands of them... which, for most navies means just avoid them because you can't defeat them... even for the US Navy it means arming ships with lots of vertical launch tubes with expensive tomahawk missiles which reduces the number of SAMs they can take to defend themselves... which actually makes them vulnerable to a sneaky Russian SSGN attack...

    And ships are never ever supported by strategic bombers... a strategic bomber flying with a group of ships is not a strategic bomber... it is a maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) which is a totally different thing and nothing like as useful to that group of ships compared to a few dozen fighter jets in terms of defence or attack.

    even the USN CBGs were vulnerable to VMF SSN/GNs & Tu-22/95/142 swarms, despite their SSNs & F-14s. Naval ops r not w/o risk for any1.

    That is right but the Russian formidable attack structure and weapons were created because the US Navys AEGIS cruisers and aircraft carrier combination needed something more than a tack hammer to deal with it... don't you think the Russian surface ships deserve the same level of protection?

    They already have the AEGIS protection.... down to corvette level actually, and a satellite network the Americans never had, but they lack the fighter planes and AWACS aircraft.

    that's what insurance is for, & they need to have a large volume of trade & merchant fleet to justify following in the PLAN's wake.

    What are you talking about? The Russian Navy is their insurance policy, but a Russian Navy without destroyers and cruisers and carriers is a 50c policy, a policy that is only good if nothing bad happens.

    trade continued with China, Japan & USA during the Cold War even when relations were at all time low.

    Not really. When the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl melted down and the Soviets asked for help from US universities who specialised in robotics to try to deal with the problem without putting people in danger the universities said yes, but the US government said no.

    There was only trade in areas that suited the US and there were strings attached too.

    again, no need for CVNs to do that.

    And when the US finds out that Russia is building a nuclear power station in Venezuela to provide stable clean energy for economic growth and they impose a naval blockade to stop Maduro getting nuclear weapon technology what is Russia going to do?

    Russia needs CVs to be able to trade with anyone they please.

    The US has a long history of not just attacking with carriers groups and naval power but also blockading countries to force them to do what the US was telling them. Japan was under British and US blockade before WWII started and it was getting materials the west was blocking was part of the reason for their military expansion.

    Not an excuse, but certainly a factor in their decisions.

    don't worry, the ships will switch to civ. frequencies to warn them; if ignored, they can become another KAL 007. Besides, their own airlines & NORAD/other mil. commands should/will warn them.

    Maybe Russia cares about peoples lives and doesn't think murdering them because the pilots of the aircraft they are flying in don't listen to military frequencies.

    Shooting down civilian airliners is a crime you know. Flying in open areas, they have no reason to constantly listen to the radio.

    it will have other defensive armaments, & there'll be at least 1 sub &/ surface ship nearby; they can also form a convoy for better protection.

    Well there you go... if some old container ship can defeat the entire US Navy then why are they screwing around with Corvettes and Frigates... cargo ships are much cheaper and when they are not patrolling you can use them to move cargo too... Rolling Eyes

    true; FFGs r not that much more expensive to build.

    Frigates have more armament but are still not built for endurance or operating far from base for long periods.... Destroyers and Cruisers on the other hand would be excellent for the job...

    but they r a lot harder to find, target & sink than surface ships.

    But there are so many basic things a ship does that a sub cannot...

    And they are eye wateringly more expensive than corvettes or Frigates or even destroyers.

    they used Cuban & Vietnamese bases for armed Tu-95/142 patrols along the US E. Coast & in the SC Sea; the bases that Tu-160s visited could be used for future real ops.

    Making them vastly more vulnerable to enemy action, while providing nothing in return... with its flight range and teh range of its missiles the Tu-160 can hit any target in the US.... from Cuba it would arrive in US airspace before the ICBMs and SLBMs had hit so it would encounter F-22s and fully undamaged airfields and air defence systems... which is a bad thing...

    - a stronger navy comes after economic success, not before.

    the other way around.... a strong naval power grows their economy and brings in resources and ideas from other places to feed their development and growth... working the other way innovation and development creating wealth to then build a powerful navy so it can then... what spread the wealth? I don't think so...

    a missile boat in the Black/White/Caspian Sea can hit enemy ships in the Med./Barentz/Arabian sea. No need to send Tu-95/142/22s as before.

    That is right... during a war a small vessel armed with long range missiles can have an enormous impact, but during peace time a small boat with long range cruise missiles sitting in the Black or Caspian sea means nothing at all... why would they care about it?

    In comparison a destroyer going to Africa for a visit might have a delegation of companies wanting to buy or sell stuff... military or civilian... their military will have a look at the destroyer at some of the weapons on board and say... hey... these missiles in that UKSK system are the same as the ones in your Corvettes... which we like the look of... can we buy some...

    [quote[The US bombed the Talibs with B-1B/52s & F-14/18s off CV/Ns, but Russia can bomb Islamists there & elsewhere in C. Asia from the Caspian & her land bases, w/o any CVNs in the Indian Ocean.[/quote]

    They did, and Russia could build destroyers and cruisers and not bother making any more carriers, but those destroyers and cruisers will just be less safe from attack and more vulnerable to being surprised. The Russian forces in Syria could be operating without aircraft too.... why are they not? Is it because air power provides capabilities that they want and need perhaps? Does having airpower there make them safer at all?

    But who gives a shit about saving Russian sailors or ships or subs... you might save them a little bit of money...

    they can have a mix of LHDs & LHAs, if 1 UDK class isn't good enough.

    So you think they should spend a little money on a half arsed solution but not more money on a proper solution... interesting.

    these can't be compared with absolute terms. Russia is primarily a continental power on 2 continents- she has less of a priority for the costly blue water ops involving CBGs.

    But she will largely be land locked and trading with her land border neighbours so she will be perfectly safe and not need an air force.

    Iceland, Finland & Costa Rica have only coast guards/small coastal navy- there r exceptions to any rule.

    And where do you think they fit in the world system... cause I wouldn't put them above 3rd world to be honest.... in terms of influence and power...

    the Ford saga isn't over yet, & as I said many times before, using a CVN in the Arctic is a good way to waste $, damage equipment & aircraft, & decommission it early.

    You are talking about a screwed up American programme to build a ship and make max profit from it, with a ship Russia is going to build themselves from the outset planning to use it in arctic conditions... in fact it will likely be based in the northern fleet. Can you not see that these are different things and that a Russian designed carrier designed to be based in the Arctic might not be damaged by such conditions and would have equipment and aircraft designed to operate in such conditions as normal?

    Or so you think they are greedy idiots trying to milk the system like American Patriots are?

    they could have done it w/o surface escorts, just a few extra icebreakers; CVNs have strong hulls to last decades in rough seas while doing rapid transits.

    That is the North West Passage... through Canada... they can't go via the North Sea Route because it goes through Russian territorial waters... they would need Russian permission... which they might give to civilian ships but unlikely to give to US Navy ships wanting to prove a point and be ass holes as usual.

    I mean along the NSR built by the Russians.

    I know and I am telling you it goes through Russian territorial waters so they can't.

    [I do not know what "doctrinal articles" has triggered this debate about the profitability of aircraft carriers in today and future naval warfare situations and that truly absurd about the utility of a Navy ....... but i heavily suspect that those articles was either amateurish or very outdated.

    The west doesn't want Russia to develop and grow and have a global presence... for all the same reasons they don't like Russias expansion into the Far East and building airfields and roads and rail links connecting areas that were previously hard to get too, because it means they can better exploit their own resources on their own without western help and western companies taking a cut of the profits.

    The utility of aircraft carriers and in particular very big displacement aircraft carrier is instead a topic much more interesting and widely debated around the world.

    Not often we disagree, but I have to say on this we do. And that is fine.

    The US herself is realising their carriers will not be safe... but to be clear they mean not safe against the Russians and perhaps China and that is in a WWIII situation where nukes can be used.

    I would argue that no naval vessel would have more than a minor percentage effect on the outcome of WWIII no matter how wonderful it was.

    My argument for Russian carriers to support surface action groups and subs is during peace time and low intensity conflicts like in Syria... if the enemy terrorists had been more successful and had better access to more powerful weaponry that made land based airfields too risky, having sea based air power would be the only real alternative because basing in neighbouring countries would not be possible and isn't.

    Being able to use standard fighters with dumb bombs would remain affordable from a carrier...

    SAM interceptors are going to improve, as will DEW and other defences based in new physical principles (you in fact hinted about some of them in the past).

    When looking at directed energy weapons of all types an aircraft carrier is an excellent base for such technology.... weight and space are not really an issue and power supply on a CVN isn't a problem either and any carrier and carrier group would benefit from having an air defence weapon that operates at the speed of light... even hypersonic threats become manageable.

    Besides, from a Russian perspective the anti ship capability of the west is still centred around subsonic cruise missiles used in overwhelming numbers.

    The land based SAMs are getting smaller and lighter and more accurate and able to engage tiny targets from greater and greater ranges.... all these things make a naval equivalent a good idea to increase production numbers and reduce costs and increase protection and performance.

    BTW neither GarryB nor me are talking about such absurd amounts of carriers, but 2-3 in addition to Kuznetsov, which according to the estimated costs provided by designers would amount to roughly a 2-3% of the yearly defence budget for ten years, even less if the construction would take longer.

    Russia can't afford a huge navy... they can use Corvettes and Frigates for home defence and operations in near waters.... with regard to destroyers and cruisers they wont need huge numbers of those either... with three or four aircraft carriers in total... including the Kuznetsov... that would be 2 cruisers each, and probably 4 destroyers each to support them in an actual battle surface action group... so with four carriers they might build 8-12 cruisers and 24-36 destroyers at most and realistically we are probably talking the lower numbers... so one CV and two CVNs, with probably 8-12 cruisers... maybe split into two types... one smaller and less ambitious like they did with the Slava and Kirov classes, and 24-36 Destroyers of a unified design so they are fully multipurpose and well armed for anything... that would mean the Kuznetsov might be based in the Pacific, while the two CVNs would be based in the Northern Fleet, so four cruisers in the Northern fleet and two more in the Pacific fleet would be part of any surface action group so you might have two more in each and another in the Black Sea to operate in the Med... it would be a capital ship so getting in and out of the black sea should not be a problem.
    In terms of destroyers that would be 8 in the northern fleet for carrier escort duties and 4 more in the Pacific Fleet, but you would also want more there for other duties of course and the Baltic and Black Sea fleets too. The Caspian sea doesn't need anything bigger than a Frigate.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2283
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS on Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:00 pm

    GarryB wrote:I appreciate that, but you can't ignore that one is a nuclear power with the US at her beck and call that will raise the self defence card

    Certainly the situation is quite unfair for Syria, but precisely because of such political constraint Syria has no other option than using their AD and little more, which simplifies analysis, provided that IAF is also not using substrategic weapons or overwhelming force.

    Is that a feature of air power in general or the fact that the air power is owned and directed by Israel, the EU, or the US?

    A general feature I would say

    If the standoff attacks were coming from Jordan or Lebenon would Syria be unable to respond by attacking airfields or aircraft in their airspace?

    I am not advocating for an air-force centric force composition, just trying to show what can happen to a surface or land asset if it allows an enemy air force to take the initiative.

    I appreciate your points because no tiny country should ever think if they buy one or two batteries of Pantsir vehicles and then split them up to cover a dozen different sites with a single vehicle each that they could possibly withstand an attack by Israel or the EU or the US or for that matter Russia or China.

    That is the idea

    I do object to the idea that you might be suggesting that air defence vehicles might be over all a waste of money

    I am certainly not defending that idea, land based assets are proportionally cheaper, can hide and have much bigger mass. They have their advantages that are to be used to. Some of them apply to surface assets, but often to a much lesser extent...

    Air power today means even more because it detects threats and attacks early so you could actually detect an attack coming and flank it and crush an attack before it is properly formed and turn it into a rout...
     

    Absolutely, and Russia is following that path too. Distributed intelligence and precision attacks are terribly effective if not countered. This applies more to low level conflicts than those against peer rivals, but still the effectiveness of modern guided weapons compared to old dumb ones is simply in another category.

    What they are not saying is that aircraft are everything and our ships and subs will only carry SAMs with purpose of keeping our new aircraft carriers safe... our new aircraft carriers will do all the bombing so we really don't need attack and anti ship missiles any more...

    Their long range land attack cruise missiles launched from ships and subs will be their strike capacity, their air power might be able to contribute, but will spend most of its time protecting ships and subs from enemy air attack.

    This is a reasonable and balanced use of air power, as exposed above and illustrated by the article linked by Mindstorm that I commented, and opposed to USN scenarios of bringing destruction to Russia or China with their carriers, which is a ludicrous notion... we have to stop thinking carrier = tool of imperialism, that is simply false.

    And what I am saying is that bare survival will leave you weak and the neighbours will attack... it makes more sense to look to grow and expand... not to invade and steal territory, to grow and develop and share technology and buy technology and products from others.

    I fully agree, I was just trying to show how absurd this claim about Russia being a continental power and not having critical SLOCs or relevant commercial partnerships across the world sounds to me, I guess not everybody got what meant. It is just another version of the "Russia should go away and shut up" (sic), as great big moron Williamson put it, which encourages Russia to stay at home and leave the world politics to the West. Russian leadership has a very different view and therefore we have the 2050 naval strategy, naval development roadmap to 2030 and so on. They will not shy away from developing their interests abroad and back them with military force if needed, even if Western pricks engage in their customary narcissist rages...

    Russia is going to be challenged at sea in the future... it is not a guess, it is a fact... and if she can't send some force there to resolve it then she is basically saying spank my ass... spank me again I like it...

    Speaking in technical jargon, yes lol1

    The west doesn't want Russia to develop and grow and have a global presence...

    That is the core of the matter and I theorize that Western propagandists use every trick in their bag to undermine popular support for the development of the navy in Russia. That is why VMF maintains their posture while a plethora of experts of all kind speak non stop against carriers.

    The US herself is realising their carriers will not be safe... but to be clear they mean not safe against the Russians and perhaps China and that is in a WWIII situation where nukes can be used.

    Even in a purely conventional scenario (who would escalate if they think they can win) where they try to directly attack Russian or Chinese territory, USN would be whipped off the map, with the possible exception of their submarine force. No amount of alternative models and theories is going to prevent that so they better change their posture, there is no military solution to their problem.

    When looking at directed energy weapons of all types an aircraft carrier is an excellent base for such technology.... weight and space are not really an issue and power supply on a CVN isn't a problem either and any carrier and carrier group would benefit from having an air defence weapon that operates at the speed of light... even hypersonic threats become manageable.

    Exactly, there are not many better electrical power sources than the several NPPs onboard a CVN. Also defence against very fast missiles is best done exactly from the target being attacked.

    New materials like GaN are going to allow significant increases in the power of EW weapons. I even read there were concepts for using plasma in the path of ATGMs in order to deflect their flight, in the surroundings of a carrier this may be an effective way to counter hypersonic missiles too. The race between the threat and defence never stops, despite momentary advantages of each side at a particular time.

    Regarding the vulnerability of big ships, Russians are developing measures against hypersonic missiles, they know they will be countered (probably they already can to a certain extent), why would they think USN will not make it? It is as illogical as US knowing how to counter stealth but thinking the Russians or Chinese would not get it done...

    Russia can't afford a huge navy...

    For the visibility we have, the cruisers capable for first rate deployments will remain two Orlan and the three (two in the oceanic fleets) 1164, the 22350 M could be the equivalent to a destroyer (22350s are not ideal for crossing oceans), so the numbers will remain well below those you mention for decades I guess. In any case Rakhmanov already said the new CV will not be a reality before 15 years. They would not organize the navy in fleets revolving around a carrier probably, just assemble surface groups when needed that would comprise the carrier or not. They would not need to have them permanently deployed abroad or patrolling the oceans, but rather reacting to concrete events and covering the eventual deployments of SSBNs.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1189
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:10 pm

    I want to begin reasserting that i too respect and read with attention the posts and line of reasoning of intelligent, competent and equilibrated contributors here, among which just you and GarryB (and several others i do not name for brevity) even when i do not share the same opinion.


    LMFS wrote:That is normal, as are the conclusions reached by the USN in the articles you post, given the gigantic costs of such an unsustainable approach. They are discovering that, in absence of a huge technological gap, their carrier-centric navy is vulnerable. Will a destroyer or a frigate be less vulnerable? Clearly not.


    Well, the point to take into consideration to conduct an objective examination of the quality of a military system -and not only - is to evaluate the "return", for a specific measurable parameter, for the investments - intellectual, material, temporal and financiary - in that particular system.

    Let examine the metric you have named : "Vulnerability" (as capability to defend agianst or avoid attacks by part of surface, air and submerged enemy units and/or capability to resist to the dameges caused by those attacks).

    Anyone can correctly maintain thata modern very large displacement aircraft carrier - let put an US Navy Ford class Aircraft carrier - with its entire air wing complement, even taking into account the very different susceptibility to discovery by part of enemy ISR assets (particularly space based ones) would be several times less vulnerable and more survivable than a modern frigate or corvette - let put a пр. 22350 "Адмирал Горшков" or a пр. 20385 "Стерегущий" - in particular in relation to capability of create a protective ring against enemy air attacks by part of its on board air wing and capability to absorb damages and remain afloat.

    But what happen if we take into account even only the financiary cost of a Ford Class carrier with its air wing and weapons on borad - more than 24-25 billions $ - against those of a modern frigate or corvette ?

    I want to even avoid here a direct comparison with the domestic costs of those ships because the gap would be way too much and misleading ,but with domestic production costs of a modern western-made frigate such as FREMM- 350 millions € or 412 millions $ -, it mean that for the same costs of a single Ford Class with its air wing you can procure about 60 FREMM frigate with theirs armament !!

    Those 60 FREMM frigates - anyhow extremely less survivable, lethal and cost-efficient than domestic counterpart - would be immensely more survivable than that single Ford Class (that for defending against enemy long range anti-ship missiles and subamarine would anyhopw nedd other 5 or 6 destroyers and a pair of submarines with the relative immense costs) and if effectively coordinated and employed dispersed, covered behind small coast's formations or behind islands attacking at the most profitable instance - usually exit from coverage time by part of enemy space based sensors - could easily destroy 2 or 3 entire carrier battle groups before being reduced to too low numbers.
    The work of command and control and ISR platforms of those carrier group would become overwhelming, a true nightmare.

    This is the essence and the basis of the new doctrine that US's planners call "Distributed Lethality" and that has been conceived purposely against a peer enemy, it is conceived to regain what they call "Command at sea", in substance aircraft carrier was and are partially still today a fundamental asset to gain offensive options against ground targets of largely inferior enemies at thousands of km of distance from CONUS, but against an enemy investing its resources in a fleet of relatively low tonnage dispersable ships armed with long range weapons or, worse, stand-off high end missiles such as domestic "Кинжал", "Циркон" or chinese DF-26 will become nothing more than an easy 25 billion dollar target.



    dino00 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:42 pm

    FREMM are more around 700 million $.

    Their power projection is pathetic compared to a carrier.

    The carrier being faster and running on nuclear energy can run away from frigates and its fighters can launch missiles all day long at frigates which are limited by the range of their AD systems and number of missiles. The frigates will be spotted by the AWACS well before they hope to see the carrier on their radars.

    The carrier will need to be refueled but again with its speed and nuclear propulsion it can do as many trips its wants in its homebase.

    Drawback of carrier is that they are easy targets for submarines. But their fighter can try to destroy them when they are in the port by surprise and with cruise missiles.

    Anyway, just like any other ships the carrier has advantages and disadvantages. I doubt Russia will make a carrier able to fight NATO or destroy a country on its own. But one that can support a naval group in the high seas like the kuznetsov but also help friendly countries is a possible.

    Many talk about US carriers vs russian missiles but that won't happen. It's more US carrier vs smaller state like Iraq, Iran or North Korea and they are at their advantage against such countries which makes US destroy enemies of their allies or satelitte stae which keep a lot money and buy US stuff.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 7437
    Points : 7586
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  kvs on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:29 pm

    Isos wrote:FREMM are more around 700 million $.

    Their power projection is pathetic compared to a carrier.

    The carrier being faster and running on nuclear energy can run away from frigates and its fighters can launch missiles all day long at frigates which are limited by the range of their AD systems and number of missiles. The frigates will be spotted by the AWACS well before they hope to see the carrier on their radars.

    The carrier will need to be refueled but again with its speed and nuclear propulsion it can do as many trips its wants in its homebase.

    Drawback of carrier is that they are easy targets for submarines. But their fighter can try to destroy them when they are in the port by surprise and with cruise missiles.

    Anyway, just like any other ships the carrier has advantages and disadvantages. I doubt Russia will make a carrier able to fight NATO or destroy a country on its own. But one that can support a naval group in the high seas like the kuznetsov but also help friendly countries is a possible.

    Many talk about US carriers vs russian missiles but that won't happen. It's more US carrier vs smaller state like Iraq, Iran or North Korea and they are at their advantage against such countries which makes US destroy enemies of their allies or satelitte stae which keep a lot money and buy US stuff.

    You are forgetting that the carrier group has to be heading towards Russia to enforce yanqui will. So there will not be any running away
    from Russian frigates. Also, you are totally ignoring the fact that the carrier and its nuclear power are not the only part of the carrier group.
    The rest of the ships in the carrier group will not be outrunning anything. Without those support ships the carrier is a total sitting duck.

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2212
    Points : 2202
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:44 pm

    If we are talking about the US Frigates that are going to be made based on the FREMM aka the FFG(x).

    The FFG is way more heavily armed than the FREEMs.

    These are different ships, I am not sure if people mean the FFG's or FREEMS since people are talking about US carrier groups
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:46 pm

    You are forgetting that the carrier group has to be heading towards Russia to enforce yanqui will. So there will not be any running away
    from Russian frigates. Also, you are totally ignoring the fact that the carrier and its nuclear power are not the only part of the carrier group.
    The rest of the ships in the carrier group will not be outrunning anything. Without those support ships the carrier is a total sitting duck.

    Well I just using its comparison of "1 carrier = 70 frigates in terms of price but frigates are better the carrier" without any scenario in mind.

    Read the last paragraph for my view on carriers in real world.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1189
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Aug 07, 2020 6:33 pm

    Isos wrote:FREMM are more around 700 million $.

    We are taking into account domestic production ,not export prices Wink


    https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/press-release-detail/-/detail/nona-decima-fremm-ninth-tenth-fremm-frigate

    https://www.lastampa.it/economia/2015/05/02/news/l-italia-completa-la-flotta-delle-fremm-1.35257716


    Isos wrote:
    Their power projection is pathetic compared to a carrier.

    The carrier being faster and running on nuclear energy can run away from frigates and its fighters can launch missiles all day long at frigates which are limited by the range of their AD systems and number of missiles. The frigates will be spotted by the AWACS well before they hope to see the carrier on their radars.

    The carrier will need to be refueled but again with its speed and nuclear propulsion it can do as many trips its wants in its homebase.

    Drawback of carrier is that they are easy targets for submarines. But their fighter can try to destroy them when they are in the port by surprise and with cruise missiles.


    Isos let me say that you have a very simplicistic idea of naval operation at sea.

    To begin, the position of an aircraft carrier group and in particular that of its flat top unit -the aircraft carrier itself - is always a well known data for any advanced enemy mostly to its constellation of LEO radar satellites , instead that of modern relatively low tonnage ships such as freigate and corvettes that have enough low draught to mask its signature with the geomorphical returns of any coast's inlets/gulfs or inslands formations or within other ships signatures is not

    Track even some of them in littoral or islands environment before them would have moved and begun the attack is a terribly difficult mission for any nation worldwide and likely to succeed more by chance that by result of active ISR operations.    

    Moreover the idea that you can elude at sea the engagement with enemy surface units ,proceeding in the opposite direction, is a bit unsophisticated above all if we talk of moder naval warfare with today missiles.

    The point is that theatre of operations ,except in plain ocean, have huge land masses and even worse the engagement range of today long range anti-ship missiles , in particular domestic one, often cover the entire navigable area of those theatres of operations.

    You can bet your right arm, without any risk, that in an hypothetical limited conflict some пр. 22350/22350M would deliver its attack against an attacking CVBG, with Калибр or Циркон missiles, much before even a warning would be received in the bridge of the carrier and the best those CVBG ships could hope (if surviving to the attack.....)  is to discover and maintain the contact with those пр. 22350/22350M for enough time to mount a counter attack before them would disperse and disappear from remote sensors.

    US Navy planners are perfectly aware of that and will attempt in the next decades, if US Navy's Command will be capable to overcome the huge vested financiary interests of the MIC's "carrier lobby", to transform the US Navy exactly in a branch with its bulk represented by a very high number of low tonnage ,highly dispersable and partially robotic units leaving anachronistic gold plated behemoths such as today aircraft carriers to naval museum.

    The problems americans have today is purely technical, US has been until now uncapable to create and integrate in low tonnage ships the long range weapons that are necessary to the realization of "distributed lethality" (the problem with the armament of theirs LCS) a task that domestic engineers have overcome brillantly more than 15 years ago

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2015/10/11/is-caspian-sea-fleet-a-game-changer/

    but if those technical hurdles are resolved the US Navy could capitalize the advantages of this new force structure concept to a level much higher than domestic Navy because american ship-building industry is very efficient construction's protocol-wise while ,as i have repeated sevral times, in domestic ship-building sector remain enormous problems related to the serial and standardized production of the entire line of ship-related basis and specialized components and this produce severe bottle-necks and slowdowns in the mean time of construction of even low tonnage ships.

    dino00 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6620
    Points : 6610
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Isos on Fri Aug 07, 2020 7:50 pm

    Again I just was comparing the 70 frigates with no support to a nuclear carrier. And FREMM have only subsonic missiles with less than 300km range.

    The last paragraph of my reply was my view on carrier usefulness.

    And btw US navy has around 70-80 destroyers with plenty of VLS and 10 carriers. They can and will also develop hypersonic missiles. They also have more satelittes than any other nation.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4883
    Points : 4879
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:23 pm

    Did it work? Did China renounce all ownership claims to the islands they built, and is NK destroying all its nuclear weapons and weapon making material?
    it reassured US allies for sure. W/o SSGN Kursk in the Med. Sea, the NATO navies would have a lot more freedom of action in Serbia & the Balkans in general.
    And ships are never ever supported by strategic bombers... a strategic bomber flying with a group of ships is not a strategic bomber... it is a maritime patrol aircraft (MPA)..don't you think the Russian surface ships deserve the same level of protection?
    they'll improvise & overcome. The RAF Vulcans bombed airfield on Falklands that helped the RN which had an 1 old small CV with STOVLs & helos. 1 SSN sent a big Argentinian cruiser to the bottom & the sole CV to port. Tu-22M3/142/160s & MiG-31s supported by IL-78s can strike a SAG/CSG from 100s of miles; AN-22/124s can be modified to carry dozens of UAVs & ASh/LACMs to add more firepower.
    The Russian Navy is their insurance policy, but a Russian Navy without destroyers and cruisers and carriers is a 50c policy, a policy that is only good if nothing bad happens
    having Tu-22M3/95/142/160s &/ MiG-31s supported by IL-78s in the air 24/7 would still cost le$$ than building & sending a CBG to patrol the SLOCs to Africa & L. America.
    And when the US finds out that Russia is building a nuclear power station in Venezuela to provide stable clean energy for economic growth and they impose a naval blockade to stop Maduro getting nuclear weapon technology what is Russia going to do?
    good question! By the time it happens, there'll be a new regime in Brazil & perhaps Colombia- will the USN blockade all of S. America? Russia & China together can blockade India, Japan &/ Australia- what will the US do?
    Flying in open areas, they have no reason to constantly listen to the radio.
    they need to stay in touch with traffic control even while in the middle of the Pacific- so, they better listen when there's known naval ops below. If they don't, it's at their own risk.
    if some old container ship can defeat the entire US Navy then why are they screwing around with Corvettes and Frigates...
    the entire US Navy won't be chasing after it.
    Frigates have more armament but are still not built for endurance or operating far from base for long periods....
    the VMF has enough supply ships, & crews can be rotated.
    during peace time a small boat with long range cruise missiles sitting in the Black or Caspian sea means nothing at all... why would they care about it?
    those boats presence there & in the open ocean will make the other side to be more careful not to do anything to Russian merchant fleet, or any other fleet carrying Russia's trade.
    So you think they should spend a little money on a half arsed solution but not more money on a proper solution... interesting. ..
    the other way around.... a strong naval power grows their economy
    let's wait for the proper economic conditions before a proper solution can be realized. Russian NP icebreaker fleet is supported by the Arctic energy resources; the USN has a lot less in Alaska & its shelf- thus no NP icebreakers so far; but it has 11 CVNs supported by the rest of the economy. Likewise, China gradually builds up her navy as her economy grows.
    But she will largely be land locked and trading with her land border neighbours so she will be perfectly safe and not need an air force.
    she will need it, if only to escort cargo planes across the oceans & intercept intruders. sorry, but u r not going to outwit me with ur skewed logic- don't try to fit a square into a hole.
    I know and I am telling you it goes through Russian territorial waters so they can't.
    if there is shortage of ships in the VMF, they can build more islands in the shallow areas of the Arctic, even outside the EEZ, to better defend it, like China did in the SC Sea. Let the court in Haaghe enforce a verdict against it.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 26600
    Points : 27138
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:36 pm

    Even in a purely conventional scenario (who would escalate if they think they can win) where they try to directly attack Russian or Chinese territory, USN would be whipped off the map, with the possible exception of their submarine force. No amount of alternative models and theories is going to prevent that so they better change their posture, there is no military solution to their problem.

    But their carriers don't make them weaker and easier to destroy... their carriers were the whole reason Russia went of hypersonic missiles... it is not an accident that their first scramjet powered hypersonic manouvering missile is an anti ship missile... the Zircon.

    In any case Rakhmanov already said the new CV will not be a reality before 15 years. They would not organize the navy in fleets revolving around a carrier probably, just assemble surface groups when needed that would comprise the carrier or not.

    The point is that they don't need them now or next week or next year. A bit more experience with the Kuznetsov and building up numbers of big ships will take time too and in 15 years they will have enough destroyers and cruisers to need proper air cover for them...

    But what happen if we take into account even only the financiary cost of a Ford Class carrier with its air wing and weapons on borad - more than 24-25 billions $ - against those of a modern frigate or corvette ?

    Except in this case Russia would be able to build probably 10 CVs and probably 5 CVNs for that sort of money... and more to the point when the US are spending 120K per F-35, the Russians will be spending 20K for their MiG-35s which can operate on land or at sea...

    I want to even avoid here a direct comparison with the domestic costs of those ships because the gap would be way too much and misleading ,but with domestic production costs of a modern western-made frigate such as FREMM- 350 millions € or 412 millions $ -, it mean that for the same costs of a single Ford Class with its air wing you can procure about 60 FREMM frigate with theirs armament !!

    Russia wont be building anything like a Ford class ship... the Russian carrier will be smaller and lighter and much much cheaper, and much better armed...

    It will likely have dozens of Redut launchers and launchers for S-500 SAMs too.

    This is the essence and the basis of the new doctrine that US's planners call "Distributed Lethality" and that has been conceived purposely against a peer enemy, it is conceived to regain what they call "Command at sea", in substance aircraft carrier was and are partially still today a fundamental asset to gain offensive options against ground targets of largely inferior enemies at thousands of km of distance from CONUS, but against an enemy investing its resources in a fleet of relatively low tonnage dispersable ships armed with long range weapons or, worse, stand-off high end missiles such as domestic "Кинжал", "Циркон" or chinese DF-26 will become nothing more than an easy 25 billion dollar target.

    Would you not agree though that for anything but a peer enemy, the US can continue to use its carriers to effectively attack who they like and operate anywhere they please within reason and it would only really be against Russia and perhaps China that they would have problems.

    Considering from the Russian perspective where they don't need to dominate all 7 seas at once with a carrier group for each... Russia only needs to have two or perhaps three carriers (most likely their current CV and later a couple of CVNs... they don't need any for close in national protection and in times when WWIII looked imminent they would likely call all carriers back and have them operating in the arctic for use against any AEGIS class ships wanting to shoot down Russian ICBMs or SLBMs... in Japanese waters, Pacific waters, the Arctic ocean etc etc.

    For Russia their aircraft carriers will not be intended to win or to fight WWIII, though in any naval combat aircraft carriers would improve their levels of protection and attack, in WWIII they would be more use close to shore shooting down IRBMs and SLBMS and even ICBMs with S-500s and protecting coastal Russia from enemy attack... ground based missiles and aircraft like MiG-31 and even later MiG-41 can also extend the rings of protection around the country.

    I don't mean for carriers to be used to invade or attack or enact regime change, but sometimes Russia will get involved in a country where having airfields is not an option... the enemy does not have air power, or they do but it is relatively weak... but having AWACS aircraft monitoring the airspace around your ships right down to sea level so even the lowest flying threat can be seen 400km away and therefore can be engaged with SAMs if you want to... but during peace time that is considered bad manners... being able to send out four Su-57s to investigate is much quicker and easier than waiting to see if it gets closer.

    As the commander of that surface group you can guess and suppose but at the end of the day you can't send a destroyer to investigate and sending a helicopter would take hours.

    Honestly with the cost of modern missiles an aircraft carrier is not going to cost much more than the two missile armed cruisers and the four odd destroyers it will be operating with, yet will add to their performance and range and security that it will be worth it.

    Aircraft on their own would be rather fragile, but fully integrated into the IADS of the Navy and they add information to the system and they provide weapons with amazing reach...  C4IR is critical in any battle and aircraft... not just AWACS, but also 5th gen omni role aircraft that can fly out at supersonic speed to investigate a radar return and fully defend itself if needed without any ships needing to turn on their radars and reveal their presence is a useful thing.

    Without an aircraft carrier the expensive ships you are operating anyway just get a little easier to find and overwhelm because they wont be able to sit there radar silent any more and they probably wont have the DEW needed to blind enemy EO satellites as they come in to view....   Twisted Evil

    Drawback of carrier is that they are easy targets for submarines. But their fighter can try to destroy them when they are in the port by surprise and with cruise missiles.

    Carriers can carry large numbers of anti sub helos, and of course Paket anti torpedo weapons make the subs a little less dangerous... but they should never be under estimated...

    Anyway, just like any other ships the carrier has advantages and disadvantages. I doubt Russia will make a carrier able to fight NATO or destroy a country on its own. But one that can support a naval group in the high seas like the kuznetsov but also help friendly countries is a possible.

    Exactly.... who cares if the aircraft carrier is not invincible.... none of the ships in the Russian Navy will be invincible either... but the fact is that with a carrier and with aircraft a surface group of ships and submarines is much harder to deal with for any enemy...

    And in peace time less mistakes are made by nervous ship commanders...

    To begin, the position of an aircraft carrier group and in particular that of its flat top unit -the aircraft carrier itself - is always a well known data for any advanced enemy mostly to its constellation of LEO radar satellites , instead that of modern relatively low tonnage ships such as freigate and corvettes that have enough low draught to mask its signature with the geomorphical returns of any coast's inlets/gulfs or inslands formations or within other ships signatures is not

    But 99% of the countries that Russia will actually have naval battles with are no stronger than the countries the US attacks with their carriers...


    You can bet your right arm, without any risk, that in an hypothetical limited conflict some пр. 22350/22350M would deliver its attack against an attacking CVBG, with Калибр or Циркон missiles, much before even a warning would be received in the bridge of the carrier and the best those CVBG ships could hope (if surviving to the attack.....)  is to discover and maintain the contact with those пр. 22350/22350M for enough time to mount a counter attack before them would disperse and disappear from remote sensors.

    Which makes it a problem for US carriers of colonial invasion, but for Russian support carriers that provide air protection for Russian surface groups it is not so important.

    In fact a mass attack on a Russian surface action group of Harpoons and Tomahawks is the ideal situation for a Russian aircraft carrier to first detect at long range and then deal with... the flight of CAP could deal with perhaps a dozen of the missiles with the AAMs they would be carrying and the carrier would send further fighter groups fully armed with more suitable missiles to join them but in the mean  time the CAP fighters can track the incoming missiles and look for any enemy aircraft or surface vessels that might be worth engaging too with ship based long range SAMs and of course very long range ship and sub launched anti ship missiles.

    The RAF Vulcans bombed airfield on Falklands that helped the RN which had an 1 old small CV with STOVLs & helos.

    There was nothing old about the Hermes... it was new and largely untested.... if the Argentines had an aircraft carrier or more modern aircraft with any sort of BVR missile they would have been in serious trouble. Even Phantoms would have made the British force too vulnerable to continue.

    If they had Phantoms on the islands and proper radar to detect the Vulcan they could have shot it down rather easily... none of their ship board fighters would have had much of a chance against a real fighter with BVR missiles. Even if they had MiG-23s the British would have been in serious trouble.

    having Tu-22M3/95/142/160s &/ MiG-31s supported by IL-78s in the air 24/7 would still cost le$$ than building & sending a CBG to patrol the SLOCs to Africa & L. America.

    All the Vulcan was able to do was drop some iron bombs on the airfield on the Falklands Island to prevent them from basing their Mirages there.
    The result was that the Argentine fighters had to operate from the Argentine mainland which limited their time over the islands to about 5 minutes before they would have to head back and refuel.

    Even if the Vulcan attacked 100 times they wouldn't be able to stop the Argentinian fighters from sinking all the British ships they sank and without the carrier and those harriers they probably would have lost all their ships and the landing would have failed.

    You say the British SSN scared away the Argentinian carrier... the Argentinian fighters scared the UK carrier so it was sitting so far out away from the islands they could not protect the ships performing the landing... which made it effectively worse than useless becuase it still cost money but they were too afraid of losing it to properly use it...

    If the invasion had happened ten years earlier the British would have had the Ark Royal... they could have used the Buccs to obliterate the airfield while the Phantoms kept any Mirages away, and those Phantoms could have shot down any Mirage or other Argentine type like their A-4 skyhawks from their carriers or from land, and they likely would not have lost a single ship.

    It was a little sad they sank the Belgrano... it was one of the few ships to survive the attack on Pearl Harbour... so the Japs didn't get it but the Brits did... with their stiff upper lips...

    By the time it happens, there'll be a new regime in Brazil & perhaps Colombia- will the USN blockade all of S. America?

    Do you think the US will ever let Brazil or Colombia free?

    Why do you think the US would need to blockade the entire region at once?

    Did the US blockade countries other than Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?

    Russia & China together can blockade India, Japan &/ Australia- what will the US do?

    See... there you go... why would Russia blockade anyone? How many times do you need to be told... Russia ~= US.

    they need to stay in touch with traffic control even while in the middle of the Pacific- so, they better listen when there's known naval ops below. If they don't, it's at their own risk.

    There is no traffic control in the middle of the Pacific, and why would they be aware of any naval ops below.

    the VMF has enough supply ships, & crews can be rotated.

    Supply ships will be targeted at the best of times, making your navy weak and vulnerable to save a few bucks is very short sighted....

    let's wait for the proper economic conditions before a proper solution can be realized. Russian NP icebreaker fleet is supported by the Arctic energy resources; the USN has a lot less in Alaska & its shelf- thus no NP icebreakers so far; but it has 11 CVNs supported by the rest of the economy. Likewise, China gradually builds up her navy as her economy grows.

    When countries stop accepting US dollars as legal tended and demand euros or gold then the US economy will burst like a supernova.

    she will need it, if only to escort cargo planes across the oceans & intercept intruders. sorry, but u r not going to outwit me with ur skewed logic- don't try to fit a square into a hole.

    Well the billions they save in ships is going to be spent on inflight refuelling aircraft and very very very long range fighters if that is the case...

    if there is shortage of ships in the VMF, they can build more islands in the shallow areas of the Arctic, even outside the EEZ, to better defend it, like China did in the SC Sea. Let the court in Haaghe enforce a verdict against it.

    It would be cheaper to built ten Ford class white elephants than one island in the Arctic big enough for an airfield and military base big enough to matter...
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15157
    Points : 15654
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  George1 on Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:12 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Hole wrote:There is a special thread for aircraft carriers and the discussion about their usefulness (or absent of it). Could the mods please move these fruitless discussion there. Thank you very much. thumbsup

    Maybe we can create a thread for general navy news and another for discussion about doctrine, force structure etc. I suggest it because for instance in this case the debate was originated by some doctrinal article and it kept flowing from some topics into others. This is normal and difficult to avoid, but it is also true that looking for news and having to go through dozens of pages of debate is not very useful

    i did it, lets see how it will work from now and over
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1189
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Again I just was comparing the 70 frigates

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:55 pm

    Isos wrote:Again I just was comparing the 70 frigates with no support to a nuclear carrier. And FREMM have only subsonic missiles with less than 300km range.

    Well I just using its comparison of "1 carrier = 70 frigates in terms of price but frigates are better the carrier" without any scenario in mind.


    The unit price ratio between the two ships is about 1:60 not 1:70, anyway i understand perfectly that this example could appear simplicistic or even absurd; in reality i obviously do not advocate the procurement of 60 FREMM frigates for the financiary resources that US Navy allocate for the procurement of a single Ford class with its air wing complement (naturally with that allocation you could procure a combination of surface ,air and submarine units with capabilities several times greater) but i was attempting to show how, even with this absurd employment of resources, you would obtain a force capable in an open conflict to achieve "command at sea" immeasurably better than the same allocation on a single aircraft carrier.

    Following this pure provocation anyone can infer how the entire on-sea stock of stand-off weapons (let put the future LRASM ,alias modified JASSM) present on-board a Ford Class carrier and mountable on the air wing aircrafts (let put F-35s or F/A-18s) against the combined defenses of even only a quarter of the opposing number of frigates (15 FREMM) would be depleted before, if lucky, being capable to sunk/incapacitate two or three FREMMs.


    In substance while during WWII aircraft carriers (thanks ,is important to say , also to the code breaking of the enemy Command communications, leading to the knowledge of the position of almost all Japanese surface units and theirs planned movements and missions) absolved in a enough cost-efficient way the role of capital ships to gain command at sea - in domestic literature "maritime area control" - today the unique role where aircraft carriers would retain a military value is remote ground attacks on the enemy inland infrastructures from neighbouring sea regions.

    This power projection capability would be impossible to exert against enemies employing theirs resources in ways much more efficient for a peer-level conflicts and just this awareness has generated among US Navy's admirals in the latest years the idea of "distributed lethality".


    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    If we are talking about the US Frigates that are going to be made based on the FREMM aka the FFG(x).

    The FFG is way more heavily armed than the FREEMs.

    These are different ships, I am not sure if people mean the FFG's or FREEMS since people are talking about US carrier groups

    SeigSoloyvov i have employed FREMM as example because for it you have domestic production unit price figures instead of export procurement unit ones like for the FFGX.

    FFGX that ,have some difference in armament (in particular US 57 mm gun instead of the 76 mm mostly for the future integration of MAD-FIRES corrected anti-air rounds, 32 Mk-41 VLS and and a RAM installation) ) will have an average unit cost of about 937 ml.$, but could ostensibly be constructed by US Navy, at domestic procurement prices, at something around 650 ml $.

    The point would remain the sea control capability exerted by a single Ford Class carrier with its air wing complement wouln't come even only near to that of 38 FFGX (even employng those tax payer's moneys in a so inefficient way) and wouldn't never be capable to confront in any condition a similar enemy at sea constructed with the same resources.

    That carrier air wing will surely still shine in employing JDAMs and Paveway LGBs against insulated third world enemies with beginning of '60 years AD systems, but would be literally obliterated against an peer enemy employing even a fraction of the resources in a less outdated way.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 2283
    Points : 2283
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  LMFS on Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:55 pm

    George1 wrote:i did it, lets see how it will work from now and over

    Thanks George1, it is much tidier now thumbsup

    Sponsored content

    Russia's naval doctrine and strategy - Page 3 Empty Re: Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 24, 2020 7:09 am