Russia's naval doctrine and strategy

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.

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.

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 !!

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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".

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.

it can be done fast with mini-UAV atop a missile- once a target of interest is detected by ship's radar, fire it into its vicinity, separate from it, & investigate it. Tilt-rotor AWACS & MPA been mentioned already. High speed attack/SAR helos may also be used. There r more than 1 way to do things.

Tu-95/142/160s can attack more air bases,etc. with their standoff weapons, creating a huge safety bubble around VMF SAG.

because Venezuela has land borders to circumvent a hypothetical US naval blockade.

in a tit for tat.

no1 country can control the entire planet.

all passenger planes must periodically check in with their controllers, even over the open ocean. The VMF will have no reason to hide & will be warning them to stay away at short intervals, in English.

Old subs can be converted to carry them as well.

Then, USN ships, subs & planes will be put in reserve, scrapped, or sold to the highest bidder.

tankers will be convertible to cargo planes;

MiG-31/Su-30/57s have enough range already.

Recently PLAAF flew tanker assisted 10hr mission on Su-30s in the SC Sea from the mainland- the Su-34 has more cabin space & its crew can fly for 20hrs with more refuelings.

they'll have oil platforms with helo decks that can be used by the CG/military. A few converted big tankers joined at anchor in shallow waters will create a cheap mobile base. They can also be towed by NP icebreakers, making them de-facto CVNs, with $Bs saved on their construction, maintenace & use.
In the 21 century, these "ice plows" can be converted to swords & these same swords can be converted to "ice plows" again.

Syria was dredged up as an example of why Russian needs these dinosaurs. But clearly Russia did not need them in Syria and
this applies to most of Russia's security regions of interest which includes the Middle East and Asia.

We have the USA sending a carrier task groups to North Korea and not actually getting there. So that would be a fail.

Where do the advocates for the white elephants known as carriers see Russia actually using them? In Latin American, African,
and Indonesian waters? This really is a show stopper question. Hypothetical needs are not a valid argument. Russia has
no policing objectives in parts of the world where carriers could be worth something. It also has no plans for running colonies
in those regions.

Since the utility of the US carriers is in clear decline, why would Russia invest in them. To prove it is a power?

This one isn't a dinoraurs. No catapult, no expensive design. 40 kt. 32 mig-29k. Only cheap pantsir for protection with why not 4x12 shtil. No UKSK. No expensive AESA radars. Cost will be almost the same as the heli carrier they are making. Propulsion could be 2 borei's nuks reactors but increase cost.

Can provide air support for the fleet during high sea deployment, radar coverage to detect any ship at more than 1000km away, support land operations, support landings, use as a deterrance with some kh-59mk2 on board and patrol high tension areas like Mediteranean right now. They also have the Kuznetsov so 1 for northern fleet and one for pacific fleet.

Drawback is the lack of real AWACS but that can be solved with some light jet (sukhoi su-80) with AESA pannels on the fusalage.

Personally I'm not a big fan of the 100kt Shtorm which is a fantasy or the 70kt Lamantin which is way too big. Carrier are not meant for WW3.

Redut would need the Gorshkov's expensive radars to be effective and it's totally useless. Unless you use the less effective radars from steregouchshy.

The threat it will face is low flying missiles against which 150km AD is useless. 50km buk + pantsir is a cheap combination. Fighters will intercept the enemy aircraft trying to launch the missiles.

No space for 50-60 jets. It is said 12-14 mig-29k + 12-14 su-33 + 12-14 ka-27 + 4 ka-31.

IMO Ka-27 can be replaced by 4-6 mig/sukhoi for 34 jets max. But they are good for anti sub protection.

Buk-m3 has ARH missiles with 70km range which is more than enough for protection.

The safest is use the fighters with 300km range anti-ship missiles to destroy the enemy ship before it fires.

Frigates/destroyers will provide long range AD. The carrier needs only to defend itself against a potential missile that pops up on its radars. The more missile you put on it the more expensive it will be.

9M100 can be mounted in any VLS with some software changes. Or they can just mount Igla/verba turrets.

Obviously not, the cost of a пр. 1144 "Орлан" and that of a пр. 22350 "Адмирал Горшков" in 2014 rubles (third unit procurement of пр. 22350 ) are in a ratio of about  5,6 : 1; in CCCP times and partially also today domestic research and development and procurement of military hardware are executed following computation of index of military value for each particular mission of the system to be acquired.

Integrate a missile like  П-700 would be also today absolutely impossible.

If this air cover at sea would come free of charge (a kind gift by a foreign nation ?) it would be surely well accepted, but because instead it come at the cost of the corrispective of 60 FREMM frigates your Navy would be immensely more vulnerable and significantly less covered just at cause of the procurement of this CAP cover.

I repeat : the entire stock of future stand-off antiship missiles -like LRASM - (the other weapon options would mean envoy your air wing literally to scrap) on board of a Ford Class would be incapable to confront not 60 FREMM ,but even only a quarter of them.  

Practically while carrier's airwing would ,2 missile at time for aircraft, wasting in vain its entire stock of LRASMs on the integrated EW/long  range and close range defenses of 15 modern FREMM frigates,

Also with FFGX US Navy for the same cost of its aircraft carrier could procure 3 strike groups of 13, 13 and 12 FFGX; good luck to LRSAM at penetrate the defenses of: Standar Missile-2, ESSM, Rolling Airframe Missiles, 57 mm MAD-FIRES corrected anti-air rounds, Mk53 Nulka or worse Sylena MK2 decoy launch systems and SEWIP Block 2 EW installations ......all of that for 13 networked frigates each capable to absorb several hits from those subsonic missiles with very imited warhead potential !!!!

Reality is that WWII times are long gone: aircraft today MUST attack enemy ships (if ,to begin, managing to obtain theirs position mostly by space-based assets, that with not flat-top ships of limited tonnage with reduced radar signature is all except trivial...) with few very long range missiles forcing them at enormous distances and integrated defenses of each modern ships can ,contrarely of WWII times, engage an enormous amount of them with much less costly interceptors from long to medium to short range before recurring to CIWS or to twarting with EW systems .

they'll very likely develop them anyway for other uses

& they don't need to match the E-2's performance.

They will be built at aviation plants while in the meantime shipyards can be building & repairing/upgrading other warships.

no, taking out hangars & aprons housing fighters would eliminate most of the threat. USN/AF done it in Libya, Iraq & Afghanistan.

Iraq still smuggled oil,etc. during sanctions over its borders with Jordan, Syria & Turkey. Brazil has hard time controlling her long border area in the Amazon Selva.

not if they r to avoid another KAL 007-like shootdown.

there were plans to use the Typhoons as tankers in the Arctic.

A submerged SSN escorted by another SSN can also tow a big barge on the surface with cargo, a few UAVs/ASW helos & missile containers, combining a supply ship with DD/CG, saving on fuel & personnel. If enemy subs r detected, a towing cable is released & the sub is engaged.

or just print/shift $ from other services.

they won't need too many of them.

they all have IRPs & train to use them. Tankers can also refuel each other, just like the RAF done during that Vulcan raid.

most probably just AAMs & recon gear. I doubt "an entire air force" would get close enough undetected before their CVN/bases r engaged by ships, subs, & bombers.

but some here worry that the VMF/VKS isn't prepared to defend the NSR & the EEZ.

the VKS bombers alone can reach coastal air bases with their LACMs; they'll need refuelings on the way back.

I used it as an example of jumbo jet shot down by the military. It flew over naval bases as well; ships at sea r monitoring the skies 24/7 just like the PVO did on land on that night.

Mil. ops r never cost effective compared to commerce.

see above. In the Russian context, overspending on large CVNs is even sillier.

the MIC will accept them.

or start a new currency, maybe even at least partially backed by gold.

All the places Russia will trade with will have airfields to host bombers, fighters, AWACS, & tankers; most tankers will need to be used only in the middle of oceans.

There, large barges or converted oil tankers with embarked MiG-31s/Su-30/34s & ASW/MPA helos & planes can be kept to cover those gaps. Aircraft can be based on floating platforms other than CVNs, & for a lot le$$.

why not, if MiG-31s/Su-34s r not going to be good enough? Some Tu-95/142s could also be modified for that- they have enormous unrefueled range.

What I do not understand is why people here do not realise that ships get more efficient the larger they are, 5 light carriers would be inferior and more costly to run than a single Shtorm class.

What a carrier needs to be able to do is sustain air presence for a long duration and for that they need a lot of aircraft, I would say a minimum of 60.

Bigger ship is better than 2 or 3 smaller ones but you can deploy it just at one place at a time.

Also when it is in maintenance for a long peruod like the Nakhimov you can't replace it.

Small carrier with decent number of fighters like the one I shared is perfect for them.

Americans do not even have supersonic AShM so it is true that the effectiveness of their attacks even against smaller vessels is questionable, but I suspect they would rather use other weapons like anti-radiation missiles in order to crack the ship's AD open, and then once its radars have been put out of operation, use subsonic weapons to finish the job.

Russian aircraft could use air launched Kh-31 against those smaller vessels, and we know that internal carriage hypersonic missiles are being developed as we speak for Su-57. Indians are using the Su-30 to launch Brahmos. Any weapon launched from an aircraft has many times the range of the surface launched equivalent. For instance ship launched version of NSM has 185 km, while air launched reaches to 555 km. Also the no-scape zone of the ship's AD will be relatively small against a fast and manoeuvrable jet. Aircraft do not need to carry massive weapons to be of application in naval attack.