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


+49
Kiko
jhelb
AlexDineley
11E
owais.usmani
flamming_python
arbataach
limb
walle83
RTN
JohninMK
dino00
lyle6
magnumcromagnon
TMA1
Backman
lancelot
Isos
SeigSoloyvov
PhSt
Tai Hai Chen
LMFS
Tsavo Lion
Arrow
kvs
The-thing-next-door
william.boutros
George1
ultimatewarrior
kumbor
mnztr
Regular
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
medo
Gazputin
andalusia
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
GarryB
ATLASCUB
GunshipDemocracy
Swede55
wilhelm
Hole
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
AlfaT8
53 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Sep 17, 2019 11:39 am

    There was an interesting quote on Balancer the other day from US post Iraq 1 war analysis: with slightly over 2* more planes & significantly fewer person hours/sortie the US Airforce produced 6.5* more sorties than the USN carriers.

    So as long as you're operating within range of shore bases land based aviation is significantly more efficient.

    Yeah mate, you are not understanding this properly.

    US experience attacking Iraq means very little to what we are talking about... Russia doesn't need aircraft carriers to it can invade a country like Syria... it needs aircraft carriers to carry aircraft that can operate as air defence for a group of their ships operating away from any land bases or friendly countries.

    If they don't have aircraft... ie fighter planes and AWACS aircraft, their ability to see incoming sea skimming anti ship missiles will be seriously limited and any enemy force could easily overwhelm them if they were clever enough... you say US naval aircraft operating from carriers were less efficient at striking ground targets in Iraq... so what... Russian carriers are not there to strike ground targets... that is what they have Calibre in their UKSK launch tubes for, and why their Yasen class SSGNs have 40 odd cruise missiles and why all of their anti ship missiles now have a land attack capacity.

    Carrier aircraft are not there to attack ground targets, they are to stop enemy air attacks and find targets for Russian long range anti ship missiles.

    Do you think they spent money developing Zircon missiles with 1,000km+ range and Mach 9 speed so they could send a subsonic fighter plane with a Kh-35 to attack a US carrier group? Of course it could fly supersonic and halve its flight radius... but it will never get to 1,000km range, and nothing like mach 9.

    On the other hand having a MiG-29KR with a light air to air load and perhaps some drop tanks operating at high altitude might detect the signals from a US AWACS platform in the middle of the ocean... it could approach and look for aircraft and ships on the surface... anything it detects can be transmitted directly back to the Russian surface fleet so it can initiate an attack, while the MiG might launch an RVV-BD at the AWACS platform and then turn and get out of there before they start to open fire on him... turn and dive and accelerate to high speed at low level and just try to jam any missiles that are launched at him from the US ships and aircraft... if his missile knocks down the AWACS platform they will be blind while they launch another and he should be able to leave the area quickly enough to survive but the data he collected is already being used to formulate a missile strike on the surface ships that is going to be coming at Mach 9 and probably at 40-50km altitude.... why would that MiG pilot bother attacking any ground target?

    Air to surface weapons tend to be big and heavy and high drag so if he flys around all the time with anti ship missiles of any type his flight range will be dramatically shortened... and his top speed limited.

    If he comes across a weak enemy... say a single British frigate on its own they might not bother wasting a Zircon on it... they might launch a Flanker or another MiG with an air to surface anti ship weapon and attack them with that instead, but Russian carriers wont be strike carriers... they are air defence carriers... any cruiser operating with the carrier like a modifed Kirov.... I mean the US Navy and NATO navies combined don't have 80 carriers, and the new 20K ton cruisers will likely carry rather more than 80 missiles... they are all for surface and subsurface targets...

    Helicopter carriers are different and are intended to support landing operations and disaster relief ops.... sending such carriers to the locations of major fires for instance would be a great way of providing large numbers of helicopters and a platform that can carry lots of aviation fuel that amphibious fire bombing aircraft could land nearby to be refuelled during extended fire bombing operations... they could also have a few extra flight crews so they don't get too tired.

    Hell, they could even send them on good will visits... if there is a construction project on an island they could take a carrier that could fly to all the remote villages and offer medial assistance, or even take a helicopter like an Mi-26 to install equipment for construction without needing to build roads that would cost too much... or move heavy objects around the place as needed... perhaps some joint venture or just move heavy equipment to a plateau so an air strip can be built instead of clearing it manually and manually moving all the materials up by hand...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:39 am

    Soviet Ulyanovsk and American Nimitz: nuclear, aircraft carriers, but why are they so different?

    IMO they'll need universal, not ASW/AD TAKR-type carries. That's why the Adm. K was sent off Syria- to train for that. Their SSBNs will stay in the well protected bastions & surface ships will have long range SAMs. Just recently the USN sent a CSG into Atlantic w/o a CVN, as noone were ready.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:54 am

    It is the west that traditionally relies on air power to get jobs done... in fact they prefer it to other types of warfare...

    Whether it is their Army expecting their Air Force to protect them from air attack, or their Navy who has their own air component to protect them from air attack, both their AF and Navy prefer to use aircraft to deliver munitions to fight the war... in the Navy the other ships in the carrier group are there to protect the carrier and the carrier is there to deliver the attack via aircraft.

    With the low cost of iron bombs and onboard weapon aiming systems allowing precision delivery of cheap dumb weapons, the Russian Navy tested strikes against ground targets in Syria... a test that was seriously effected by problems with aircraft recovery on the Kuznetsov having problems.

    For long term COIN ops or support ops to help allies fight drug lords or terrorist groups then such things make sense but if the enemy is seriously well armed and well equipped then they wont have enough aircraft on board for dedicated strike packages and all the support aircraft needed to penetrate contested airspace and hit defended targets... Hypersonic missiles on the other hand can do this quite effectively... that is what they were designed for in fact... what is a modern ship or carrier group other than one of the most concentrated IADS and SAM and anti aircraft gun systems on the planet... why risk planes for anything but finding targets and identifying targets and checking what damage is done and if a follow up attack is needed or not.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11128
    Points : 11202
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:13 am


    ‘We don’t need aircraft carriers, we need weapons to sink them with’ – Russian defense minister

    https://www.rt.com/russia/469353-russia-weapons-aircraft-carriers/
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Sep 23, 2019 7:00 am

    Well they have the means to sink enemy carriers... what they need is a few aircraft carriers to support operations globally with the aircraft carriers providing air support and air defence for the surface ships to allow them to perform their mission.

    Just like they don't need 3,000 stealth fighters to match NATO and they don't need 12 x 100K ton fixed wing aircraft carriers either... that would totally kill their navy just on operational costs alone.

    Instead of having bases all around the world like the US does, perhaps Russia should develop ties and relations where they will share bases that are locally owned and operated but can be loaned for deployments and exercises...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Sep 27, 2019 7:24 am

    In Russia, thoughts about the "underwater aircraft carrier"
    https://lenta.ru/news/2019/07/25/nautilus/

    If they r needed for mostly fleet AD, hard to communicate with submarine a/c carriers won't be needed, as the ships & subs in the CBG will help to defend it.
    Submarine a/c carriers will make a lot of noise during flight ops & thus will be more vulnerable to detection, tracking & destruction. Easier to attack distant land/sea targets using SSGNs & VKS bombers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Sep 27, 2019 10:34 am

    Yeah, silly idea really.

    An aircraft carrier needs to provide air defence and air support to surface vessels and therefore needs to remain surfaced pretty much all the time.

    Making an aircraft carrier submersible would be complex and expensive and the only time it would be safe from air attack is when it is useless for air defence.

    I remember in the late 1980s there was a computer game on the Amiga 500 called "Interceptor".

    It was totally amazing because although it used wire frame graphics like previous games the wire frames were filled in, making them look like solid objects... if very angular and blocky.

    The game pretty much takes place in San Francisco, and there were something like 6 missions and you could fly from an F-16 on land or an F-18 from a carrier, and the enemy was a mysterious MiG-29 (that was actually a black F-16 depicted in the game).

    Missions were intercepting aircraft and cruise missiles including a nuclear cruise missile you had to chase down... it was all rather fun.

    The last mission you flew up to the north left of the map to find a surfaced submarine with a landing deck and cables and you have to fire air to air missiles into the subs tower to defeat it (you also had to shoot down aircraft it has launched in two waves from memory...)

    Once you destroy it it does not sink... you get told you won, but you can keep flying so I used to land on the sub... which was exciting and fun.

    The real issue is that as a sub it is going to be enormous which will make it vulnerable, and when surfaced it is going to be pretty damn big too, which makes it also vulnerable on the surface as well.

    When transitioning from being on the surface to underwater or the other way it is going to be deaf and blind and unable to deploy its main weapon... AWACS and Fighters.

    Even a huge sub wont carry many aircraft at all... it just has too many flaws to be realistic outside movies or video games.

    Interceptor was also the first flight sim where you could see the control surfaces on the aircraft move when you manouvered, but you could only see the weapons when they launched.... they appeared and then flew to their targets.

    Bob Dinnerman designed it I think, and it had a code wheel to stop people using pirate copies.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Sep 27, 2019 5:40 pm

    Russian & Chinese SSBNs can still hide in the Arctic/SC Sea, not to mention Okhotsk Sea - the enemy SSNs & aircraft will need to get there 1st & survive long enough to release their UUVs:
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-nightmare-meet-1-thing-could-make-submarines-obsolete-83486
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11128
    Points : 11202
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Dec 27, 2019 11:05 pm

    It’s Time for Russian Carrier Ambitions to Sail Into the Sunset

    If carriers are obsolete that goes double for Russia

    https://www.checkpointasia.net/its-time-for-russian-carrier-ambitions-to-sail-into-the-sunset/

    Is there a future for Russian aircraft carriers?

    by The Saker

    Those following the news from Russia have probably heard that Russia’s only aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov (official name: Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov), was put into dry dock for major repairs and retrofits. Things did not go well. First, the dry dock sank (it was Russia’s biggest) and then a huge crane came crashing down on the deck. And just to make it even worse, a fire broke out on the ship killing 2 and injuring more. With each setback, many observers questioned the wisdom of pouring huge sums of money into additional repairs when just the scheduled ones would cost a lot of money and take a lot of time.

    Actually, the damage from the fire was not as bad as expected. The damage from the crane was, well, manageable. But the loss of the only huge floating dry dock is a real issue: the Kuznetsov cannot be repaired elsewhere and these docks cost a fortune.

    But that is not the real problem.

    The real problem is that there are major doubts amongst Russian specialists as to whether Russia needs ANY aircraft carriers at all.

    How did we get here?

    A quick look into the past

    During the Soviet era, US aircraft carriers were (correctly) seen as an instrument of imperial aggression. Since the USSR was supposed to be peaceful (which, compared to the US she was, compared to Lichtenstein, maybe less so) why would she need aircraft carriers?

    Furthermore, it is illegal to transit from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean through the Bosphorus with an aircraft carrier and yet the only shipyard in the USSR which could build such a huge ship was in Nikolaev, on the Black Sea.

    Finally, the Soviets were acutely aware of how vulnerable US aircraft carriers are to missile attacks, so why build such an expensive target, especially considering that the Soviet Union had no AWACS (only comparatively slow, small and much less capable early warning helicopters) and no equivalents to the F-14/F-18 (only the frankly disappointing and short range Yak-38s which would be very easy prey for US aircraft).

    Eventually, the Soviets did solve these issues, somewhat. First, they created a new class of warship, the “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser”: under the flight deck, these Soviet aircraft carriers also held powerful anti-ship missiles (however, this was done at the cost of capacity under the deck: a smaller wing and smaller stores). Now, they could legally exit the Black Sea.

    Next, they designed a very different main mission for their “heavy aircraft carrying cruiser”: to extend the range of Russian air defenses, especially around so called “bastion” areas where Russian SSBNs used to patrol (near the Russian shores, say the Sea of Okhotsk or the northern Seas). So while the Soviet heavy aircraft carrying cruiser were protecting Russian subs, they themselves were protected by shore based naval aviation assets.

    Finally, they created special naval variants for their formidable MiG-29s and Su-27s. As for the AWACS problem, they did nothing about it at all (besides some plans on paper). The collapse of the USSR only made things worse.

    The Soviets also had plans for a bigger, nuclear, aircraft carriers, and on paper they looked credible, but they never made it into production. These supposed “super carriers” would also come with a truly “super” price… [The 70,000-ton Ulyanovsk was scrapped after 1991 at 40% complete.]

    So how good was/is the Kuznetsov?

    Well, we will probably never find out. What is certain, however, is that she is no match for the powerful U.S. carriers, even their old ones, and that the US has always been so far ahead of the USSR or Russia in terms of carriers and carrier aviation that catching up was never a viable option, especially not when so many truly urgent programs needed major funding.

    Did the Kuznetsov extend the range of Russian air defenses? Yes, but this begs the question of identity of the “likely adversary”. Not the US: attacking Russian SSBNs would mean total war, and the U.S. would be obliterated in a few short hours (as would Russia). I don’t see any scenario in which US ASuW/ASW assets would be looking for Russian SSBNs anywhere near the Russian coasts anyway, this would be suicidal.

    What about smaller countries? This is were the rationalizations become really silly. One Russian (pretend) specialist even suggested the following scenario: the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt takes power, thousands of Russian tourists are arrested and the Islamists demand that Russia give full sovereignty over to all Muslim regions of Russia, if not: then hundreds of Russians will get their throats slit on Egyptian TV. Can you guess how an aircraft carrier would help in this situation?

    Well, according to this nutcase, the Russian carrier would position itself off the Egyptian coast, then the Russians would send their (pretty small!) air-wing to “suppress Egyptian air defenses” and then the entire Pskov Airborne Division would be somehow (how?!?!?!) be airlifted to Egypt to deal with the Ikhwan and free the Russian hostages.

    It makes me wonder what this specialist was smoking!

    Not only does it appear that the Egyptians are currently in negotiations with Moscow to acquire 24+ brand new Su-35s (which can eat the Russian carrier aircraft for breakfast and remain hungry for more), but even without these advanced multi-role & air superiority fighters the rest of the Egyptian air defenses would be a formidable threat for the relatively old and small (approx.: 18x Su-33; 6x MiG-29K; 4x Ka-31; 2x Ka-27) Russian airwing. As for airlifting the entire 76th Guards Air Assault Division – Russia simply does not have the kind of transport capabilities to allow it to do that (not to mention that Airborne/Air Assault divisions are NOT trained to wage a major counterinsurgency war by themselves, in a large and distant country). Theories like these smack more of some Russian version of a Hollywood film than of the plans of the General Staff of Russia.

    Back to the real world now

    Frankly, the Kuznetsov was a pretty decent ship, especially considering its rather controversial design and the appalling lack of maintenance. She did play an important role in Syria, not thanks to her airwing, but to her powerful radars. But now, I think that it is time to let the Kuznetsov sail into history: pouring more money in this clearly antiquated ship makes no sense whatsoever.

    What about new, modern, aircraft carriers?

    The short answer is: how can I declare that the USN has no rational use left for its aircraft carriers and also say that the Russian case is different and that Russia does need one or perhaps several such carriers? The USN is still several decades ahead of modern Russia in carrier operations, and (relatively) poor and (comparatively) backward Russia (in naval terms) is going to do better? I don’t think so.

    Then, there is one argument which, in my opinion, is completely overlooked: while it is probably true that a future naval version of the Su-57s (Su-57K?) would be more than a match for any US aircraft, including the flying brick also knows as F-35, Russia STILL has nothing close to the aging but still very effective carrier-capable USN Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye. Yes, Russians have excellent radars and excellent airframes, but it is one thing to have the basic capabilities and quite another to effectively integrate them. As always, for Russia, there is the issue of cost. Would it make sense to finance an entire line of extremely costly aircraft for one (or even a few) aircraft carriers?

    We need to keep in mind that while Russia leads the world in missile technology (including anti-shipping missiles!), there are many countries nowadays who have rather powerful anti-ship missiles too, and not all are so friendly to Russia (some may be at present, but might change their stance in the future).

    Unless Russia makes a major move to dramatically beef-up her current capabilities to protect a high-value and very vulnerable target like a hypothetical future aircraft carrier, she will face the exact same risks as all other countries with aircraft carriers currently do.

    A quick look into the future

    Hypersonic and long range missiles have changed the face of naval warfare forever and they have made aircraft carriers pretty much obsolete: if even during the Cold War the top of the line U.S. carriers were “sitting ducks”, imagine what any carrier is today? The old saying, “shooting fish in a barrel” comes to mind.

    Furthermore, what Russia needs most today are, in my opinion, more multi-role cruise missile and attack submarines SSN/SSGN (like the Yasen), more diesel-electric attack submarines SSK (like the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky), more advanced patrol boats/frigates (like the Admiral Kasatonov), more small missile ships/corvettes (like the Karakurt), more large assault ships (like the Petr Morgunov) and many, many, more.

    As for aircraft carriers, they are not needed any more to extend the (already formidable) Russian air defenses and in the power-projection role (operations far from Russia), the Russian Navy does not have the capabilities to protect any carrier far away from home shores.

    Which leaves only three possible roles:

    1) “Showing the flag”, i.e. make port calls to show that Russia is as “strong” and “advanced” as the US Navy. Two problems with that: i) the USN is decades ahead of Russia in carrier operations and 2) there are MUCH cheaper way to show your muscle (the Tu-160 does a great job of that).

    2) “Retaining the carrier know-how”. But for what purpose? What naval strategy? What mission? Russia is the nation that made aircraft carriers obsolete – why should she ignore her own force planning triumphs?

    3) Prestige and $$$ allocation to select individuals and organizations within and next to the Russian Navy. Since Russia does not have a money-printing-press or criminally bloated budgets, she simply cannot afford the capital outlay either for the Russian Navy, or for the nation of Russia, just to fill the pockets of some interested parties.

    Conclusion:

    If I have missed something, please correct me. I don’t see any role for carriers in the future Russian Navy. That is not to say that I am sure that they won’t be built (there are constant rumors about future Russian “super” carriers, no less!), but if they are built, I believe that it will be for all the wrong reasons.

    The plight of the Kuznetsov might be blessing for Russia. She was a good ship (all in all), but now she should be viewed as an object lesson to (hopefully) kill any plans to build more carriers for the Russian Navy.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:12 am

    I don’t see any scenario in which US ASuW/ASW assets would be looking for Russian SSBNs anywhere near the Russian coasts anyway, this would be suicidal.
    Unless the US attacked land targets 1st & wanted to prevent retaliation. Their SSNs went to the Arctic to collect ocean data & intel on Soviet/RF subs precisely for that purpose. Perhaps that's why they also insist on using the NSR w/o any restrictions- to compromise that SSBN bastion.

    From the comments to the article above:
    But the Admiral Kuznetsov should and will be repaired. The reasons? Well, for one most of the work is done already. Really, the refit was limited from it's original goals anyway and 2) Used along the Northern Sea Route the ship can provide the Northern command with launch and attack vectors that complement the growing number of Russian airfields there. 3) Ferrying working aircraft. Look at Russia's Syria situation, geographically. Iraqi airspace was open to Russia, and then it wasn't. Turkish airspace has been opened for Russia but now there is pressure inside Turkey to limit it because of the growing success of the Idlib campaign. If airspace were to be completely closed Russia would have to box aircraft, sans wings and reassemble them in Syria. Ferrying air groups to Syria or wherever faces American intervention in the future, say Algeria is a mighty useful mission statement for the Admiral Kuznetsov. The cost and trouble of finishing the repair and refit is mildly problematic, with the cost factor being minor. The payment was already rendered and damages from the crane incident and the fire are to be bourne by the yard. The cost of not being able to move 15-18 ready to fight aircraft to an operating theatre and going back to Russia for more might prove way more than troublesome. Keep her.

    Jesus • an hour ago
    The reason US carrier battle groups are vulnerable to Russian and Chinese naval forces is because they stagnated technologically and their offensive capabilities are reliant on solely aircraft. Their antiship capabilities consist of Harpoon, LRASM and modified Tomahawks all subsonic and reliant on old airframes. Their Aegis system is old and unproven against supersonic cruise missiles, and totally helpless against hypersonic weapons.
    Russia acquiring aircraft and helicopter carriers would enhance the combined arms coordination, projecting power and influence around the world. The carrier and its escorts would operate as an IADS capable of engaging enemy forces at ranges that are beyond their reach.
    Russia’s technological advantage in surface to air defenses and antiship capabilities enhanced by hypersonic missiles, would keep their carriers safe and deadly.

    rightiswrong • 7 hours ago
    If WW3 starts, then carriers won't last more than the flight time of a missile.
    What about the time between world wars?
    Russia needs a carrier, 4 would do well. Syria has shown that Russia needs to be able to provide all types of military assets to far away allies, and air cover cannot be provided by transport ships carrying boxed aircraft. Also, Russian pilots have more training, experience, and fly advanced aircraft which Syria or other nations allied with Russia do not. ..

    China has her long coastline facing the Pacific & needs 6 CV/Ns to protect claims & SLOCs; Russia has her much longer coastline facing the Pacific, the Arctic & it's adjacent to the N. Atlantic; both need to patrol the Indian Ocean to protect their allies, SLOCs & underbellies.
    That's why IMO, as long as Russia is a Pacific power, the VMF would ideally need at least 4 TAKR/CV/N hybrids.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Dec 28, 2019 2:25 am

    If carriers are obsolete that goes double for Russia

    We have gone over this a hundred times... surface ships... no matter how good their air defence... are vulnerable to air and missile attack.

    Aircraft offer many advantages... speed and range and flexibility... sight and reach.

    They make a group of ships safer and provide information to the commander of that surface group that other assets can't match.

    Imagine telling a NATO soldier that it is OK... their attack wont be covered by air power... ground based defences and attack will be good enough... we are saving money by not having attack helos and A-10s and other support aircraft and our SAMs are the best in the world so why waste money on fighter planes and AWACS platforms?
    Regular
    Regular

    Posts : 2428
    Points : 2412
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Regular Sat Dec 28, 2019 11:43 am

    GarryB wrote:
    If carriers are obsolete that goes double for Russia

    We have gone over this a hundred times... surface ships... no matter how good their air defence... are vulnerable to air and missile attack.

    Aircraft offer many advantages... speed and range and flexibility... sight and reach.

    They make a group of ships safer and provide information to the commander of that surface group that other assets can't match.

    Imagine telling a NATO soldier that it is OK... their attack wont be covered by air power... ground based defences and attack will be good enough... we are saving money by not having attack helos and A-10s and other support aircraft and our SAMs are the best in the world so why waste money on fighter planes and AWACS platforms?

    Artillery is still god of war in land battles. Russia doesn't emphasize itself on dependence on aviation like west does for a reason.
    Sea in a conflict will be swarmed by western ships, Russia has no chance to dominate there due to geographical reasons ss well.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7652
    Points : 7636
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Dec 28, 2019 12:08 pm

    Artillery is still god of war in land battles. Russia doesn't emphasize itself on dependence on aviation like west does for a reason.

    Yeah tell that to iraqi artillery. They got destroyed in matter of weeks by the aviation.

    WW2 showed that aircrafts are superior to ships.

    Today it is still the case. A mig 29k can carry 4 kh-35 or kh-31 and launch them well out of the reach of any air def system. Even if you have s-400 on your ship the mig can always play with altitude and reduce your detection range at 50km max against him so you will mostly shoot down the kh-35 that will be launched by the mig 200km away by puping up few seconds and launching the missile. Your s400 won't be able to hit him as he will go down very fast.

    The mig also carries a radar with 300km range and will fly at 600-700km/h and cover a great fistance scaning the sea looking for your ships and destroying any helicopter or  drone you send into the battle. It also provide cover against enemy aviation and missile attacks.


    But the more important is during local crisis in peace time. Bringing a carrier with 30 modern jets with sole tactical nuclear warheads calms down everyone so you protect your interest.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Dec 29, 2019 2:39 am

    Artillery is still god of war in land battles. Russia doesn't emphasize itself on dependence on aviation like west does for a reason.
    Sea in a conflict will be swarmed by western ships, Russia has no chance to dominate there due to geographical reasons ss well.

    That is very true... from direct and very very painful experience the Russian Army knows it can't just relax and rely on the Air Force to cover the skies for them, but that doesn't mean they don't have an Air Force, and that doesn't mean they wont cooperate and work together in combat to make each force much more effective and safe from enemy action.

    It is not the fault of the Air Force that it is not as mobile as NATO because it has always been a defensive force and not a mobile imperial force for attacking other states and destroying other countries.

    The fact is that the navy will be operating near land based air power most of the time for the next half to full decade, but after that when the navy has grown and developed into a more complete force with larger ships able to operate further from Russia for longer periods and economic and political ties with countries that don't share a land border with Russia become more important they will start to become a global force and by then it is too late to say... ooh we got rid of the K because we had a little fire and we didn't want to keep paying money for it... it will only cost 50x what we were paying and a lot of accidents and problems relearning how to be a Navy with aircraft carriers... but it was the right decision made by fanboys on the internet... their action was fully supported by western funded troll farms and the US state department too so it must be the right way for them to go right?

    Yeah tell that to iraqi artillery. They got destroyed in matter of weeks by the aviation.

    WW2 showed that aircrafts are superior to ships.

    And that is important too... Russia has no experience as a global naval power, they never had to operate for any long period away from land based Russian air power, they just relied on trade that came to them... which in many ways limited their growth and their options when threatened.

    Things are different now and they need to look at different options.

    This has nothing to do with "The US and now China are making big carriers so Russia needs some because they are cool".

    This is about the Russian Navy being able to operate anywhere in the world with air cover and aircraft support.

    I keep mentioning the US shootdown of the Iranian Airbus in the late 1980s... the AEGIS class cruiser responsible was state of the art at the time and it was claimed it could identify targets by counting the number of engines and identify them by the pattern of the blades they could see... one would think that together with the Standard SAM that they would be safe on their own anywhere from air attack... their purpose is to protect not only itself but also the aircraft carrier it would be operating with so just defending itself should be easier... but reality was different. Problems with the system meant they misidentified the target and continued to misidentify it despite it using the correct civilian coded IFF signal and being on a civilian flight path at the time.

    You could suggest they could send out a helo to check... no they couldn't it has nothing like the necessary speed and by the time they got a visual on the aircraft it would be too late... the US ship had already sent out its helo to threaten Iranian boats and when those Iranian boats fired warning shots to get it to leave Iranian territory the American ship captain counted that as being fired on and called back his helo and started chasing the Iranian boats and firing at them with his main gun and chasing them deeper into Iranian territorial waters from where he fired on a civilian airliner.

    With his available sensors and resources he believed he was under attack, but clearly the facts of the matter show his sensors and resources were inadequate.

    Sending two armed fighters to investigate would have been a much better solution to the problem either shooting down an enemy plane attacking the ships or identifying the target as civilian and stand down.

    The aircraft carrier isn't about invading countries or posing around the place about how big you are... it is about providing information both from AWACS platforms and fighter intercepts during peace time and during war time... the key is that it is useful during peace time too... during peace time you need to identify targets you detect because ships are going to more and more often carry their own drones... looking for fish... looking for ice... looking for missing people... there are all sorts of things that are going to be out there these days and a human set of eyes is going to be more valuable than a long range view from a radar.

    Today it is still the case. A mig 29k can carry 4 kh-35 or kh-31 and launch them well out of the reach of any air def system. Even if you have s-400 on your ship the mig can always play with altitude and reduce your detection range at 50km max against him so you will mostly shoot down the kh-35 that will be launched by the mig 200km away by puping up few seconds and launching the missile. Your s400 won't be able to hit him as he will go down very fast.

    Exactly.... but even more so... if that MiG-29 is yours he can launch some missiles at surface ships, but if it detects enemy aircraft it can pass on that information to your ships which might be close enough to launch an S-400 against them... or even an S-500 if it is a valuable target like a Hawkeye...

    The aircraft extend the sight and range of your ships weapons as well because they are all sharing data all the time and what appears on his radar now appears on everyones.

    That alone is very valuable.

    And you can replace him with an expendable drone if you want too... he could release it from low altitude and it could climb and look... even just squawk a radar pulse and then listen to electronic traffic in response to determine what is out there... he might just be fitted with a non directional radar emitter and have a passive radar sensor array down the side of the fuselage so when he flys at a tangent to the threat area he can listen with great accuracy to any signals...

    The mig also carries a radar with 300km range and will fly at 600-700km/h and cover a great fistance scaning the sea looking for your ships and destroying any helicopter or  drone you send into the battle. It also provide cover against enemy aviation and missile attacks.

    I can also quickly fly to an area and look at a target to see if it is enemy or neutral and escort it away from the carrier group... in peace time (which is all the time that makes it very useful... so many things are only useful during conflict, but this will be valuable all the time) and during war... you don't want to waste all your SAMs on drones a fighter aircraft could shoot down with cannon shells.


    But the more important is during local crisis in peace time. Bringing a carrier with 30 modern jets with sole tactical nuclear warheads calms down everyone so you protect your interest.

    Important too... it shows you mean business.


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Dec 30, 2019 11:59 pm; edited 1 time in total
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4299
    Points : 4293
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 45
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Hole Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:58 pm

    Without comment.

    11 Sailors Injured in 5 Hour Fire Aboard Amphib USS Iwo Jima; 3rd Warship Damaged in Fire During Maintenance in Last Year

    "Eleven sailors suffered minor injuries during a fire that broke out late Thursday aboard the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7), Navy officials told USNI News.

    “Sailors on board reported smoke in a cargo hold and a subsequent damage control investigation identified the fire and confirmed the fire had not spread to surrounding spaces,” read a statement from Expeditionary Strike Group 2.

    “In total, 11 Iwo Jima Sailors reported minor injuries; they were treated at the scene and released.”

    The fire broke out about 11:45 p.m. on Thursday while the amphib was in a maintenance period at Naval Station Mayport, Fla. Ship’s company, the Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department and sailors from nearby guided-missile destroyer USS The Sullivans (DDG-68) fought the fire until it was put out at about 4:35 a.m., according to a report in local station, CBS 47 Action News Jax.

    “Sailors are rigorously trained to combat casualties such as this fire, and we are grateful for the assistance of the installation and the local community to help ensure the safety of our people and our ships,” said Iwo Jima commander Capt. Darrell Canady.

    The cause of the fire is now under investigation, the service said.

    Iwo Jima had been undergoing maintenance since returning from participating in Exercise Trident Juncture with the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit in December. Previous to the exercise, it had completed a six-month deployment with the 26th MEU in August 2018.

    The incident aboard Iwo Jima follows fire damage to two other warships that were undergoing maintenance and repairs in shipyards.
    On Nov. 10, an electrical fire broke out on USS Oscar Austin (DDG-79), which was nearing the end of what was supposed to be a year-long, $41.6 million maintenance and upgrade period at the BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair yard. About 30 crew members from Oscar Austin and USS Cole (DDG-67) extinguished the fire, according to a Norfolk Fire Marshal’s incident report obtained by USNI News.

    The fire was caused by hot work on board and repairs to Oscar Austin are expected to stretch into 2022. Hot work typically involves welding or using a blow torch.

    In a May status report, Cmdr. Garrett Miller, the commanding officer of USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), warned poor safety practices at the Ingalls Shipbuilding yard in Pascagoula, Miss., were putting at risk the two-year, $533 million effort to repair the destroyer that was heavily damaged in a deadly 2017 collision with a commercial ship.

    Miller, in his report, wrote expanding the hot work area “caused damage to bulkhead lagging and electrical panel.”

    The following is the complete Friday statement from ESG 2.

    Sailors aboard USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) in partnership with sailors from USS The Sullivans (DDG-68), Naval Station Mayport Florida firefighters, and the Jacksonville Fire Department extinguished a fire aboard Iwo Jima early this morning, while the ship was pierside at Naval Station Mayport.

    “Sailors are rigorously trained to combat casualties such as this fire, and we are grateful for the assistance of the installation and the local community to help ensure the safety of our people and our ships,” said Capt. Darrell Canady, commanding officer of Iwo Jima.

    Sailors on board reported smoke in a cargo hold and a subsequent damage control investigation identified the fire and confirmed the fire had not spread to surrounding spaces.

    In total, 11 Iwo Jima Sailors reported minor injuries; they were treated at the scene and released. Iwo Jima is conducting a maintenance availability.

    The Navy is investigating the cause of the fire and determining the extent of the damage on board. There has been no damage to adjacent ships or to the pier infrastructure.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1229
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:36 am

    The article about the use of carriers is a bit misguided. The US has not used carriers against an advanced nation since WWII. The carrier is useful to deplot airpower against tier 3 nations and insurgents. Even the UK was very lucky to not lose any carriers in the Falklands war to the Argies Iron bombs and Exocet missles. Having a massive fleet of carriers like the USA is absurd, but to have a small number, 1-3 is useful. Just keep them at home in a real war as they will go down pretty fast. The US has no defence against the KH-32 or even the older KH-22. 4 TU-22s will defeat any carrier group let alone the ability to use tactical nukes. Then there are mines, torpedoes, Kinzhal, Tsirkon Oniks, KH-31 etc etc. But to provide airpower against rabble and show the flag they are useful. Also very useful in emergencies to deliver aid.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Dec 30, 2019 3:58 am

    4 TU-22s will defeat any carrier group..
    At least a dozen Tu-22Ms were needed to engage a CBG with a good chance of success:
    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5-22#%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 6025
    Points : 6003
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  miketheterrible Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:24 am

    That was then vs now.

    Newer missiles gives newer capabilities.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1229
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:35 am

    miketheterrible wrote:That was then vs now.

    Newer missiles gives newer capabilities.

    Exactly and the US no longer has an F-14/Phoenix capability. The KH-32 is a HUGE leap ahead of the 22. 12 of those would savage a CBG, it won't sink everything but the carrier will be inop and a bunch of the other ships will be sunk.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:45 am

    At least a dozen Tu-22Ms were needed to engage a CBG with a good chance of success:

    We have no evidence the US Navy can deal with Kh-32 anti ship missiles, so while of course any attack on a US carrier would use as many assets as they had available, I would say his assessment that four Tu-22M3s with Kh-32s would be a serious threat to a US carrier group would be valid... it would certainly stop them from doing what ever they were doing and get them to move on.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5656
    Points : 5650
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:12 pm

    This is what he posted:
    The US has no defence against the KH-32 or even the older KH-22. 4 TU-22s will defeat any carrier group..

    I was referring to them armed with KH-22; but even for the KH-32, they still would need more bombers to strike all ships in the CBG with more than 1 missile to ensure that at least some would get through & score a hit. Bombers & missiles may malfunction or make mistakes even w/o any action on the part of defenders
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1229
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:56 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:This is what he posted:
    The US has no defence against the KH-32 or even the older KH-22. 4 TU-22s will defeat any carrier group..

    I was referring to them armed with KH-22; but even for the KH-32, they still would need more bombers to strike all ships in the CBG with more than 1 missile to ensure that at least some would get through & score a hit. Bombers & missiles may malfunction or make mistakes even w/o any action on the part of defenders

    You don't really need to strike all ships to stop a CBG, once you score a serious hit on the carrier, all ships will be engaged in rescue and recovery and I really do not see how a carrier can be operable after a hit from a KH-32. The missile will hit dead center at mach 5 and the warhead will explode deep in the carrier or underwater where it will break the ships back, heck even if the warhead fails we are talking 2 tons at mach 5...

    If they persist the 2nd wave will be even more effective

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29919
    Points : 30447
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Dec 31, 2019 12:30 am

    Indeed... the current air defence of US carrier groups consists of F-18 hornets with AMRAAM missiles... and AFAIK the AMRAAM does not have the capacity to reach 40km altitude where the Kh-32 missiles will be travelling at mach 4.5...

    Not even sure the AEGIS class cruisers could intercept such targets reliably... that is why they fly at that speed and at that altitude.

    US carrier groups are centred around their carriers... the carrier is the strike platform and the other ships defend it... damage the carrier and the rest of the ships will likely leave with it.

    The US Navy in its time was very nervous about the Kh-22M, and is even more worried about the Kh-32 that replaced it... so worried I think many are in denial.

    In the 1980s four Backfires mounting a surprise attack on a carrier (ie flying low to evade radar and then when in range of the carrier climbing and launching and then leaving the area) would be a very difficult one to stop for the F-14s and Phoenix missiles they had.

    Today, with missiles with longer range and operating at twice the altitude and speed the problems will be multiplied several times...

    They are on the verge of introducing a new hypersonic manouvering missile called Zircon which is going to mean just one Backfire could probably launch half a dozen of these missiles and take out a carrier group on its own from 1,000km range...

    I can see why people claim the carrier is useless and a big sitting duck, but for Russia lets be realistic... no platform they have will survive WWIII under their doctrine... their doctrine is basically that WWIII is suicide... everyone dies, so there would be no value in having aircraft carriers that did survive anyway.

    The point is that during peace time and small wars and conflicts that aircraft carriers are actually rather useful... they are certainly not cheap, but what part of C4IR is cheap? It is clearly worth it.

    In Syria, Russia launched cruise missiles against point targets in Syria and took out a lot of enemy positions that undermined their ability to continue to fight the war. Instead of using Russian troops to steam roller ISIS and western supported terrorist groups, they used technology and tactics to kick the foundations out from under the enemy force and make it collapse much faster than if they had just tried to chip away at them from the outside.

    This was not just a case of developing and producing cruise missiles... you need well trained and well equipped special forces and other platforms like A-50U and other aircraft to detect enemy activity and determine where their command centres are and where their weapons are stored, how they get fuel and weapons, how they get money to pay for everything and then start to hit all that with missiles and air power.

    An aircraft carrier contributes to the C4IR, but is also adds in many other ways too... a big platform that can carry bigger helos if needed... you could launch any drone you like from that deck... you could have it sitting in the middle of the atlantic or pacific and have one of their new 12,000km range drones land on it to refuel and perhaps change the payload and then launch again... turning a 12,000km range drone into a 24,000km range drone.

    Providing commanders with accurate relevant information in peace time is also very valuable, aircraft can intercept and escort and identify objects on the sea surface and in the air, and can defend themselves... unlike drones which are pretty much sitting ducks most of the time.

    If aircraft are not valuable why do most Frigates and larger ships have organic helicopters?

    Some corvettes also have helicopters or drones too... aircraft are important and while they are not cheap they make your Navy stronger and safer and more effective.
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1229
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Tue Dec 31, 2019 5:40 pm

    The Aegis ABMs are designed to intercept ballistic missiles. The have very limited abilty to manuver and the KH-32 can be programmed with several approaches to target. So the probabilty of intercept is remote, at best, with the current tech. I am not sure what RIM can deal with but even if it hits KH-32 in terminal phase the carrier gets hit with 2 tons of hypersonic debris....if the Russians are in a mean mood they can even target the reactor compartment and shower the group with radioactivity in which case they will be compelled to scuttle the carrier with torpedos.
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2628
    Points : 2628
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Jan 01, 2020 10:43 am

    We can argue endlessly about the veracity of a given SAM/ABM against a given SS/AShM/CM but at the end of the day its easier to attack a ship with a missile than it is to defend.  When tech levels between the protagonists are essentially equivalent, the attacker will always have the advantage.  If the USN is ever foolhardy enough try to attack Russia or China I fully expect them to come off 2nd best in any such engagement, and it won't be pretty.

    They don't say that "the best defense is a good offense" for no reason...

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 5 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:31 am