Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

GarryB wrote:

Well, you don't need planes in your carrier then...

Well not really... long range anti ship missiles on the K means it can attack and kill ships that approach it, but they wouldn't be much use if instead of a Nimitz class carrier, they detected 24 Tomahawk cruise missiles... having several Su-33s in the air to shoot down some of those missiles would make the defence of the ships easier and better as they could probably take out some missiles themselves with missiles and guns and then track the incoming missiles and support ship based air defences trying to shoot them down too.

yup

GB wrote:

Now we are not only ruling out the naval aviation, but the need for a navy altogether.

Ruling out the Russian navy for strategic attack against land based europe and Japan and the various US bases around the place... it can now focus on naval targets near and far from Russia... which should allow much more efficient use of those launch tubes...

no need to look for further explanations, Putin already said that naval tubes are to build defensive perimeter long Russia's borders (naval in this case)

Isos wrote:

What kind of war and against who? As submitted in the STOVL thread, you may no live to launch thousands of missiles I your fleet gets annihilated by air launched ASMs before reaching their launching positions...

Against anyone you want. Cruise missiles are getting longer and longer ranges and don't need to find the target on radar before launch like antiship missiles.

With a 4000km kalibr they can hit anyone they want but those very far. Most NATO major bases are in range of homebased kalibr. No need to go close to them. And with truck mounted kalibr it is even easier since they can follow  the army advance and get closer to launch them.

It's much cheaper to produce thousand of kalibrs and hundreds of truck and be able to destroy countries than buy thousands of f-35 and thousands of guided munitions and operate hundreds of air bases.

true, but fighters to protect locally you or lowing Syrian wars still have value

true, but fighters to protect locally you or lowing Syrian wars still have value

Of course. Two different things. Cruise missiles can't replace fighters but if you have enough land based cruise missiles you can use your fighters for aerial supremacy only and tactical bombing.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:no Russian source - official one said about CMs on Kuz, whats more important  admiral  Bursuk never said that . I'd treat it with grain of slt.

True. It depends in the end of what can be realistically done in a given time frame and with the allocated budget and available industrial resources. Probably they wont turn the K into a space ship, rather get it operational again and most importantly reliable, as soon as possible. The optimizations will be probably developed with new carriers. But as said there are professional Russian sources saying that a carrier is a carrier and doesn't need to do all the functions of the fleet at the same time, just sayin'

You gin look as Americans do. Kuz was never designed s CV but  TAKR. Originally TAKRs had airwing as secondary force. Especially after tactical nukes which destroy fighters Kuz w able still to fight with CVNs.

Hmmm, no I don't. USN CSGs have been used to discipline naughty countries in the rules of the empire. Russian carriers / TAKR or whatever Russia decides to call them will probably have a deterrent value + fleet protection + COIN strike functions. At least in the future we can reasonably predict. If you are foreseeing use of nukes then if you call the carriers carriers or cruisers is the least important issue as far as I can see. Given its design characteristics, it is hard for me to take at face value that the K had the air wing as secondary priority. But as said, now all surface and submarine combatant classes starting from corvettes can carry dangerous, long range supersonic (and soon enough hypersonic) ASMs, so the value of a ship big enough to carry huge Granits is simply not what it was. RuN has successfully implemented the "distributed lethality" (I feel a little weird using these US teleshop names but you will understand), so they don't need to stuff their carriers with missiles. Much better to make a small diesel sub pop-up with some Zircons and disappear again than committing a cruiser to the improbable task of frontally attacking a CSG.

Kuz will have fighters && new helos and drones after renovation. not only fighters. So it looks like its oole role will be ASW/ Landing support too. Unlike Us CVNs

It had helos before too, as US CVNs have...  

And you mix CSGs with "expeditionary ship groupings" . Expeditionary itself implies locl wars/flag waving

You expect RuN to have fully equipped and independent ESGs and CSGs, rather than operating together at a conflict zone? And I am thinking like USN right?  
Only combat deployment of K until now was in Syria for strike roles. Don't know how that fits in your theory.

then why Russians build CM Iskanders? or building brand nex stealth Kh-50? VLO CM is dangerous, especially sea skimming with good EW protection.

Because AD network in Europe is very weak (they don't really feel under threat from Russia despite all the theatricals), and because Russians also have other Iskanders that are 7M aeroballistic missiles as appetizers.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Its flight deck isn't that busy as on USN CVNs launching strike packages & recovering aircraft for hours. They'll will plan to use CMs in advance & schedule flight ops around it. It doesn't take long to launch those CMs, & flight ops can stop & resume again right away.

In order to defend the fleet you need to launch and recover your planes at thigh tempo too. I am not saying it is impossible to have missiles too, I am saying it is not really necessary, once you plan to have 22350-M with 50 UKSK cells and Liders with like 100 of them the missile department is assorted and what is needed is air wing cover. Think previously a huge vessel like the K could only carry 12 ASM, number of missiles in a fleet has grown almost by an order of magnitude in the meantime... But ok we can have different opinions, that is fine.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:no Russian source - official one said about CMs on Kuz, whats more important  admiral  Bursuk never said that . I'd treat it with grain of slt.

True. It depends in the end of what can be realistically done in a given time frame and with the allocated budget and available industrial resources. Probably they wont turn the K into a space ship, rather get it operational again and most importantly reliable, as soon as possible. The optimizations will be probably developed with new carriers. But as said there are professional Russian sources saying that a carrier is a carrier and doesn't need to do all the functions of the fleet at the same time, just sayin'

me thinks too.  Kuz will definitely have new self defense, radars, power plant   but first of all new flight management system... for netcentric warfare + better airwing management.  

LMFS wrote: USN CSGs have been used to discipline naughty countries in the rules of the empire. Russian carriers / TAKR or whatever Russia decides to call them will probably have a deterrent value + fleet protection + COIN strike functions. At least in the future we can reasonably predict. If you are foreseeing use of nukes then if you call the carriers carriers or cruisers is the least important issue as far as I can see. Given its design characteristics, it is hard for me to take at face value that the K had the air wing as secondary priority. But as said, now all surface and submarine combatant classes starting from corvettes can carry dangerous, long range supersonic (and soon enough hypersonic) ASMs, so the value of a ship big enough to carry huge Granits is simply not what it was. RuN has successfully implemented the "distributed lethality" (I feel a little weird using these US teleshop names but you will understand), so they don't need to stuff their carriers with missiles. Much better to make a small diesel sub pop-up with some Zircons and disappear again than committing a cruiser to the improbable task of frontally attacking a CSG.

how great you agreed with me this time        Just small remark. US CVNs are for colonial as major wars alike. They're implementation of sea control concept. Same with Kuz carrying CMs but since Russians are beefing up everything they can use Antey trick - 3 Kalibrs in one Granite tube

As for small subs I think this is in making. I mean AIP drone subs.  Long range, can go in tens with "expeditionary ship grouping" ( let me call ESG and move forward by 100-200kms if needed -range of AAD/ASh protection of surface combatants.

LMFS wrote:

Kuz will have fighters && new helos and drones after renovation. not only fighters. So it looks like its oole role will be ASW/ Landing support too. Unlike Us CVNs

It had helos before too, as US CVNs have...  

Kuz originally AFAIK should carry
26 fighters
18 ASW helos
4 AEW
2 SAR
so proportions are bit different then US CVNs since function was different too.

LMFS wrote:

And you mix CSGs with "expeditionary ship groupings" . Expeditionary itself implies local wars/flag waving

You expect RuN to have fully equipped and independent ESGs and CSGs, rather than operating together at a conflict zone? And I am thinking like USN right?  
Only combat deployment of K until now was in Syria for strike roles. Don't know how that fits in your theory.

No, my point i there will be no CSGs  in Russian navy planned.  CVN will be part of ESG.  Difference is that airwing here wont be so high and have more defensive nature (air air is least probable) or antiship (navalto extend ASh range/ASW coverage)  

LMFS wrote:

then why Russians build CM Iskanders? or building brand nex stealth Kh-50? VLO CM is dangerous, especially sea skimming with good EW protection.

Because AD network in Europe is very weak

if bases and navies in Europe have weak defenses   then where it is is strong?      

Isos wrote:

true, but fighters to protect locally you or lowing Syrian wars still have value

Of course. Two different things. Cruise missiles can't replace fighters but if you have enough land based cruise missiles you can use your fighters for aerial supremacy only and tactical bombing.

that\s more less corresponding to TAKR roles

GarryB wrote:I would agree that a few extra planes would be more valuable in this case than 12 Granit missiles, but as far as I am aware there is no chance of removing the missiles and tubes and using that space to increase the number of aircraft the ship can carry because it is isolated from the hangar deck by some rather significant fire walls.

originally Kuz should carry 50 aircraft air wing. With 12 Granites.

GB wrote:The purpose of the carrier group could be a landing force component centred around a helicopter carrier, or it might be an arsenal ship or a couple of cruisers or whatever...

Lider? In my IMHO Russians due to budget constrains can go this universal ship (Rakhmnov was talking about) which can be CVN or LHD depending on mission profile.

GB wrote:{}
Russia could have had precision cruise missiles 25 years ago... but really didn't simply because they needed a serious C4IR upgrade before they could reliably find targets and had accurate enough digital terrain maps of real places to use for plotting flight paths and to hit targets...

Experience in Syria shows you need quite a few cruise missiles to take down a well equipped enemy... of course for a Russian attack they would have used land attack Zircons to defeat Patriot like defences and hit command and control hubs and HQs so that when they launched 103 missiles at a few airfields and old chemical labs they would at least all hit their targets....

{}.

hard to disagree. IMHO picture would complete drones subs can be added roaming around groups. Perhaps as long range skirmishers with Skhval II torpedos

I would agree that a few extra planes would be more valuable in this case than 12 Granit missiles, but as far as I am aware there is no chance of removing the missiles and tubes and using that space to increase the number of aircraft the ship can carry because it is isolated from the hangar deck by some rather significant fire walls.

12 granits are useless. Rhey were supposed to be used in salvos fired in the same time by Oscars, kirovs and kuznetsov (and maybe p-500 from slava but I don't know if the datalink btw the missiles work btw granit and p-500).

Now kirov are gone or modernized with kalibr. Oscar will be modernized with kalibr. And slava won't last forever and they use different missiles.

They have to remove the granits and replace them by UKSK or a hangar for 40 to 60 kh-59mk2 and upgrade su-33 and mig-29k to use them. Much better than 12 granits that could engage only one modern ship.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Kuz originally AFAIK should carry
26 fighters
18 ASW helos
4 AEW
2 SAR
so proportions are bit different then US CVNs since function was different too.

Everything ok, if you have less ships they need to be more flexible.

No, my point i there will be no CSGs  in Russian navy planned.  CVN will be part of ESG.  Difference is that airwing here wont be so high and have more defensive nature (air air is least probable) or antiship (navalto extend ASh range/ASW coverage)  

Yes we basically agree. Russia should not try to substitute legitimacy and boots on the ground through massive bombing campaigns. Defence of the fleet is the main goal.

if bases and navies in Europe have weak defenses   then where it is is strong?      

In places that had real reasons to fear an air attack, like Russia for instance

Vladimir79 wrote:

hoom wrote:They've always said it needs some drydock time before the end, they just said its not a vital immediate need & they'll proceed with other stuff in the meantime.
Suggestion at balancer is the props are off & possibly even the shafts as well.

She was scheduled to get a billion dollar refit which was cut down to $300 million.  They are not even serious about maintaining an operational carrier.  

I've heard about 60B rubles but never learned this drops to 20B, do you have any source? Imho they are pretty serious, why then new deck fighter programme was started?

Vladimir79 wrote:To let the PD 50 sink and lose your only operational dry dock large enough to take capital ships... what is left to repair it?  
If the goal is to make a VTOL as the new deck fighter then they might as well let the Admiral K sink off Kola Bay.  

Hmm but Interfax wrote same about scope of work. What was reduced then? (boilers, radars , battle mgmt systems, CIWS)?

As for drydock well, Russian shipyards need to have large drydocks anyway.  Otherwise no large ships can be maintained in the future.