Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Tsavo Lion wrote:That's the 1 Ex-TAKR he is talking about! The Adm. K. is also officially TAKR, follow on & based on the Kiev class.
That's besides the point; it's still a TAKR but with missiles under forward deck, a bow rump, similar defensive armament, & ~1/2 of AW r ASW/SAR/EW helos...11435 is a very different and much bigger ship!
Vikramaditya.Kiev class TAKR with ski jump? What are you talking about?
Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways.
GarryB wrote:Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways.
Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...
And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!GarryB wrote:Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...
Tsavo Lion wrote:And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!GarryB wrote:Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...
I think I understand what you mean but a weapon system that leaves your opponent defenceless and will do so for the next years is not a stop-gap measure. Kinzhal is not an air-breathing hypersonic missile but due to long range, high speed and flexibility of air launch is a terrific weapon. And above all and differently to the others you mention, it exists and is being already deployed.well perhaps you can do this technically. Why not? My question would be what why? you already have Zircon securing ~ 1000km radius around your fleet without need for development of costly, redundant, risky
IMHO Kinzhal is a stopgap before new missiles/or better hypersonic weapons pop up. GZUR Phase II (is to be ~14Ma)
Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?
Occam's razor: you can solve problem in many ways the question to me is which one is best in terms invested resources vs. return. Before you develop Su 57, Kinzhal +integrate with new aircraft carriers => 10-15 years. Kinzhal might be not first choice because of technology. Zircon is now (OK in 2 years).
To me they always plan a marathon not sprint.
Hey, now applies to everyone: F-35 and its associated AA missiles are not on par with R-37M, period.do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ? I thought we were talking about 2030s.
I consider you are going to deploy a force to a contested area far from Russia yes. If you are going to stay very close to the Motherland then you can spare your LHDs and STOVLS all together too.Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.
Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
Well, if it was about total war then it is clear that nobody will win. And even if there were no nukes, real capacity of Russian economy at war was seen by the Germans in WWII and they didn't like what they discovered.precisely this is what I am talking about - in conventional war you cannot win with larger opponent, with better demographics and economy.
Sea denial by what means? I am not seeing it very clear sorryThe situation in Syria wouldn't be different if you had 40 Russian fighters there too. They'd ask 2 more CVNs and what?
Russia doesn't play sea control strategy but sea denial. Both are working second one is much much cost effective.
BTW NATO? doves of piss to me
Oh boy... have you red all that I have written here for months???? Here is what the author says:GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS -thsi is a must read for you
Universal carrier - all the best
Having considered all pro et contra, it is possible to make final conclusions.
Russia is now a world leader in the creation of air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, our aircraft of the 4++ generation in no way inferior to foreign analogues, and in many respects superior to them, and the on-Board electronic warfare systems (and in General for all EW) - we have gone far ahead. Why all these advantages are not to be put together?
Future versatile ship, in my opinion, should occupy an intermediate position between the classic and the carrier classic helicopter. The composition of the wing need to sign fighters (e.g. MiG-35), AWACS aircraft, attack and transport helicopters (or convertiplane), intelligence blah BLAH.
In the Arsenal of the wing should be a missile of class "air-air" (URVV-DB URVV-MD, URVV-SD) and PCR (X-35, "Dagger"). In addition, the vehicle should have the defense electronic warfare systems and multi-channel defense systems of a large (similar to s-300) and small (similar to "tor-M2") range complexes antisubmarine protection (similar to "Package-NK"), and as shock weapons - complexes with anti-ship missiles "Calibre" or RCC "Zircon".
In any case, the universal carrier should not be ship-dependent, surrounded by "seven nurses". It should be an important addition to the GAC, allowing it to flexibly and efficiently to solve any problems in the ocean and distant sea areas of Russia's interests. The similarity of the arsenals of ships in the GAC as an additional argument in favor of universal.
Will close with the words of Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union V. G. Gorshkov: "Our state - the great continental and Maritime power in the world - at all stages of its history was needed a powerful fleet is an integral part of the Armed forces."
What we can add to this?
A modern shipyard to build universal carriers we already have - in the far East. It remains to wait for the project. ■
I always wonder why russia still doesn't design such version of kalibr. That's the weapon they should have against NATO.
And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!
AAA would be good if it is connected to a network of radars and if it has the range to shoot them down. If the missile can release smart submunition from 2km altitude with some mannoeuvres, then AAA is useless too. Something like pantsir or tunguska missile would be the best and NATO doesn't have anything comparable. Only manpads which will have hard time acquiring a 2km altitude flying cruise missile.
BTW cruise missile are enough to make a big hole into the ground.
EW means can be used to confuse their altimeter sensors/radars, once they climb high enough, it's easier to detect & shoot them down with SAMs. A better strategy is to hit C4 sites, fuel/ammo dumps & a/c hangars instead.
And above all and differently to the others you mention, it exists and is being already deployed.
Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?
Will still be shorter ranged and slower than Kinzhal.
A massive improvement but as explained above it does not have enough range to keep your capital ships safe from a CVN's air wing.
The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs
Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
Not sure what missile you are referring here...Development of a longer air launched model will be interesting because that would mean if it was land launched it could exceed 500km range, but of course as long as it is not land launched it wont violate the INF treaty... but how long is that treaty going to last anyway.
Of course Zircon on small vessels and subs would be a massive asset. I was just referring to the case when a naval group from Russia is operating in a disputed area far from the country and subject to the potential threats coming from USN's CSG that would be with certainty deployed in response to a Russian presence. In such circumstances any platform which is not covered by the air wing of the carrier, is turned into a target. A corvette that can launch Zircons is a very dangerous corvette indeed, but it cannot repel air attacks as a carrier group can, I think we both agree in that.Zircon can be launched from any platform with the UKSK launcher... including corvettes and submarines and shipping crates... not every NATO ship operates with carrier escort...
It has been said that it was tested to 8 M but the operational speed is unknown. According to the patent the scramjet would propel the missile during its high altitude cruising and then detach for the descent to the target.Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...
Where do you got the data that the Kinzhal weights 5 ton? The Iskander is 3.8 tons, why would the air-launched version be heavier? The Zircon is a VLS missile, so quite probably a huge one. Indian MKIs can only carry 1 similarly sized Brahmos (2.5 tons actually) on special suspension points so I see no way a Su-33 could ever carry 3 Zircons.It will probably also be about 2.5 tons instead of the 5 tons of Kinzhal so an Su-33 could probably carry three of them.
Agree. Su-57 would allow Russia to counter USN with a way smaller amount of carriers. And with air launched AShM like those mentioned above it would in fact have the upper hand ...even grossly outnumbered. Only option for USN would be (coherently with what they are exactly doing) create a fleet of tankers with high endurance and payload to extend the range of their multirole fighters. This is where catapults pay out and the reason I start to think Russia may do well sticking to the concept already shown on Storm and the new light carrier, with ski-jump for the fighters and catapult for the tankers and AWACS. I still think distributed AEW with fighters and specialised UCAVs can substitute heavy cumbersome turboprop AWACS in the future, but in regards of tankers it seems USN will have an advantage in terms of launching planes with very big fuel payloads and so compensate for their lesser missile technology and naval fighter's performance.And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.
Well, they don't have any carrier right now so they will try to get the K back asap. The Su-57 is another issue, probably no decision will be taken until the 2nd stage engines are ready. It would be an error to task the MiG-35 with the role as sole carrier-borne fighter for RuN IMO, it will not provide the edge needed against the superior resources of USN.I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.
Are you confusing me with Gunship? Just trying to make sense of the news about LHDs and STOVL. These would point out to Russia planning small flat tops for expeditionary forces, maybe equipped with STOVL fighters. I don't think this makes much sense but cannot know what Russian officials are thinking on exactly. To me, carriers with STOBAR planes are needed in any case, in fact as my search of information indicated, F-35Bs have longer take-off runs than current MiGs and Sukhois aboard the K...What is this 15-20 years in the future LHD bullshit with STOVL aircraft... you already suggest that the current carrier is not good enough with the new missile, why cripple the future fleet with a pissant carrier and lame girly fighters that crash all the time?
Tsavo Lion wrote:STOVLs could be very useful on land too since most Russian & foreign airfields they may deploy to r vulnerable to bombing &/ guerrilla attacks. They can use less runway length & be easily dispersed, just like helos. In the Arctic, they can self deploy to forward areas w/o LHA/LHD/NS (icebreakers) & help patrolling & defending MPA/TA, Border Guards, SLOCs & their claims there. The Marines + NAF will bring their order #s up & make them less costly per unit.
GarryB wrote:
Will still be shorter ranged and slower than Kinzhal.
Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...
It will probably also be about 2.5 tons instead of the 5 tons of Kinzhal so an Su-33 could probably carry three of them.
And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.A massive improvement but as explained above it does not have enough range to keep your capital ships safe from a CVN's air wing.
The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs
I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.
What is this 15-20 years in the future LHD bullshit with STOVL aircraft... you already suggest that the current carrier is not good enough with the new missile, why cripple the future fleet with a pissant carrier and lame girly fighters that crash all the time?
You kno wwhat is th main difference between a small carrier and the large one? Small one does it job and you can afford. Big one can do it job too but only in your dreams unless anybody is gonna waste billions extra on something you already have.Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
Forces, told reporters on Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov.
Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of the Northern Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov. Archive photoRIA Novosti / Igor Ageyenko
Go to the photobank
Experts commented on the American rating of the worst aircraft carriers in the world
"Everything depends on the military - it's up to them to decide which class of ships corresponds to one or another strategy for the development of the Armed Forces." I think helicopter carriers are in demand for a certain type of conflict, and they will be built in the required quantity, "Borisov said, The construction of helicopter carriers in the state program of armaments until 2027
Tsavo Lion wrote:They can do rolling takeoffs/landings, & even ski-jump rumps could also be built. There isn't much dust in the woods, Arctic islands & tundra. Large old bulk carriers/container ships could also be so modified, towed & moored on the rivers, lakes & sea cost with other support barges for le$$ than building bases for them in the middle of nowhere. If & when needed, they all could be moved to new locations.
Isos wrote:
If you wand to them on the ground it will send dust and everything that is on the ground in the engines. You still need a clean and large road. It was the main idea of harrier, to use it from anywhere, but in reality it proved to be not possible and they only used them from airport or from carriers.
Isos wrote:
To land them on ships you need reinforced structure on your ship.
LMFS wrote:
Of course Zircon on small vessels and subs would be a massive asset. I was just referring to the case when a naval group from Russia is operating in a disputed area far from the country and subject to the potential threats coming from USN's CSG that would be with certainty deployed in response to a Russian presence. In such circumstances any platform which is not covered by the air wing of the carrier, is turned into a target. A corvette that can launch Zircons is a very dangerous corvette indeed, but it cannot repel air attacks as a carrier group can,
It has been said that it was tested to 8 M but the operational speed is unknown. According to the patent the scramjet would propel the missile during its high altitude cruising and then detach for the descent to the target.Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...
Regarding what would be better, air launched Zircon or Kinzhal: it is unclear to me what is the range of the later is, decoupled of the effects of the carrier. It was reported 2000 km from MiG-31 and 3000 km from Tu-22. This can only mean that the missile alone has far shorter range. But again, flight profile of the carrier (is a dash attack meant or slow cruising + dash to launch speed) and the availability of IFR would have a significant influence here. Maybe the Zircon from an air launched position would be longer ranged than the Kinzhal? Then it should be adopted of course.
Agree. Su-57 would allow Russia to counter USN with a way smaller amount of carriers. And with air launched AShM like those mentioned above it would in fact have the upper hand ...even grossly outnumbered. I still think distributed AEW with fighters and specialised UCAVs can substitute heavy cumbersome turboprop AWACS in the future, but in regards of tankers it seems USN will have an advantage in terms of launching planes with very big fuel payloads and so compensate for their lesser missile technology and naval fighter's performance.And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.
Well, they don't have any carrier right now so they will try to get the K back asap. The Su-57 is another issue, probably no decision will be taken until the 2nd stage engines are ready. It would be an error to task the MiG-35 with the role as sole carrier-borne fighter for RuN IMO, it will not provide the edge needed against the superior resources of USN.I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.
Russia would IMO need 4 carriers: North, Pacific and Med/warm waters + repair.
Just trying to make sense of the news about LHDs and STOVL. These would point out to Russia planning small flat tops for expeditionary forces, maybe equipped with STOVL fighters. I don't think this makes much sense but cannot know what Russian officials are thinking on exactly. To me, carriers with STOBAR planes are needed in any case, in fact as my search of information indicated, F-35Bs have longer take-off runs than current MiGs and Sukhois aboard the K...
LMFS wrote:
Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?
no ship-borne fighter can ever carry such heavy missile. IT better to have sarmat with avangard too you knowIt is better having the enemy beyond attack range than having to trust in your SAMs to stop a massive missile salvo.
Hey, now applies to everyone: F-35 and its associated AA missiles are not on par with R-37M, period.do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ? I thought we were talking about 2030s.
I consider you are going to deploy a force to a contested area far from Russia yes. If you are going to stay very close to the Motherland then you can spare your LHDs and STOVLS all together too.Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.
As shown above, in order to keep your force safe you need to be capable of retaliation in case of attack, that means, being in reach for actually hitting the enemy vessels. In the situation you describe above you are badly outranged by the enemy's air wing and therefore rendered a target.
Ok what is the deterring capability of the small ships with short-ranged aircraft against USN? I am not seeing it sorry...Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.
But what we are talking about now IMO is having enough conventional deterrence capacity FAR from Russia to dispute geopolitical space. First Russia improved the nuclear forces, then general state of its armed forces for mere defensive reasons. But once this is ensured, in order to protect and encourage their economical development they need commercial relationships and alliances abroad, this is a normal sequence in the development of a nation so I don't see why Russia should be an exception and remain isolated. We are seeing in Syria BTW that they do not reject exerting power abroad, as any other country in the world.
Sea denial by what means? I am not seeing it very clear sorry
What is Brahmos but a P-800?this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?
What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised. With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.
Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.What is Brahmos but a P-800?
LMFS wrote:What is Brahmos but a P-800?this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?
What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised. With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.
Stated weight for both Brahmos and P-800 is 3 tons. Yes air launched version is 500 kg lighter but it remains a close P-800 derivative.hoom wrote:Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.What is Brahmos but a P-800?
Ru Wiki says the air-launch version is 2500kg vs 3000kg ship launch.
Indian MKIs do not operate from carrier to start with...Not sure what do you mena? Brahmos and P-800 are closely related. I've never heard about any fighter in Russia carrying P-800. True I've found 1 Brahmos can be carried by Su-30MKI tho but nothing starting from CV.
For carrier based fighters Indians developed Brahmos-NG (5m/1,5tons vide Kh-50/GZUR)
You don't listen. Su-57 in the weights and thrust classes stated for izd. 30 could take off easily fully loaded from the short take off runs on the Kuznetsov. I have linked a STOBAR simulation tool to check this.Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.
BTW What F-35 are you talking about? Russian fighters will meet F/A-XX at same level at least. 20 years younger tech then in Su-57.
Mind that deck version as in Su-33 was ~70%more expensive. With small series Su-57 would be for free either.
|
|
|
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
