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


+56
Firebird
Lennox
thegopnik
ALAMO
Broski
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
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
60 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:59 am

    He is of the same opinion as me:
    In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 2945
    Points : 2945
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:He is of the same opinion as me:
    In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers." https://lenta.ru/news/2020/07/31/navy/


    Meh... some apparatchik in the Russian MIC wants the gov to spend more money on carriers.  Why am I not surprised.   Suspect

    Build a pair of LHDs first (to bolster Russias ability to impose hard power along her periphery and near abroad) while simultaneously building up a new blue water fleet that can serve as effective escorts for any new large carrier.  Then build the carrier and rely upon the modernised Kuznetsov until then.

    Putting the cart before the horse is always a fucking stupid idea.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 11866
    Points : 11932
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:56 am


    If you want light carriers you need to have light fighter jets first

    And since when nobodies get to decide on military procurement?

    He is probably one of those morons who still whine about Bykov-class not having enough missiles to kill a whole CVN plus escorts (I greatly enjoy watching them make asses of themselves)

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:10 am

    The Soviet Kiev class TAKRs carried more helos than planes.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23900_amphibious_assault_ship

    With 20 helos, they will be "helicopter carriers" that later could be adopted for fixed wings, just like these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Essex_(LHD-2)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Hy%C5%ABga

    If you want light carriers you need to have light fighter jets first
    Russia has them, & works on a better plane:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130#Specifications_(Yak-130)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:24 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:01 am

    GarryB wrote:

    It has nothing to do with an arms race... I am not suggesting building 150K ton carriers and needing 20 at least to overmatch the USN... this is about making the Russian Navy a global force that can go where it pleases for as long as it pleases without being too vulnerable.
    .

    They do not need 20 when each fighter can launch a 2 or more Zirkons, they do however need supercarriers because a carrier without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces.

    Light carriers are a joke built by small countries that want to pretend that they actually have a proper fleet, a destroyer is a whole lot better than a light carrier and a missile cruiser is likewise better than a medium carrier.

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

    Perhaps they could create specialised nuclear powered escorts that have less UKSK cells but more S500 and Redut in order to increase the autonomy and endurance of the fleet.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8431
    Points : 8415
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:12 am

    without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces

    Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.

    Also carrier based AWACS are not as good as bigger ones like A-100.

    It's good to have them but not critical. A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Aug 01, 2020 2:21 pm

    A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.
    I doubt it- its huge antennas need a big area which CVNs don't have, & emissions may interfere with communications/other radars.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:53 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of thier Zirkons.

    As for medium carriers, if they can launch fully loaded heavy fighters armed with missiles such as Oniks and Zirkon or a dozen AAMs then they will do, but as of yet I have my doubts. Though ofcourse my skepticism in regards to the feasibility of such a carrier may prove to be groundless.

    The primary concern that I have when it comes to carriers is some impressionable moron calling for the construction of a light carrier like the ones of smaller western aligned nations, a toothless waste of space that cannot launch a fighter with anything more potent than a few short or medium ranged AAMs.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:44 pm

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of their Zircons.
    to do that, Tu-95/142s escorted by MiG-31s & refueled by IL-78s would be needed. That's why it's better to use Oscar/Yasen SSGNs that can patrol well away from a CBG & acusticaly detect & ID ships before attacking them with Zircons & other ASMs.
    ..a light carrier.., a toothless waste of space that cannot launch a fighter with anything more potent than a few short or medium ranged AAMs.
    if it's not enough, their escorts will have S-400/500, & helos/tilt-rotors can carry heavier AS/LACMs.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8431
    Points : 8415
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:03 pm

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of thier Zirkons.

    Russia has some sort of specially laws of phisycs for their radar ?

    Carrier based awacs are small, with less powerfull engine than bigger ones and a smaller radar. If the A-100 can't have 1000km range don't expect them to make a small one with such range. They don't even have experience with such awacs.

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

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


    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:24 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Russia has some sort of specially laws of phisycs for their radar ?

    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Carrier based awacs are small, with less powerfull engine than bigger ones and a smaller radar. If the A-100 can't have 1000km range don't expect them to make a small one with such range. They don't even have experience with such awacs.


    If fighters can have radars with a range of 400km then why would a larger aircraft dedicated to carrying a radar not be able to carry one with a range of 1000km.

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


    They use foreign components as sub standard placeholders for domestic production models, I have not read any account of them continuing to use foreign components after the domestic industry required to build such components was repaired.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Aug 01, 2020 6:27 pm

    ..Russia uses US electronics in their hardware even in S-400.
    even if they had, I'm sure there r only Russian components there now.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8431
    Points : 8415
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Aug 01, 2020 8:35 pm

    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Do you have any real comparison ? US radar are very good.

    If fighters can have radars with a range of 400km then why would a larger aircraft dedicated to carrying a radar not be able to carry one with a range of 1000km.

    That's not the same. First 400km radar for fighter is the irbis on su-35 and it need the powerfull su-35's engines which no carrier based awacs has. Then fighter's radars scan a smaller area when used while the Awacs scans a bigger volume. It is also not the same wave band. And then the range depend on the target. Irbis can spot a Yak-44 at more than 400km and fire a salvo of r-37M at it. Yak-44 may detect it also at such ranges but it won't have time to send fighter when the r-37M is flying at mach 5 at him. Against a su-57 it's even worse because it has a smaller rcs even in L band and the awacs would spot it maybe at 200km whike its byelka should allow him to see the awacs at 500km if not more.

    If it was possible A-100 or US E-2 would already have 1000km range.

    IMO AWACS are becoming easy targets and not really needed anymore. They are good to cover a fleet and spot attack from further and with a datalink guide AD missiles at them.

    They use foreign components as sub standard placeholders for domestic production models, I have not read any account of them continuing to use foreign components after the domestic industry required to build such components was repaired.

    I was just pointing out that US have better technology since russians have to use their stuff in critical areas.

    Their domestic industry wasn't repaired. It catched up.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 11743
    Points : 11894
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  kvs Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:31 pm

    Isos wrote:
    No they just have a better understanding of physics, hence why they make superior radars.

    Do you have any real comparison ? US radar are very good.


    The evidence is indirect but very strong. The US is obsessed with the notion of stealth. This sort of thinking originates
    from the 1950s and 1960s primitive radar tech. Basically monochrome crap that could be easily defeated with stealth concepts.
    But things now are vastly different from those bad old days. But for some reason the US is still fixated on the notion of
    defeating radars as if nothing has evolved on the radar front for the last 50 years. This indicates that the US radar tech
    is still primitive and that gives them the notion that all radar tech is at their level since, after all, they are the exceptionalist
    chosen ones who dominate the world in knowhow, innovation and gumption.

    Modern radar systems such as those in Russia make stealth a has been. They are wide-band, networked and incredibly
    more sensitive than anything from the 1960s. So tiny backscatter of photons is detected whereas before it was invisible.

    So there must be a tech difference between Russian and US systems. The US would not be so invested in stealth (going
    so far as to claim that B-2 bombers will participate in a decapitating first strike on Russia when they actually have to fly
    into Russian territory and hope not to be blasted out of the sky) if it possessed radar systems that would defeat stealth.

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 8431
    Points : 8415
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:42 pm

    That's true but that has more to do with their doctrine of puting all their eggs in the same basket, i.e the attack. Stealth participes for that in the way that it facilitate the attack even against IADS.

    Russia on the opposite invest more in defence which makes them have better IADS and AD systems.

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


    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2625
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:45 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Posts : 1187
    Points : 1185
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:48 pm

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


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


    Posts : 2641
    Points : 2625
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:53 pm

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


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

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

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


    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:34 am

    Isos wrote:That's not the same. First 400km radar for fighter is the irbis on su-35 and it need the powerfull su-35's engines which no carrier based awacs has. Then fighter's radars scan a smaller area when used while the Awacs scans a bigger volume. It is also not the same wave band. And then the range depend on the target. Irbis can spot a Yak-44 at more than 400km and fire a salvo of r-37M at it. Yak-44 may detect it also at such ranges but it won't have time to send fighter when the r-37M is flying at mach 5 at him. Against a su-57 it's even worse because it has a smaller rcs even in L band and the awacs would spot it maybe at 200km whike its byelka should allow him to see the awacs at 500km if not more.

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



    I was just pointing out that US have better technology since russians have to use their stuff in critical areas.

    Their domestic industry wasn't repaired. It catched up.

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


    Posts : 8431
    Points : 8415
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:34 am

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

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

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


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

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


    Posts : 32146
    Points : 32674
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:26 pm

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

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

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

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

    Regardless what others say, having self respect is what matters- a nation next to 3 oceans surrounded by NATO/US fleets & bases must have at least 1 CV/TAKR with its escorts.

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

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

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

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

    The USAF can mine & "carpet bomb" the Caribbean & S. Atlantic/Indian Oceans off Africa with B-1B/52s the same way VKS can E. Med. & Japan Seas with Tu-22/95/142/160s; sending CVNs there would be suicidal in a real naval war. China still has to show the USN that it also applies to the SC Sea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It wasn't critical...

    no, it would be better to forcefully remove them to the mainland or Belize or to the Tristan da Cunha/S. Africa like the Brits did to Diego Garcians. Let them taste their own medicine!

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

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

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

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

    He is of the same opinion as me:
    In the same month, Sivkov announced that a pair of Project 23900 (Priboy) universal amphibious assault ships (UDC), which was laid down in July, worth 100 billion rubles, more meet the tasks of the Russian Navy than the French Mistral, but it does not need it at all. In his opinion, the UDC "will turn out to be expensive but useless toys" and "it would be much more useful to turn them into light aircraft carriers.

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

    The Soviet Kiev class TAKRs carried more helos than planes.

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


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

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

    Russia has them, & works on a better plane:

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

    They do not need 20 when each fighter can launch a 2 or more Zirkons, they do however need supercarriers because a carrier without the ability to launch AWACS or heavily armed fighters is rather a waste of money, manpower, time and rescorces.

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

    Light carriers are a joke built by small countries that want to pretend that they actually have a proper fleet, a destroyer is a whole lot better than a light carrier and a missile cruiser is likewise better than a medium carrier.

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

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

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

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

    Awacs were good in the 70s-00s. Now fighters have radars with 400km range and datalinks that makes everyone see what only one scan with its radar. They also have very long range missiles that will make AWACS easy targets.

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

    Also carrier based AWACS are not as good as bigger ones like A-100.

    It's good to have them but not critical. A OTH radar can be set up on the carrier so that you see everything 1500km away which is enough.

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

    Why ever would future Russian AWACS imitate the performance of obsolete pindostanki examples, they would need to be able to detect enemy vessels over 1000 km away in order to make full use of their Zircons.

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

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

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

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

    That's not the same. First 400km radar for fighter is the irbis on su-35 and it need the powerfull su-35's engines which no carrier based awacs has.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Bigger radar means better precision and discrimination performance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


    Posts : 11743
    Points : 11894
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  kvs Sun Aug 02, 2020 3:55 pm

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

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

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

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


    Posts : 1022
    Points : 1074
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:22 pm

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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


    Posts : 4126
    Points : 4128
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:34 pm

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

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


    Posts : 5735
    Points : 5723
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:29 pm

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

    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 9 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:59 pm