Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

If they went airborne the strike group would be well aware

uhuh, will that be a hint that they should retreat back to the west coast?

Isos wrote:

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.

I just told you it's 2000, not 2500 learn to read.

Also, the planes would come under attack right away you act like they would just be allowed to fly deep into the open ocean.

You are just ignoring every fact to push your moronic logic, that's whats going on here.

Guess what every country on earth says you are wrong.

Who should I believe some clueless kid on the web or the defense experts and planners for every nation on earth....Tough one.

You do realize buttercup, that even during the cold war the US and Russia could detect aircraft that would take off from a fixed base....

Its like this

Person A: "Hey a mig took off from this base"

Person B: "What assets do we have in that area?"

Person A: "Carrier group"

Person B: "Issues an alert, have them intercept"

No, they cannot choose when to attack you moron, Fueling planes are slow and can be followed easily.

An attack craft has a limited amount of fuel so it must pick its attack vector carefully. They do not just fly around and wait when they attack when they reached the designated position

A couple of planes isn't going to worry a carrier group you would need dozens and a large wing-like that would be easy to intercept.

Your logic is devoid of reality pure and simple

@Rodion

You are gravely misunderstanding the use of US carriers against Russia, they would not be used to attack the mainland.

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

and if they did was Iso said this would be beyond easy to do.

Also, the planes would come under attack right away

Can't the same be said about the carrier battle group? Or is it Invincible because its American? Why did you discount the possibility that the planes will be protected with defensive assets?

Fueling planes are slow and can be followed easily.

Followed by who? are the ones following these planes invincible from Russian counter offensive as well?

A couple of planes isn't going to worry a carrier group you would need dozens and a large wing-like that would be easy to intercepted

And American carrier group is not easy to intercept? Russian forces are based on land vs American forces based on ships. Russia has a ginormous advantage vs American forces in this scenario.

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

and you expect Russia to just sit down and not retaliate? You think Russia cant choke you just because your American?

PhSt wrote:

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

and you expect Russia to just sit down and not retaliate? You think Russia cant choke you just because your American?

Without a navy they cannot retaliate doesn't matter one fucks how someone feels, if you don't get the hardware you can't do shit.

Has nothing to do with being Americans this goes for any country, if you're going to react like this do me a favor keep your opinion to yourself. I got no time for peoples pathetic hates boners.


Edit I saw your other post.

The carrier would have more than enough defense to deal with a few missiles. Nothing is invincible but a few planes won't do anything and the more you launch the more the carrier will know and react accordingly. Seriously LoL people much smarter than you have thought about these things.

Followed as in tracked, big slow planes like that are easy to track

I already said the carriers would not be used to attack the coastline.

Without a navy they cannot retaliate doesn't matter one fucks how someone feels

So now Russia dont have a navy. interesting.

if you're going to react like this do me a favor keep your opinion to yourself

But you are clearly being biased here and I believe your arrogance deserves a response.

The carrier would have more than enough defense to deal with a few missiles

Yes, Russia will fire only 2 missiles to attack the carrier group. this is very intelligent of them

PhSt wrote:

Without a navy they cannot retaliate doesn't matter one fucks how someone feels

So now Russia dont have a navy. interesting.

if you're going to react like this do me a favor keep your opinion to yourself

But you are clearly being biased here and I believe your arrogance deserves a response.

Doesn't have a blue water capable navy to protect its overseas assets yes.

Hm facts make me biased eh? facts are facts you just don't like it, difference buddy.

Isos wrote:You're one stupid guy.

Who's gonna intercept a fucking tupolev 2000km away ? F-35 ? Get real.

2000km is kinzhal. They are working on many hypersonic missiles right now.

Who should I believe some clueless kid on the web or the defense experts and planners for every nation on earth....Tough one.

Even US admirals admited carriers won't last more than a week during cold war...

I have already addressed the range thing.

Ah I know what hearing you are talking about, you are gravely taking out of context what the admiral in that hearing said.

Not going to waste my time if you are going to lie which you just said, you only told one small portion of the story not the entire thing.

Doesn't have a blue water capable navy to protect its overseas assets yes.

How would you define this ability to protect overseas assets? If Russia fires a few dozen nukes to lets say an American base in Djibouti. how do you think they will protect this area from nuclear annihilation? Will they be able to intercept all mirvs before they reach their target?

Hm facts make me biased eh? facts are facts you just don't like it

You are confusing facts with personal opinions. there is a big difference

you are gravely taking out of context what the admiral in that hearing said.

Ah yes, when Facts dont suite you suddenly its being taken out of context

Isos wrote:No you didn't. You said they will be quickly tracked and attacked as soon as they go in the air.

What will attack them if the carrier is 4000km away from the coast ?

Armed f-35 can't intercept anything at 2000km.

here we go again the "coastline" the fact you keep going on about the coastline says everything.

PhSt wrote:

you are gravely taking out of context what the admiral in that hearing said.

Ah yes, when Facts dont suite you suddenly its being taken out of context

Lol you are biased and completely ignorant of the subject material you heard a fact and because you like it, you accept it has the truth.

Rickover was stating against Nuclear weapons not conventional. I mean sure Nukes are always going to be the best weapon but if the Russians use Nukes so will we.

Lol you are biased and completely ignorant of the subject material you heard a fact

Why are you making it sound like Russia is not capable of obliterating America and its carrier group? you are ignoring this fact because there is a country that can actually do it?

Rickover was stating against Nuclear weapons not conventional.

What do you think is the purpose of Russia's tactical nukes? its not there for display at the museum

if the Russians use Nukes so will we.

Good. As long as America is annihilated I dont care about the cost

GarryB wrote: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.

Exactly. To the point that the Lamantine that they proposed last year is exactly an Ulyanovsk with a different superstructure. They know what they need and have known for decades.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are gravely misunderstanding the use of US carriers against Russia, they would not be used to attack the mainland.

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

When you are right you are right. I still don't understand how many times it needs to be repeated that US carriers are not the tool against Russian mainland. Probably some hundreds of times in the last year only...

Your image is worth your IQ.

The point he is trying to get across is that when talking about the seas and oceans the distances are huge, and therefore the volume these forces are operating in is enormous and without aircraft carriers there are few places for aircraft to land.

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

They do, but why do you think that makes them useless?

Are those bombers firing from standoff ranges because with enemy aircraft carriers amongst its target surface ships are just too dangerous to get near?

If the bombers with standoff missiles are safe then taking away those aircraft carriers reduces the AA reach of Russian surface ships from 1,000km plus say 500km range for the AAM they will be carrying in 10 years time down to the 600km range of the S-500 and 400km range of the S-400... which means not only does the Russian surface group now no longer have airborne early warning the volume of airspace it can intercept incoming aircraft and missiles has just been dramatically reduced... and for what?

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

Russian radars in Russia detected US F-35 stealth fighters along the Iraqi Iranian border...

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

Their job is not to bring down all enemy air power... if they defeat or even just detect and track incoming missiles for ship based systems to engage at extended ranges it will contribute to making the ships safer. Then 5,000km range nuclear armed missiles can hit those B-1Bs in their bases as a response to their attack on a Russian carrier group.

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

Russia is not planning to operate F-35s AFAIK... this is the future Russian aircraft carriers thread... we are discussing future Russian aircraft carriers.

The bomber can choose when and where to attack.

It can, but a carrier group can choose where to operate too.

Carriers are targets only.

In war everything is a target.

I just told you it's 2000, not 2500 learn to read.

Actually if we are talking about Kinzhal it is probably more like 1,500km launch range because the Backfire is slower and lower flying than the MiG-31K... which is why the MiG-31K will be the primary carrier of that missile... at least till MiG-41s start operating...

A couple of planes isn't going to worry a carrier group you would need dozens and a large wing-like that would be easy to intercept.

Another factor is that even American carriers operated by America... a country constantly at war.... carrier operations are probably less than 1% of their operational lives activities.... most of the time they are doing something else.

During peace time they are useful, during times of tension they are even more useful... you can send planes out to check out a target on the sea or land or air... you can't do that with missiles... and during war for a Russian surface group not having a carrier means limited situational awareness and also a SAM missile reach of about 400km or so, compared with having a carrier with Su-57s that might supercruise 1,000km radius missions at mach 1.6 and carry the new replacement missile for the R-37M which should have a range of 400k-500km depending on the target.  That is an enormous reach extension and fact checker that gives the ships much better situational awareness and defense layers of protection and vision to prevent surprise.

Any force can be overwhelmed, but adding aircraft carriers means you will need thousands of anti ship missiles to defeat one Russian carrier group instead of probably hundreds to overwhelm it.

Hypersonic missiles make early detection and long range missiles even more critical and that means big carriers.

Little carriers with F-35s would be the vessels rendered useless because lack of weapon capacity and flight range and persistence.

You are gravely misunderstanding the use of US carriers against Russia, they would not be used to attack the mainland.

That used to be the plan but changes in forces and structure and systems means like flying at high altitude dropping nuclear bombs on targets with a B-2 is not possible now either... the defences are just too strong for either to work... which is not to say US carriers are useless... they are still fine for most other roles and form the core of US surface fleet forces, it is just that they can't be the sword threatening Russia any more... most other sea spaces on the planet they will dominate.

Even if Iran bought 10 Kinzhals, the US would simply adapt their tactics to make them less useful... I would say their best bet would be to lure them to use them against decoys and fake targets and use submarine launched cruise missiles to try to hit their launch sites in the hope of hitting stores of other weapons.

They could carpet bomb Iranian cities and just deny reports of the atrocity and say they are Iranian and Russian propaganda... the west has demonised the Russians and Iranians... who will be believed by whom?

Even when the truth comes out it is too late... Iraq got invaded because of fake WMDs, but apologists claim it was worth it to get rid of Saddam...

They would be used to choke Russian overseas assets and just keep the Russian pinned in, The carriers would be used to deny sea lanes to Russia.

Which is really what they have always been used for... ensure US access to the global market and selectively restrict access to rivals to isolate them and make surviving more expensive.

Can't the same be said about the carrier battle group? Or is it Invincible because its American? Why did you discount the possibility that the planes will be protected with defensive assets?

I think what he is trying to get across is that the sea is big, so from fixed land based airfields if you want any depth and reach out into the world you will need big heavy aircraft with big heavy missiles and lots of support aircraft to keep those aircraft flying... ie fuel.
For the carrier group they carry their defensive fighters and AWACS situational awareness aircraft everywhere they go... it is like the battle of britain all over... the British operate over their own airfields and can keep the majority of their pilots and aircraft resting on the carrier with the AWACs crews looking for threats and targets... some threats and targets could be immediately identified and in war they could simply launch an S-400 SAM from 400km away and take it out. During peacetime or if you are not sure you can send a group of fighters to investigate... or even a drone if you fancy and think the threat levels are too high...
The point is that the Germans have to fly a long way to get to their target areas and have to watch their fuel if they want to make it home again.... a bit like the Argentine aircraft over the Falklands.  The Falklands war would have been transformed if the Argentines had longer ranged fighters (F-4s or MiG-23s or F-16s), or managed to upgrade the airfields on the islands to take their aircraft so they could operate locally.

And American carrier group is not easy to intercept? Russian forces are based on land vs American forces based on ships. Russia has a ginormous advantage vs American forces in this scenario.

The Americans have shot themselves in the foot... their carrier based strike aircraft lack the range with standoff munitions to attack ground targets at rather long ranges, which means the expanding Russian anti ship capacity from land based aircraft means the US carriers can't attack Russian targets on Russian territory without putting their carrier groups at serious risk... but US carrier groups were never going to be pivotal in a WWIII scenario anyway... SSBNs and ICBMs and air launched cruise missiles will decide that.

and you expect Russia to just sit down and not retaliate? You think Russia cant choke you just because your American?

That is the point... without carrier groups Russian surface ships have an AA screen with a 400km radius around their cruisers and destroyers... much less effective than a similar surface group with a decent carrier supporting them...

Russia needs carriers to defend their interests around the world.

The carrier would have more than enough defense to deal with a few missiles.

At the moment there are a few missiles for which there is no defence... but given time and money and solutions will be found and their own equivalents will be developed.

Just because Kornet exists it does not mean everyone should stop making tanks.

So now Russia dont have a navy. interesting.

If Russia does not continue with aircraft carriers their surface fleet will be even more vulnerable to enemy action than US carrier groups in Russian waters...

Carriers are critical to keeping surface ships afloat in the open ocean where no other support is available... and that extends to anti sub as well.

Yes, Russia will fire only 2 missiles to attack the carrier group. this is very intelligent of them

Any hostile carrier group approaches Russian airspace and launches an attack they could probably get away with launching one MiG-31K with one Kinzhal.... the result will likely lead to that carrier group leaving the area at top speed...

You're one stupid guy.

How about we all ease up on the personal insults... and that is everybody...

Who's gonna intercept a fucking tupolev 2000km away ? F-35 ? Get real.

They don't need to... an AEGIS class cruiser can launch an SM-2 with a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead... command guided to position itself in the path of the incoming missile... even if the first one fails they should get it by the fifth or sixth launch...

2000km is kinzhal. They are working on many hypersonic missiles right now.

Kinzhal is 2,000km ranged from the faster higher flying MiG-31K. From a Backfire, its range will likely be 1,500km... which I agree is still outside the useful range of an F-35.

The problem is, as mentioned... when the US then uses its remaining carrier groups to blockade all of Russias allies, what is Russia going to do?

It can't fly planes to the areas in question... to vulnerable... a convoy of fighters and bombers and inflight refuelling planes would have the bombers and refuelling planes picked off stranding the fighters.

Sending surface ships without carrier support will be even more vulnerable and blind than US carrier groups because they wont have AWACS nor fighters...

To be clear even with large carriers they are not invincible... but they are much better protected and more aware, so you need a force much bigger and much better equipped to deal with them... so big sometimes the attack never comes.

Even US admirals admited carriers won't last more than a week during cold war...

Cold war has been going on for over half a century and they are into Cold War II... suspect they mean WWIII... which is fine because Russia has all sorts of weapons designed for WWIII and her surface navy isn't one of them...

How would you define this ability to protect overseas assets? If Russia fires a few dozen nukes to lets say an American base in Djibouti. how do you think they will protect this area from nuclear annihilation? Will they be able to intercept all mirvs before they reach their target?

Wouldn't it be easier and more useful to have large carriers and use surface ships in an organised defensive and offensive force that could protect itself operating in hostile areas and do things to the benefit of the Russian federation?

Who is going to trade with Russia and risk upsetting the west if the Russians have no reliable way of getting half way round the world to where you are?[/quote]

When you are right you are right. I still don't understand how many times it needs to be repeated that US carriers are not the tool against Russian mainland. Probably some hundreds of times in the last year only...

To be clear it is not by choice... the US would love to be able to send carrier based attack aircraft deep into Soviet territory to attack targets with nuclear bombs... but improvements in air defence and anti ship systems... not just Kinzhal, but other weapons too like Onyx make getting that close far to dangerous...

They of course were also going to use their carriers to pressure Russian sea lines of communication and commerce/trade to isolate them and weaken them as much as they can.... which is why Russia needs carriers to say no and to allow independent naval operations around the globe and to pursue trade relations with any country they choose.

GarryB wrote:To be clear it is not by choice... the US would love to be able to send carrier based attack aircraft deep into Soviet territory to attack targets with nuclear bombs... but improvements in air defence and anti ship systems... not just Kinzhal, but other weapons too like Onyx make getting that close far to dangerous...

Of course, even they still delude themselves with papers from think tanks arguing how to equip the carriers for that mission, but I doubt any serious planer believe those fairy tales beyond their use as a way to get more money for the navy.

They of course were also going to use their  carriers to pressure Russian sea lines of communication and commerce/trade to isolate them and weaken them as much as they can.... which is why Russia needs carriers to say no and to allow independent naval operations around the globe and to pursue trade relations with any country they choose.

In fact this can start at any moment, without any need for a high intensity conflict. By showing the vulnerability of the reliance on Russian commerce and support you can weaken the country and destroy its international expansion possibilities. I assume such strategy can be used anytime now. That is where Russia's privileged geographical position in the middle of Eurasia comes in to play, allowing them to trade with the biggest landmass on Earth without a strong need for sea lanes. So to say, they can be contained but not asphyxiated. Many people still do not understand that such position is the main reason of Russia's extreme relevance in geopolitics and why the West needs them gone.

In fact this can start at any moment, without any need for a high intensity conflict. By showing the vulnerability of the reliance on Russian commerce and support you can weaken the country and destroy its international expansion possibilities. I assume such strategy can be used anytime now.

If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

PhSt wrote:If this is true then the yanks would have done this already against both Russia and China, they don't need to wait for an incident to use as an excuse since they are good at inventing excuses anyways.

We will see. How many times had they violated Russian borders in the last years?