Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

The major shift in naval vessels and weaponry is underway. At this moment it is difficult to get real answers whether carriers are to become obsolete or not! We must wait for the next twenty years for the answer.

GarryB wrote:So Russia is only allowed to look at areas near its borders?

It would not need helicopter carrier and destroyers and cruisers if it is focusing on the arctic for the next 20 years... why are they upgrading the Kuznetsov and two Kirovs and Slavas if their only interest is the Arctic?

Why bother with port facilities in the Sudan if they are focused on the Arctic?

Check this:

Russian Navy Seen Escorting Iranian Tankers Bound for Syria

https://news.usni.org/2020/10/21/russian-navy-seen-escorting-iranian-tankers-bound-for-syria

The misuse by the west should not cloud your judgement of their use and function.

Exactly. But since the USN example is so dominant, it ends up misleading people.

Their focus on land attack means getting heavily laiden bombers airborne and then fighter and jammer escorts and AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft as well.

The Russians just need cats to get AWACS in the air and its fighters can take off without them to operate in flights around the ships using radar information from the AWACS and their own IRST and passive radar use...

Instead of several thousand tons of bombs and the huge amount of personnel needed to ensure 200 land attack sorties per day, you may carry a few dozens AShM and according staff. The same goes for the astronomic amounts of fuel a supercarrier needs to sustain high-tempo land attack operations. In A2A or naval strike, a single squadron Su-57 with hypersonic AShM is worth more than 4 squadrons F-18 or F-35 with the USN equivalent weapons. 8-10 Helios-RLD type UAV have way more range and endurance than the normal AWACS wing on an USN CVN and are probably way cheaper and with smaller footprint. And so on. Using the carrier against land turns it into a aberration of a ship.

kumbor wrote:The major shift in naval vessels and weaponry is underway. At this moment it is difficult to get real answers whether carriers are to become obsolete or not! We must wait for the next twenty years for the answer.

The shift is never going to stop and in the meantime the rest of the pack is not sitting idle:

Arrow wrote:

Russia has the most advanced missile technologies in the world. Yes, but this is only one element of military power. To become the greatest military power in the world, you need to dominate almost every field of military technology. We need a huge fleet, which Russia does not have and will not have for the next two decades, an adequate projection of power to react militarily with the military in every corner of the world, etc. Russia does not have that. The USA and soon China have it. These two countries are superpowers today. Russia can destroy any country with nuclear weapons, but it still has a weak navy and air force that could operate in many regions of the world.

Russia does not have the population to compete against US and China when it comes to conventional military power. China has 10 times the population of Russia and is expected to field 10 heavy carriers by the 2030s. US population is projected to be 500 million by the 2030s and expected to field 10 heavy carriers by then. No other country comes close to China and US by the 2030s. By the 2030s Russia won't have any heavy carrier but I think will have 2 LHDs which are currently under construction.

LMFS wrote:

The shift is never going to stop and in the meantime the rest of the pack is not sitting idle:

The shift is not constant. But disruptive technologies arrive form time to time that cause massive change. In modern history we can see a few. The dreadnought class battleship, which was a 30 year trend. Then the carrier which has dominated until now. Also the nuclear submarine. The question is, are we at another disruptive stage now. The trends that are converging to cause this are a) Drones b) hypersonics and c) unmanned ships. These 3 may combine to completely obsolete the entire global fleet.

mnztr wrote:The shift is not constant. But disruptive technologies arrive form time to time that cause massive change. In modern history we can see a few. The dreadnought class battleship, which was a 30 year trend. Then the carrier which has dominated until now. Also the nuclear submarine. The question is, are we at another disruptive stage now. The trends that are converging to cause this are a) Drones b) hypersonics and c) unmanned ships.  These 3 may combine to completely obsolete the entire global fleet.

My point is there is a constant struggle between offensive and defensive means, but I concede there are moments when the balance between them is lost for a while. The technologies you mention are relevant, but I assume they will be integrated in the fleets instead of eliminating warships or carriers specifically:

> Drones can be integrated in carriers without further issues. And of course, the ones operating from a frigate or a destroyer will be smaller and less capable that the ones a carrier can operate. Advantage for the carrier.
> Hypersonics: currently there is an advantage for some weapons that are not apparently stoppable by the AD, but they are very recent and the SAMs to counter them are in development or in the case of Russia, they have been probably already. A system of airborne radiolocators will have always a massive advantage to detect and react to such attacks vs. the ones carried by ships, that is advantage for the carrier again
> UUV/USV: if they have the capabilities, weapons and sea keeping to rival surface fleets then they are probably not smaller. In a first step they will probably be used as intelligence assets, for ASW and as intelligent mines. To find and destroy them airborne surveillance means will be the most efficient way, that gives again the advantage to the carrier.

The carrier is the most flexible way of deploying air power at sea and most of its capability depends on the air wing more than on the ship itself, so I think it is a more future safe platform than probably any other surface vessel. As said I don't see anybody closing their carrier programs, quite the contrary, and what is happening instead is that SAM interceptors are improved, newer better AShMs are created, plans are made to include long range UAVs in the naval aviation etc., so I assume those technologies you mention are not really being seen as substitute but as an improvement.

The major shift in naval vessels and weaponry is underway. At this moment it is difficult to get real answers whether carriers are to become obsolete or not! We must wait for the next twenty years for the answer.

Very true, but you wont see any country giving up air power on land or at sea.

Drones might become a more significant component but that goes for both sides.

The recent conflict in NK shows a weak force with drones can have a surprising effect against a country that neglects its military defence in all aspects.

Experience in Syria should not be ignored where a minor super power (Russia) faced terrorist forces supported and supplied by the west and Saudi Arabia who tried to use drones to attack Russian forces and have failed miserably... because Russia has taken drones very seriously and has been improving all their air defence systems to deal with the threat... the critical component is to detect the damn things in the first place which no one else has even come close to doing.

No surprise Russia is very good at air defence... and a bit ironic because it was the threat of western attack that made them so... and with scramjet technology they are probably leaders in attack too... with Iskander hypersonic manouvering ground launched missiles... an air launched version and various hypersonic anti ship missiles in service or in the verge together with a range of missiles designed to penetrate ABM systems too....

Russia has a multitude of systems to defeat drones and is creating more all the time and actually integrating them into their air defence network from airburst 30mm and 57mm shells to jammers and EMP weapons to small sized missiles optimised for the task to modified ATGMs that might be obsolete in their original role but fine for anti drone work... they are also introducing new drones themselves along with a range of custom designed drone launched weapons....

All this means surface action groups away from Russian waters needs more air protection... not less.

Using the carrier against land turns it into a aberration of a ship.

The way the Russians work... it is only a matter of time before they have an EMALS cat system modified to launch 100kg and 250kg bombs to 500km to 250km range for shore bombardment accurately and cheaply...

Russia has the most advanced missile technologies in the world. Yes, but this is only one element of military power. To become the greatest military power in the world, you need to dominate almost every field of military technology

They have a few core technologies under their belt that makes them well protected... I would say their air defence technology is second to none, and with scramjet and high temperature materials for aircraft (MiG-41) and mach 10 plus long range missiles (Zircon etc etc) means their attack ability is impressive too, but they have no goals to become the greatest military power... they are not trying to crush the west and China and dominate the world on their own terms by their own rules... they just want to be treated with respect and not be ignored or walked over. They don't need to dominate every field of military technology... the US has never done that yet that has been their position for some time now... 30 years... they have of course squandered the opportunity and just wasted the chance to make some real progress and become an actually leader the world might actually consider following... you know the bullshit they preach rather that the dirty dastardly things they actually do in the shadows....

We need a huge fleet, which Russia does not have and will not have for the next two decades, an adequate projection of power to react militarily with the military in every corner of the world, etc. Russia does not have that.

No, they don't need a huge fleet... just like they don't need a 5 million man army or a 10,000 plane airforce... any of which would bankrupt them and cripple them economically.

The focus needs to be on progress for the sake of the Russian people... and the world as a byproduct. It is in Russian interests to be able to trade globally and only a Navy can ensure that.

The USA and soon China have it. These two countries are superpowers today. Russia can destroy any country with nuclear weapons, but it still has a weak navy and air force that could operate in many regions of the world.

You don't have to dominate the whole world at once to be a super power... the US could crush Serbia because Russia was too far away to really help, but the US was impotent with all its carriers and its nuclear weapons when Russian troops entered Georgian territory to clean up artillery units that were causing them problems.

Super power is not as powerful as it actually sounds... the US and the Soviets have been that before and were not really able to do much with it to further their ideologies... communism and democracy are both in the toilet right now because of mistakes made by both sides.

Russia does not have the population to compete against US and China when it comes to conventional military power.

Russia does not need to have an enormous conventional military power... good enough backed up by nukes is all they can ever need.

HATO forces didn't even want to go into Kosovo till the Serbs signed a surrender... how powerful do you think the yanks are on their own when they wont go into Kosovo with ground forces with allies. (not that I blame them of course...)

I also think you might be over estimating the power of Chinese conventional military power....

China has 10 times the population of Russia and is expected to field 10 heavy carriers by the 2030s.

Ten missiles and those carriers and about 20,000 of those Chinese are on the sea floor... numbers don't equate directly to military power... I doubt China has any use for 10 aircraft carriers in the 2030s anyway.

US population is projected to be 500 million by the 2030s and expected to field 10 heavy carriers by then.

So by 2030 Russia needs to have made 10 Zircon missiles to sink 10 US carriers... I am pretty sure they can manage that...

No other country comes close to China and US by the 2030s. By the 2030s Russia won't have any heavy carrier but I think will have 2 LHDs which are currently under construction.

Helicopter carriers are no use without air support from a fixed wing carrier. The construction of two helicopter carriers to replace the first two Mistrals requires the future development of CVNs to protect them in operation. As long as they are not dogs two more helicopter carriers will be laid down... two will be based in the Northern Fleet and two in the Pacific Fleet... and likely 2-3 CVNs will be built later on which together with upgraded Kuznetsov will be two fixed wing carriers for the Northern and Pacific fleets too.

The question is, are we at another disruptive stage now. The trends that are converging to cause this are a) Drones b) hypersonics and c) unmanned ships. These 3 may combine to completely obsolete the entire global fleet.

Hypersonic drones would need large ships to operate from... with flat open decks and under deck storage or hangars, and they will need slower fighter drones to protect the ships it operates with... lets call it an aircraft carrier shall we?

Trying to make it too small just makes it useless... like a two man tank from early WWII... two men overloaded with too many jobs.

Of course with remote Armatas perhaps with a two man crew it might come full circle but with auto loading there is a gunner and a loader and a driver and a commander with computer and robotic automation support.

It won't make sense to build Hypersonic drones. You would build drones that can launch hypersonic missiles. For a drone that can carry 2 hypersonic ASMs you can probably operate 10-30 of these from the new Amphibous ships they are building.

I think Russia deploys its submarines instead of carriers. But the problem is that there are not enough Russian submarines in
service to be effective for such a role. So we had Russian submarines in the Mediterranean during various critical events such as in 2013.
However, the optics of a carrier fleet would be more potent politically since subs are invisible. And such optics are important
and not just posturing. Also, submarines are limited to using missiles. As has been beaten to death, carriers offer more flexibility.

But there is no active construction of carriers in Russia regardless of talk. This tells me that there are not enough Venezuela type
shipping and counter regime change needs around the world for Russia to spend the money. If Russia needed them for its own
needs and not such engagements, then they would be under construction years ago. This point cannot be glossed over even
if carriers would be beneficial.

A British task force going to Hong Kong is going to be well within reach of land based air power from Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland... how would the UK destroy China exactly?

Well he says carriers are better than ground aviation and a must have to be powerfull. UK has two of them armed with f-35. China has a K with j-15 prototypes. UK should be able to control China and chinese sea roads.

They should also go and destroy russians in the arctic. Russia is not a great power since it lacks carriers.

It's opinion. Not mine.

Carries are not much good for WWIII, but if you want to operate surface ships in international waters they will be much much safer with the air support provided by a fixed wing carrier.

And I agree with that. But if you think one or two russian carriers will protect their interest in case nato attack them you are wrong.

They are good against less powerfull enemies.

Also, your remark about VTOL's, tell me is Russia building any? You also know the two Helio carriers they are making would only be able to house less than 10.

There were news about a project.

Isos wrote:

A British task force going to Hong Kong is going to be well within reach of land based air power from Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland... how would the UK destroy China exactly?

Well he says carriers are better than ground aviation and a must have to be powerfull. UK has two of them armed with f-35. China has a K with j-15 prototypes. UK should be able to control China and chinese sea roads.

They should also go and destroy russians in the arctic. Russia is not a great power since it lacks carriers.

It's opinion. Not mine.

Carries are not much good for WWIII, but if you want to operate surface ships in international waters they will be much much safer with the air support provided by a fixed wing carrier.

And I agree with that. But if you think one or two russian carriers will protect their interest in case nato attack them you are wrong.

They are good against less powerfull enemies.

Also, your remark about VTOL's, tell me is Russia building any? You also know the two Helio carriers they are making would only be able to house less than 10.

There were news about a project.

a land based aviation of a country with a decent military is almost always better than a carrier based aviation.
Russia in the artic is redeveloping its own aviation bases.

They grant much more options (in a fixed area) than a carrier. Their only limitation is that they cannot be moved.

Carriers are not only good for bombing third world countries and totally useless against a near peer. They are also useful to defend an area or protect an ally.
A carrier is not the only mean, by the offer more flexibility than just a couple of destroyers or cruisers (in case you cannot deploy there land based aviation).

A few years ago (before Russian direct intervention in Syria) Russia used the s300 in the Moskva cruiser to intercept some missiles against Syria.

Maybe a carrier there (or outside Lybian coasts in 2011) could have hampered the foreign intervention without even needing to shot anyone.

Of course this does not mean that Russia should use them to become another world policeman, just to defend its own interests and protect its trade.

By the way, if I had a carrier and I had to bomb some terrorists or other rogue states, I would try to do as Russia did in Syria, if I had access to a land based airfield protected from strikes and terror attack. That is I would offload most of the aircrafts involved in bombing or land strikes to the land based airfield and I would keep in the carrier only the activities related to air superiority operations, Awacs l, antisub operations and eventually also some antiship missiles (even if the frigates and destroyers in the carrier escort would have anyway good antiship missiles).

Just to make an example, if I had to actively support the Libyan national army against the turkish backed GNA, and I had support of the neighbouring states, I would deploy them (as an example mig 29k and su25) either in Sidi barrani (west part of Egypt) or in Tunisia. Alternatively, Tobruk could also be a good choice.
Here I do not mean that Russia should intervene directly in Lybia, it is just an example.

 I mean 2030 and 2050 strategic development roadmaps? What do you think of them, are they lying, they cannot count or what is your take?

that's what they think they want, but it's subject to changing circumstances. They wanted Ulyanovsk class CVNs & later An-70s too.

But oddly you seem to think that the fleet can be defended vs. a CVN air wing with UAVs and helos, single units of them per hull BTW.

the fleet can have fewer (but better armed) surface ships to be targeted & more subs for both defense & offence; no need for a CVN to launch helos & UAVs- I even suggested a few times before that, besides the LHA, NP icebreakers they now have can be armed & used to tow ships/barges with flight decks & hangars to carry dozens of them. Their AD can deal with enemy fighters & UAVs just as effectively as Su-33/57s. A few STOVLs would be enough to ID a threat before shooting it down.

Also, why do you think a LHA is a great idea and a carrier is not? I mean, a LHA is a tool for amphibious operations but people here keep confusing them with "no bullshit" carriers, when they don't even have the speed to keep up with the rest of the fleet at sea. 

they'll build them anyway, so why not use them as mini-carriers? their speed isn't that important- going a few knots slower &/ sending them ahead of time will keep the group together & under aircover at anytime.

Oh boy the GDP... I will not even start the comparison between Spain and the RF in terms of military potential, should I?

now compare the RF & PRC mil. potentials: the 1st conv. forces  r being gradually revitalized while the 2nd now has a strategic PLAAF & blue water PLAN that didn't exist just 10 years ago. Will Russian economy be able to support building & operating 4 CBGs?

They never had a complete blue fleet navy, their plans were scraped with the fall of the USSR. And today's VMF is just a shy attempt of rebuilding a decent navy, they don't even have frigates...

the blue water navy they did have was enough- the Soviet VMF became "oceanic", as they called it, in 1985, if not earlier; with overseas bases, less ships r needed for sustained presence, & 
they do have complete "white water" navy in the Arctic. 

No, those can be shot down trivially once an enemy fleet is in place and cannot defend themselves in the way to the deployment, plus have no way of actually reaching that far with any combat potential or sustain operations there.

the enemy fleet will need time to to reach the area which won't be too far from Russian bases with ships & planes already there. The USN has only forward deployed surface & SSN units in Japan, Guam, Spain & Bahrain (minesweepers).  

Don't you understand that without a serious navy you cannot ensure the safety and operability of those bases?? Don't you see that the navy is the basis of the US network of bases?

the small ships at those bases will be as serious, thanks to their armaments- recall CM strikes from the land locked Caspian on targets in Syria. In the E. Med. & Red Seas, while in port or off the coast, they can hit Bahrain or UAE & close those seas for enemy warships; do I need to what they could do from Cuba & Venezuela? There'll also be AD & AF units to defend those bases & the nations that host them.

In comparison Russian carrier groups will be for defending Russia and will likely be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleets essentially operating in the arctic ocean countering US ABM cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs... 

their current assets r enough for that, CVNs r not needed. If they were, there would be plans to build CVN-icebreaker hybrids to save $.

It amazes me....people do not seem to understand planes are not nuclear powered....and that land-based fighter cannot follow ships out into the blue waters.

You would think a simple fact like that would be common sense but guess not.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:It amazes me....people do not seem to understand planes are not nuclear powered....and that land-based fighter cannot follow ships out into the blue waters.

You would think a simple fact like that would be common sense but guess not.

In war time you need to destroy ships, not to follow them. The best way is aviation with space based detection tools.

With new missiles like Zirkon (1000+km range), Kinzhal (2500+km range) and all the new ones like kalibr with 4000km range and new aircrafts like su-57 (1500km range) or pak da or tu-22M3M and their huge ranges you can cover pretty much all the oceans from few airbases around the world.

A carrier to be effective need to come at 1000km from its target and few tens of guided bombs to destroy just one airport effectively while it can be put out of action with just one hit.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Carriers are not only good for bombing third world countries and totally useless against a near peer.  They are also useful to defend an area or protect an ally.
A carrier is not the only mean, by the offer more flexibility than just a couple of destroyers or cruisers (in case you cannot deploy there land based aviation).

Even if you have a base on a remote country, if you cannot resupply it under a naval blockade it is rather a vulnerability for your enemies to exploit than an asset. Hardly surprising that Russia has no bases far from their territory, and that the only ones they have at all can be protected by assets based in Russia. There are no coincidences here.

Maybe a carrier there (or outside Lybian coasts in 2011) could have hampered the foreign intervention without even needing to shot anyone.

Maybe not the clearest situation to deploy a carrier, which is best used in open ocean and where you have no other chance to intervene, but already in an interesting grey zone. In the future I would see even UDKs doing such missions, since anyone attacking them would have good chances of receiving a visit from the long range aviation...

Tsavo Lion wrote:that's what they think they want, but it's subject to changing circumstances. They wanted Ulyanovsk class CVNs & later An-70s too.

The circumstances have changed so massively that they wrote those documents five and three years as long term roadmaps and they are already old? Good that you know better than them.

BTW, nothing in regards of the carriers has changed. They are developing the blue water navy progressively as it should be done and they have said and keep saying they will get carriers. The Ulyanovsk was not cancelled due to military or doctrinal issues but due to the disintegration of the USSR so the idea is pretty old and has changed quite little in all this time. Carriers are needed because without airpower a fleet far from your own territory is toast, that's it.

As to the rest of your post... sorry but there is such a disconnect between reality and what you say that all I can recommend is you to read a lot of doctrine, real naval doctrine, and think for a while why do navies do what they do instead of essentially assuming they are all a bunch of backward people that will sooner or later will have to follow your visionary approaches. Almost none of the options you propose make much sense and are the military equivalent of playing chess thinking you can eat up the entire board by just moving one pawn smartly enough.

IMO future carriers are fairly small drone carriers, pretty much the size of current Russian LHDs under construction.

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:It amazes me....people do not seem to understand planes are not nuclear powered....and that land-based fighter cannot follow ships out into the blue waters.

You would think a simple fact like that would be common sense but guess not.

In war time you need to destroy ships, not to follow them. The best way is aviation with space based detection tools.

With new missiles like Zirkon (1000+km range), Kinzhal (2500+km range) and all the new ones like kalibr with 4000km range and new aircrafts like su-57 (1500km range) or pak da or tu-22M3M and their huge ranges you can cover pretty much all the oceans from few airbases around the world.

A carrier to be effective need to come at 1000km from its target and few tens of guided bombs to destroy just one airport effectively while it can be put out of action with just one hit.

The more you talk the more it's clear you don't know shit and it's clear you don't know the first thing about something called DISTANCE

Kinzhal is STATED to have a range of 2000Km not 2500, that about 1.2MI. Assuming that is the truthful number and isn't a lie. I will show you a picture using google how far that is.

The lower missiles fly btw the more fuel they need to burn so the lower a missile flyes to attempt to evade detection the lower its max range is and missiles become inaccurate when they have close to no fuel. Only under the best conditions will a missile be able to uses its max range

Kaliber's are only supersonic Modern US navy defenses can deal with those and those submarines are dead meat if there are no surface ships to protect them.

This image alone shows you don't know wtf you are talking about.

they may change later, & with them, priorities may change as well. Many mil. programs were reduced or cancelled all over the world. Even in the US with their $ printing press, the CVN Enterprise & Seawolf SSNs classes stopped at 1 & 3 units respectively, not to mention a lot less B-2s & F-22s than originally planned. Their CGNs were also decommissioned long before their true due dates.

BTW, nothing in regards of the carriers has changed. They are developing the blue water navy progressively as it should be done and they have said and keep saying they will get carriers. 

talk is cheap; their blue water navy won't be & doesn't need to be on the same scale as the PLAN & USN to be able to deal with any blockade of their overseas bases. They can send a few non-nuke Poseidons & explode 1 as warning- if the enemy fleet isn't impressed, explode a few under it before sending Tu-22M3/95/142s to finish them off & take pics of what's left of it. 

assuming they are all a bunch of backward people that will sooner or later will have to follow your visionary approaches.

wrong: I don't assume anything of that sort, so pl. don't assume anything about what my possible assumptions.

Almost none of the options you propose make much sense

then, some of them do make sense, according to u- pl. specify which of them r not bad. Thanks in advance!

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:It amazes me....people do not seem to understand planes are not nuclear powered....and that land-based fighter cannot follow ships out into the blue waters.

You would think a simple fact like that would be common sense but guess not.

In war time you need to destroy ships, not to follow them. The best way is aviation with space based detection tools.

With new missiles like Zirkon (1000+km range), Kinzhal (2500+km range) and all the new ones like kalibr with 4000km range and new aircrafts like su-57 (1500km range) or pak da or tu-22M3M and their huge ranges you can cover pretty much all the oceans from few airbases around the world.

A carrier to be effective need to come at 1000km from its target and few tens of guided bombs to destroy just one airport effectively while it can be put out of action with just one hit.

The more you talk the more it's clear you don't know shit and it's clear you don't know the first thing about something called DISTANCE

Kinzhal is STATED to have a range of 2000Km not 2500, that about 1.2MI. Assuming that is the truthful number and isn't a lie. I will show you a picture using google how far that is.

The lower missiles fly btw the more fuel they need to burn so the lower a missile flyes to attempt to evade detection the lower its max range is and missiles become inaccurate when they have close to no fuel. Only under the best conditions will a missile be able to uses its max range

Kaliber's are only supersonic Modern US navy defenses can deal with those and those submarines are dead meat if there are no surface ships to protect them.

This image alone shows you don't know wtf you are talking about.

If the enemy ship are approaching russiam coast that is more than enough.  I

Russia never said it should bomb the US West coast. For that IRBMs (even conventionally armed) placed in Kamchatka are probably a better option
In addition you forgot to include the range of the carrier of the missile. The mig 31 has a combat range of about 1500 km but it could be extended with drop tanks and aerial refueling, and the tu22m3 has a combat range of about 2400 Km with typical weapon loads (and the recently upgraded ones have also the possibility for aerial refueling, thus further extending the range)

Anyway the image you posted doesn't show anything. The enemy aircraft carrier needs to approach Russian coast if its airplane want to be in range. However before those carriers based F18, f35, etc will be in range, the aircraft carrier itself will be in range of Russian antiship missiles. That is not rocket science...(well maybe designing the missile is

This image alone shows you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Genius, kinzhal is carried by a mig-31 that has in flight refueling...

Soon they will have it on tu-22 with 2000+km radius range.

Soon they will get new missiles with new bombers and fighters and new refuel tankers.


Your image is worth your IQ.

Tsavo Lion wrote:talk is cheap

It is rich from you to say that. What is not cheap is to modernize the Kuznetsov, recreate the docks in Murmansk, train naval pilots at proper facilities and upgrade their aircraft, update the Orlans, create the 22350M etc. That is not cheap at all and yet Russia keeps pressing forward with it, poor ignorants.

They can send a few non-nuke Poseidons & explode 1 as warning- if the enemy fleet isn't impressed, explode a few under it before sending Tu-22M3/95/142s to finish them off & take pics of what's left of it. 

A masterclass in nuclear escalation management besides the one in naval doctrine... what about using ICBMs as warning too?

It won't make sense to build Hypersonic drones. You would build drones that can launch hypersonic missiles. For a drone that can carry 2 hypersonic ASMs you can probably operate 10-30 of these from the new Amphibous ships they are building.

But that raises the obvious question... why bother with subsonic drones to carry hypersonic missiles... why not just have multistage missiles... the first stage powered by hypersonic scramjet motor for very high speed penetration of enemy air defences and kinetic kill capacity, but the launch stage being a huge fuel tank with turbojet sustainer for subsonic flight around the place to extended range at medium or low altitude for great distances...

Mounting them on a drone seems a little redundant... unless it is the PAK DA that carries hypersonic missiles internally with some level of stealth over strategic distances, but the weapons use hypersonic speed to penetrate defences...

But honestly... why do you think a drone carrying two hypersonic ASMs is any different from an Su-33 carrying three or five Brahmos-M missiles?

A drone big enough to carry two hypersonic missiles is going to be large and will need a rather large launch platform... like an aircraft carrier.

Those big Amphibious ships are just big ships you are claiming are obsolete aren't you?

If they are OK then why not have slightly bigger ones with decent fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms...

Also, submarines are limited to using missiles. As has been beaten to death, carriers offer more flexibility.

A sub is an assassin... very capable and very useful in its role, but the sort of thing you have to use to sink ships... which creates dangerous escalation... surfacing a sub to scare the enemy could just as easily lead to it being attacked and sunk on the surface as the message being received and the enemy backing off.

But there is no active construction of carriers in Russia regardless of talk. This tells me that there are not enough Venezuela type
shipping and counter regime change needs around the world for Russia to spend the money. If Russia needed them for its own
needs and not such engagements, then they would be under construction years ago. This point cannot be glossed over even
if carriers would be beneficial.

Even if they had a magic money printing press new CVNs would be of little use to them right now... they simply don't have the ships and foreign bases and international trade links to justify it. Over time however Russia will make deals and make friends and the US and the west will do its damnest to break those deals and ties... and that will be when they will need to show the flag around the world... They could probably get away with some cruisers in some situations but eventually with no new carriers on the way the US and west will likely call their bluff.

The Kuznetsov upgraded and operational and upgraded Kirovs and Slavas as escorts and over time they will start making longer trips around the world to improve ties and trade links... this will take time just as much as building new carriers and the support ships and port infrastructure needed to get the most out of them.

Well he says carriers are better than ground aviation and a must have to be powerfull. UK has two of them armed with f-35. China has a K with j-15 prototypes. UK should be able to control China and chinese sea roads.

The real world doesn't work like that. The US has not been able to sail up to the Russian coast and launch deep nuclear armed strikes into Russia using aircraft carriers despite having rather more capable carriers than the UK has... but UK and US carriers are not the same as Russian carriers as I keep trying to say.

If the Kuznetsov was for deep strike to invade US territory then it would have strike aircraft on board instead of Granit anti ship missiles.

The Kuznetsov is intended to provide air protection and air support for the other ships it operates with while they launch huge anti ship missiles at the US carrier groups that they are engaging. The Su-33s wont be carrying anything except AAMs to shoot down any aircraft or anti ship missiles the US fleet is firing at the Russian fleet.

They should also go and destroy russians in the arctic. Russia is not a great power since it lacks carriers.

It's opinion. Not mine.

Russian land based air power and air defence systems means the only place Russia could defeat a US or UK carrier based attack is around Russia including the Arctic.

If a group of US or even UK ships met a group of Russian ships in the middle of the Atlantic or southern pacific ocean or even indian ocean or off either coast of Africa the Russian group of ships would struggle because they lack AEW and air power... despite having excellent IADS systems and weapons.

And I agree with that. But if you think one or two russian carriers will protect their interest in case nato attack them you are wrong.

I would think the presence of cruisers and destroyers and carriers would deter any HATO surface force from any attack... having aircraft in the air with radar working would quickly detect an attack and its extent and source, which I would think most of the time would result in the attacking weapons being quickly neutralised and the launch platforms also attended to to prevent a repeat attack.

They are good against less powerfull enemies.

They are good against any enemy... and they would make the most difference against more powerful enemies because they would give critical warning and the ability to return fire rapidly.... a super cruising Su-57 flying at mach 1.6 at 20km altitude using its radar and IR sensors to find targets would be a potent system at sea against any enemy... if it is carrying a Zircon missile it would be even more capable... fly 1,000km at mach 1.6 and then release a mach 9 weapon to fly another 1,000km... sounds pretty potent to me...

a land based aviation of a country with a decent military is almost always better than a carrier based aviation.

Very true but even ordinary land based air power can be decisive against a force with no air power at all.

Denying your naval surface groups any air power makes them much weaker and much easier to attack without warning.

Of course this does not mean that Russia should use them to become another world policeman, just to defend its own interests and protect its trade.

This is not about Russia building 10 carrier groups to dominate the whole world at once like the US tries... this is about making the Pacific Fleet and the Northern Fleet global reach fleets that can look after themselves away from port.

Just to make an example, if I had to actively support the Libyan national army against the turkish backed GNA, and I had support of the neighbouring states, I would deploy them (as an example mig 29k and su25) either in Sidi barrani (west part of Egypt) or in Tunisia. Alternatively, Tobruk could also be a good choice.
Here I do not mean that Russia should intervene directly in Lybia, it is just an example.

I would agree, but the fundamental thing about Russian carriers is that they are not a delivery system for mobile air power... their primary purpose and primary use is to defend the ships they operate with from enemy interference above all else.

For the US their carriers are the strike core of their fleet and their AEGIS cruisers are there to protect their carriers.

For Russia, their carriers are there to protect their cruisers and destroyers and subs.

A few STOVLs would be enough to ID a threat before shooting it down.

For the cost of developing STOVL fighters it would be cheaper to just make bigger more capable better equipped carriers with decent fighters (Su-57).

they'll build them anyway, so why not use them as mini-carriers? their speed isn't that important- going a few knots slower &/ sending them ahead of time will keep the group together & under aircover at anytime.

They are helicopter landing ships they have specific roles and missions... making a few extra wont make them any cheaper, but having some you don't need is simply a waste of funds. Designing and making STOVL fighters for them will cost more than buying large carriers... a light 5th gen fighter with STOVL would cost billions of dollars and likely result in an aircraft inferior to the Su-57 that is already ready for production.

A few tweaks and it could be ready in 3-4 years.

It amazes me....people do not seem to understand planes are not nuclear powered....and that land-based fighter cannot follow ships out into the blue waters.

Indeed the problem is compounded... to keep a fighter flying around following ships means it would need dozens of inflight refuelling tankers each and most of the enormous fuel burn would go into keeping all those inflight refuelling tankers also flying continuously providing fuel to each other and the one fighter they support.

Within a month you would have spent more fuel on aircraft than it would cost to operate a carrier...

With new missiles like Zirkon (1000+km range), Kinzhal (2500+km range) and all the new ones like kalibr with 4000km range and new aircrafts like su-57 (1500km range) or pak da or tu-22M3M and their huge ranges you can cover pretty much all the oceans from few airbases around the world.

So friendly aircraft carriers are too vulnerable to make and send out into the open ocean but Backfires and PAK DAs can fly around willy nilly with no threat or risk at being shot down... and of course the obvious question... with these Su-57s and PAK DAs and Tu-22M3s distributed around the world to take on enemy naval power... when you sink a US carrier and they declare WWIII how many of those PAK DAs are going to manage to get back to Russia.... be refuelled and loaded up with strategic nuclear weapons and sent on their primary mission?

A carrier to be effective need to come at 1000km from its target and few tens of guided bombs to destroy just one airport effectively while it can be put out of action with just one hit.

Very few airfields around the planet will be behind so many layers of air defence as a Russian air craft carrier.

Just takes one shot to kill president Trump... and you'd think there would be a queue to do so yet so far no one has managed to do so... maybe it is not as easy as it appears.

Maybe that orange camo is more effective than it appears...

The Ulyanovsk was not cancelled due to military or doctrinal issues but due to the disintegration of the USSR so the idea is pretty old and has changed quite little in all this time. Carriers are needed because without airpower a fleet far from your own territory is toast, that's it.

They had realised that the Kuznetsov was too small and their final carrier needed to be bigger and fitted with catapults to allow proper AWACS operations... and that has not changed.

To be clear the UK had dinky little 20K ton carriers with VSTOL fighters during the Falklands war... so smaller is cheaper and you can save a lot of money by unifying the design of a helicopter carrier like the Hermes and a fixed wing VSTOL carrier design.... problem is that even the cash strapped UK navy well known for cutting budgets after every conflict decided their future lay in the use of the QEII... a ship very similar in size to the Kuznetsov... but then they are tied in to the F-35 programme so you would think they could have four 20K carriers instead of two 55K ton carriers because the F-35 is VSTOL... but it seems they think smaller carriers are not effective... just like the Russian Navy identified the Ulyanovsk as being the right size for them and their aircraft choices...

IMO future carriers are fairly small drone carriers, pretty much the size of current Russian LHDs under construction.

Yet the US, a leader in drone technology makes 100K ton Ford class carriers, and the french and brits and chinese all of which have drone programmes also seem to be making aircraft carriers that are rather too big for what you are suggesting...

The collapse of the INF treaty essentially means very long range scramjet powered missiles can be developed for surface and air launch platforms, so flight ranges can be dramatically increased simply the same way aircraft flight ranges can be increased simply by adding more fuel.

The problem isn't range... you could use ICBMs and have the missile range to hit any target on the planet any time you like... but even with conventional warheads to sink ships that is no substitute for an aircraft carrier in supporting friendly ships... your carrier has AWACS platforms in the air scanning for targets and threats and surprise attacks.... ICBMs can't do that... when targets are detected 100kms from your ships a flight of four fighters can be sent out to investigate and identify the target or targets and determine if they are a threat or not... missiles can't do that either... if the target turns out to be enemy your planes don't have to launch a single missile they can provide target data to the nearest Cruiser which can launch a volley of how ever many S-400 missiles are needed to deal with the problem... your aircraft can monitor the results and then return to the carrier with more aircraft sent out in their place to monitor the enemy recovering the pilots and sifting through the wreckage.

So friendly aircraft carriers are too vulnerable to make and send out into the open ocean but Backfires and PAK DAs can fly around willy nilly with no threat or risk at being shot down... and of course the obvious question... with these Su-57s and PAK DAs and Tu-22M3s distributed around the world to take on enemy naval power... when you sink a US carrier and they declare WWIII how many of those PAK DAs are going to manage to get back to Russia.... be refuelled and loaded up with strategic nuclear weapons and sent on their primary mission?

Thanks to their missiles they have stand off ranges. What fighter can intercept a tu-22M at 2000km away.

Pak da and its stealth can't be even detected at 1000km away. Neither a su-57.

With satellites you can fairly easily track carriers. Even civilian sat allow twitter OSINT open source tracking of ships. Let alone military satellites.

Carrier's f-35 or even su-57 can't do much against a bomber firing missiles 2500km away.

Isos wrote:

This image alone shows you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Genius, kinzhal is carried by a mig-31 that has in flight refueling...

Soon they will have it on tu-22 with 2000+km radius range.

Soon they will get new missiles with new bombers and fighters and new refuel tankers.


Your image is worth your IQ.

Mig 31's Launches would be detected LoL so would the refueling aircraft xD.

If they went airborne the strike group would be well aware the refueling aircraft alone would be easy targets, you talk about other peoples IQ's but yours is shit.

The range of those planes will not change at all. Not to mention how long that would take to do.

There is so much wrong with what you just said it shows how brainless you are on the subject.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:

This image alone shows you don't know wtf you are talking about.

Genius, kinzhal is carried by a mig-31 that has in flight refueling...

Soon they will have it on tu-22 with 2000+km radius range.

Soon they will get new missiles with new bombers and fighters and new refuel tankers.


Your image is worth your IQ.

Mig 31's Launches would be detected LoL so would the refueling aircraft xD.

If they went airborne the strike group would be well aware you talk about other peoples IQ's but yours is shit.

Detected by what ?

They choose when to attack. They can go with a tu-214R which will detect any awacs airborne and attack when there is none. Actually even the RWR on the bombers will detect enemy awacs.

F-35 patroling 2000km away from the carrier is impossible.

The bomber can choose when and where to attack.

Carriers are targets only.