Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Why you call it fake? Anyway, everything without CATOBAR is a major failure. China must raise to the occasion of challenging US navy and must do it "soon" (10-20 years).
When something takes time usually never materialize. It's now or never after a certain point.

Flyingdutchman wrote:What do you guys think? it is a fake Future Chinese Aircraft carrier but it looks very good!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uC7-gPUOAVE/UuaR-AMf1KI/AAAAAAAAC1E/kXJVo7Y4nzY/s1600/China's+Future+Aircraft+Carrier_1.jpg

Hmmm..... it's got a lot of extra space, which could be used to install more potent Air Defense Systems, VLS for cruise/anti-ship missiles and of course some Paket-E/NK anti-torpedo systems, ones all thats done, you got yourself one hell of an Carrier.   

AlfaT8 wrote:
Hmmm..... it's got a lot of extra space, which could be used to install more potent Air Defense Systems, VLS for cruise/anti-ship missiles and of course some Paket-E/NK anti-torpedo systems, ones all thats done, you got yourself one hell of an Carrier.   

It sure does i would like to see some more SAM's and stuff like you called.

Hannibal Barca wrote:Why you call it fake? Anyway, everything without CATOBAR is a major failure. China must raise to the occasion of challenging US navy and must do it "soon" (10-20 years).
When something takes time usually never materialize. It's now or never after a certain point.

I called it fake because someone made that design himself and isnt official at all.

And i cant see it well but it has atleast 1 catapult on the angled deck and i think it are two so that makes a good design.

Looks like a model plane with 40 missiles attached to it... including the wing tips and vertical tail tips and horizontal tail tips and every where else.

Just looking at the hangar deck there is no space to move the planes so to get the planes from the front or rear out you would have to bring up all the aircraft between it and the lift out.

Equally on the deck there seems to be only two launch points and aircraft parked at the end of the angled deck... which means any plane that misses the cable will hit those planes and end in a huge fireball.

the deck also seems to narrow... more angle on the angled deck...

Otherwise it is a very conventional looking carrier.

GarryB wrote:Looks like a model plane with 40 missiles attached to it... including the wing tips and vertical tail tips and horizontal tail tips and every where else.

Just looking at the hangar deck there is no space to move the planes so to get the planes from the front or rear out you would have to bring up all the aircraft between it and the lift out.

Equally on the deck there seems to be only two launch points and aircraft parked at the end of the angled deck... which means any plane that misses the cable will hit those planes and end in a huge fireball.

the deck also seems to narrow... more angle on the angled deck...

Otherwise it is a very conventional looking carrier.

All treu but there is one catapult maybe 2, you can just see the end of it.

Edit: it looks like all aircraft are being launched with Cats and the last part is with the ski-jump.

How the US Navy War College thinks about the future of aircraft carriers:

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/87bcd2ff-c7b6-4715-b2ed-05df6e416b3b/The-Future-of-Aircraft-Carriers.aspx

Edit: hmmm interesting i believe garry told me about the subs replacing the carriers role before in the thread about US Aircraft carrier cuts:

The cavalry role for carriers, practiced as late as the 1986 EL DORADO CANYON strikes on Libya, has become a victim of the missile age. In the most recent round of strikes on Libya, Tomahawk cruise missiles were used. Now possessing guided-missile submarines that can carry over a hundred Tomahawks, the Navy does not have to accept risks of running a carrier surreptitiously into hostile wa- ters to carry out a strike or subjecting manned tactical aircraft to robust air de- fenses. In a similar manner, the introduction of the ballistic-missile submarine made the carrier nuclear-strike role obsolete. Whatever the trade-offs between tactical aircraft, manned or unmanned, and missiles, the lethality of modern air defenses and the difficulty of moving naval forces undetected militate strongly against using carriers in this role. It does not appear that a carrier operating UCAVs would offer any significant advantage in the cavalry role over a subma- rine carrying cruise missiles.
As for the capital-ship role, in the missile age the whole concept may be obsolete. There has been a constant ebb and flow of technical and tactical superi- ority of the offense and defense at sea, but mostly the offense now dominates— modern antiship missiles are very fast and hard to shoot down.

Next major war will prove that surface ships as a military presence are finished. There is a fundamental to this. It will always be a few orders of magnitude easier to hit a ship with a missile than a missile with an other missile and you can much easier replace a missile than a ship with it's sailors. Navies as a military discipline? Finished, like horses before them.

Hahahaha... carriers are not finished because of missiles... what do you think carries missiles.... most often a ship... and what protects those ships from enemy air power?

Missiles are also often carried by subs... but what protects that sub from aircraft... ships and other aircraft... and carriers protect those ships and subs and provide those aircraft.

When you get old enough you recognise the same old thing... Tanks are obsolete because ATGMs can kill them all. Well people are obsolete on the battlefield because bullets and shell fragments kill people.

Helicopters are too vulnerable to ground fire, aircraft are vulnerable to missiles... The thing is that you will always need tanks to protect all the other vital vehicles you need in a ground force, Helicopters are very useful too and aircraft are often critical in many situations too. At sea you will need both subs and ships and therefore you will also need aircraft carriers to protect them too.


With scramjet technology allowing aircraft to blur into space fighters you might have aircraft leaving the atmosphere and reentering over the enemy country to attack and then fly back at enormous speeds... once we get to that point mobile aircraft carriers will no longer be needed... and not before.

How the US Navy War College thinks about the future of aircraft carriers:

Do americans adopted Khrushov's "missiles and nothing more" doctrine? Welcome back to 60s

With scramjet technology allowing aircraft to blur into space fighters you might have aircraft leaving the atmosphere and reentering over the enemy country to attack and then fly back at enormous speeds... once we get to that point mobile aircraft carriers will no longer be needed... and not before.

It will be the time for space carriers  

Hannibal Barca wrote:Next major war will prove that surface ships as a military presence are finished. There is a fundamental to this. It will always be a few orders of magnitude easier to hit a ship with a missile than a missile with an other missile and you can much easier replace a missile than a ship with it's sailors. Navies as a military discipline? Finished, like horses before them.

nope, more like everyone copies the russky way- surface ships brimming with SAMs. Also you forget about the railgun-
tungsten needles launched at mach 30 and in a barrage should have no problem hitting and fcking up even scramjet
missiles from 10s of miles away. Also any warship that would be considered modern in the future is going to have at least some
degree of stealth measures applied- they can even cover the ship in several meter thick RAM and inject the exhaust gases under
the the ships hull.

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha... carriers are not finished because of missiles... what do you think carries missiles.... most often a ship... and what protects those ships from enemy air power?

I wasn't expecting that I had to explain this further...A ship is THERE cause it moves slowly. An air assault or a cruise missile hit from some 2000km undetected is a much different case.
Subs as missile carriers or some other dedicated ships will still hover around for some time but heavy surface ships pretty much a luxury this days

GarryB wrote:Missiles are also often carried by subs... but what protects that sub from aircraft... ships and other aircraft... and carriers protect those ships and subs and provide those aircraft.

Don't be silly. A sub can lunch a missile that can cruise a few thousand kms or a ballistic thing that can travel half the Earth's surface. In the same time can hide 300m below the surface. This is not what I had in mind. About the ships that provide the aircraft read history mate. Already in ww2 the best strategy was to go against the ship instead of the planes landed into the ship. What you conclude out of this?

GarryB wrote:When you get old enough

Thanks for the compliment but I afraid am already old enough

GarryB wrote:you recognise the same old thing... Tanks are obsolete because ATGMs can kill them all. Well people are obsolete on the battlefield because bullets and shell fragments kill people.

Helicopters are too vulnerable to ground fire, aircraft are vulnerable to missiles...

and this all have happened but the movies you watch and the pc games you play haven't notice yet

GarryB wrote: The thing is that you will always need tanks to protect all the other vital vehicles you need in a ground force, Helicopters are very useful too and aircraft are often critical in many situations too. At sea you will need both subs and ships and therefore you will also need aircraft carriers to protect them too.

Let's get things straight. I have in mind SERIOUS wars, even if strictly conventional. Don't mess me with the spoiled of wars that used to witness after ww2.
Knife still is the most common tool of assassinating someone. Is this because is still an effective weapon? No, but the vast majority of assassination attempts are not very "serious" or "professional" but mostly instinctive and unprepared. Hope you get the analogy.

GarryB wrote:With scramjet technology allowing aircraft to blur into space fighters you might have aircraft leaving the atmosphere and reentering over the enemy country to attack and then fly back at enormous speeds... once we get to that point mobile aircraft carriers will no longer be needed... and not before.

So much about you and science fiction my friend  

Asf wrote:

How the US Navy War College thinks about the future of aircraft carriers:

Do americans adopted Khrushov's "missiles and nothing more" doctrine? Welcome back to 60s

All am saying in other words is that this doctrine was, and is much more today, valid in everything but the fact that ships are superb PR and political tools and navy is by a mile the best discipline for parades, celebrations and dinner parties.

I wasn't expecting that I had to explain this further...A ship is THERE cause it moves slowly. An air assault or a cruise missile hit from some 2000km undetected is a much different case.
Subs as missile carriers or some other dedicated ships will still hover around for some time but heavy surface ships pretty much a luxury this days

To replace ships in attack is easy... lots of planes can perform the same role of launching a major cruise missile attack... but if you are using 2,000km range missiles to get standoff so the air defences can't shoot down your planes then you will need Flanker or bigger sized aircraft which means even a country like India or China would struggle to launch more than 100 cruise missiles.

A single large ship could easily carry and fire that sort of payload of missiles while at the same time have the air defence capacity to protect itself from any potential retaliation.

Amassing 100 Flankers to launch 100 cruise missiles would be a major effort, while a single modified Kirov or Typhoon/Akula could manage such an attack on its own while still having reserves of weapons (Kirov) or being underwater up to 2,000km away from the defending country (Akula/Typhoon).

Those Flankers will be nearly useless in anti illegal fishing, or smuggling, or other illegal operations via the sea... the fact is that you need ships anyway, so having even a relatively small number of aircraft that can be relied upon to go where ever the ships or subs go simply makes sense.

Already in ww2 the best strategy was to go against the ship instead of the planes landed into the ship. What you conclude out of this?

What I conclude from this is that the two countries with the most powerful navies of the time (UK and US) had aircraft carriers and they were both on the winning side. Also that even though their carriers were not invincible and many were lost they made the group of ships they operated with far better protected from enemy air power than if they were not there. Pearl Harbour would have been pointless without carriers.

A ship without air protection from a carrier is vastly more vulnerable than a ship with air cover... even if that air cover itself is vulnerable to enemy attack.

Thanks for the compliment but I afraid am already old enough

Was not directed at you and was not intended to suggest "inexperience".

and this all have happened but the movies you watch and the pc games you play haven't notice yet

All the major powers still have tanks and helos in service... helos are used in Afghanistan, as are tanks and other armoured vehicles.

Let's get things straight. I have in mind SERIOUS wars, even if strictly conventional. Don't mess me with the spoiled of wars that used to witness after ww2.

I would think all conflicts are serious, and the military forces of every country have to plan and equip themselves for a range of situations from a minor skirmish to total war and pretty much everything in between. Certainly in many scenarios a few planes with cruise missiles might be the best option, but in many other scenarios having ships would be critical... and therefore a carrier with air power to support those ships becomes critical too... in my opinion.

You could argue that the Russian Navy is not a global force and doesn't need a powerful navy, which means it also doesn't need aircraft carriers.

I would argue that to become a global power it needs a powerful navy and that the reverse does not happen.

Russia doesn't need to become a global power, but to become successful and economically viable it needs new markets... its markets in Eastern Europe are gone so it can't just remain a regional power... in my opinion. It needs a global focus... not so it can invade countries around the world or attack the US from new directions... but to ensure its own new trade links and to reach new markets.

Knife still is the most common tool of assassinating someone. Is this because is still an effective weapon? No, but the vast majority of assassination attempts are not very "serious" or "professional" but mostly instinctive and unprepared. Hope you get the analogy.

But does that make the knife the best choice for a planned assassination? Are the most successful assassination attempts unplanned spur of the moment actions?

When planning the defence of a country having more than just the air force option allows flexibility and choice... if the only tool you have is a hammer then you are forced to treat every problem like it is a nail... that is not so good when the problem needs a bolt and nut.

[quote]So much about you and science fiction my friend[/qutoe]

There was a time not that long ago when travelling to the moon was science fiction.

Once you get scramjets working and stable then it is just heat that keeps you from space...

I don't reply in everything but only to very few line because you have the amazing ability to multiply by a factor of 3 the quantity of what is being said so soon will approach infinity   

Amassing 100 Flankers to launch 100 cruise missiles would be a major effort, while a single modified Kirov or Typhoon/Akula could manage such an attack on its own while still having reserves of weapons (Kirov) or being underwater up to 2,000km away from the defending country (Akula/Typhoon).

From the very first time I clarified that I speak about surface ships and namely vast well equipped ones like cruisers, destroyers, careers and to a much less degree for littoral or subs or missile ships etc.

Those Flankers will be nearly useless in anti illegal fishing, or smuggling, or other illegal operations via the sea... the fact is that you need ships anyway, so having even a relatively small number of aircraft that can be relied upon to go where ever the ships or subs go simply makes sense.

You need cause the deck of a career is the best place to stage a cool cocktail party and been massive makes a lot of impression when docked outside a major port. In modern warfare war is the 5 minutes when you launch your missiles the rest is PR work

What I conclude from this is that the two countries with the most powerful navies of the time (UK and US) had aircraft carriers and they were both on the winning side. Also that even though their carriers were not invincible and many were lost they made the group of ships they operated with far better protected from enemy air power than if they were not there. Pearl Harbour would have been pointless without carriers.

What you conclude is that surface ships were already obsolete. AC where not yet for the simple reason that missile doctrine was not yet there

All the major powers still have tanks and helos in service... helos are used in Afghanistan, as are tanks and other armoured vehicles.

Tanks where the deciding factor in ww2 like artillery and rifles where in ww1. They still exist but they are of secondary importance and can backfire because they are vulnerable, expensive can operate in urban environment, can destroyed by hellos and attack planes etc.

I never said that hellos are obsolete, don't care what others say. They are not strategic but ground support is by far the most important factor for a conventional sub strategic army this days and hellos are in the backbone of this close support. Problem is indeed that hellos need to first have air superiority else are easy pray for fighters and missiles thus used the term substrategic.

I would think all conflicts are serious, and the military forces of every country have to plan and equip themselves for a range of situations from a minor skirmish to total war and pretty much everything in between. Certainly in many scenarios a few planes with cruise missiles might be the best option, but in many other scenarios having ships would be critical... and therefore a carrier with air power to support those ships becomes critical too... in my opinion.

The vast majority of conflicts have nothing to do with two heavyweights battling it's other to a deathmatch so yeah minor equipment is of great value for practical purposes and last but not least for selling to smaller countries.

You could argue that the Russian Navy is not a global force and doesn't need a powerful navy, which means it also doesn't need aircraft carriers.

I believe Russia China and India combined must have more than twice the number of ACs USA has in any given moment and I think this is the final plan. But I don't think that this has anything to do with the balance of power but with PR flag projection economic ties status and everything. Having said this I have no doubt that when a real war break out ACs will hide the same way that fortress and trench lines lost any meaning in the outbreak of ww2 and horses in the outbreak of ww1

There was a time not that long ago when travelling to the moon was science fiction.

Once you get scramjets working and stable then it is just heat that keeps you from space...

There are certain fundamentals that create a physical barrier from creating working scramjets having to do with material science and heat abduction when highly subsonic air run around a surface. This is the same with the cooling problems we got with our cpus. I am not pessimistic but some things look closer than they are and some others the opposite. BRAHMOS II will already be scramjet so yeah missiles will soon enter the era of ultra fast cruise speeds but having working planes is something which most probably not concern theoreticians of war in our century. One way or an other seems that the next century will be the era of absolute missile domination.

From the very first time I clarified that I speak about surface ships and namely vast well equipped ones like cruisers, destroyers, careers and to a much less degree for littoral or subs or missile ships etc.

Without carrier air support such vessels would be vulnerable to air attack.

In modern warfare war is the 5 minutes when you launch your missiles the rest is PR work

Not all combat takes place from 2,000km. If the enemy has a decent and alerted air force then you can't rely on cruise missiles... they are too vulnerable to interception by aircraft and when alerted SAMs can defend themselves rather well too... even modern MANPADS like Igla-S can engage cruise missiles if on the flight path... sometimes you need to send in fighters to deal with enemy fighters and ships with no carries can't do that.

What you conclude is that surface ships were already obsolete. AC where not yet for the simple reason that missile doctrine was not yet there

And how would D Day have turned out without ships?

If you want to move supplies and troops in large numbers there is no substitute for ships and if you want to keep those ships safe then you need warships and to protect those warships you need carriers or only fight countries within land base range. A bit limiting.

Tanks where the deciding factor in ww2 like artillery and rifles where in ww1.

Machine guns and artillery dominated both conflicts, with tanks greatly increasing mobility of ground forces in the second war, but also air power coming in to its own as well.

can destroyed by hellos and attack planes etc.

I never said that hellos are obsolete, don't care what others say. They are not strategic but ground support is by far the most important factor for a conventional sub strategic army this days and hellos are in the backbone of this close support. Problem is indeed that hellos need to first have air superiority else are easy pray for fighters and missiles thus used the term substrategic.

Even with total air superiority NATO refused to send in Apaches in Kosovo... wonder why...

One way or an other seems that the next century will be the era of absolute missile domination.

People who make missiles have been saying that for years.

Problem is that just as many people have been working on technologies to defeat missiles and who to say they wont succeed too?

Without carrier air support such vessels would be vulnerable to air attack.

Back in the days of ww2 to hit a ship you had to come close and land a inertia bomb or very close and let a torpedo. Having a carrier was important because you had to first beat the opponent's planes or die as you were retreating. You ain't do this anymore. Send the missiles. So the extra size, cost, planes and human lives of the AC is actually a liability.
Assuming again that your opponent has the ability to reach you via serious missile technology.

And how would D Day have turned out without ships?

If you want to move supplies and troops in large numbers there is no substitute for ships and if you want to keep those ships safe then you need warships and to protect those warships you need carriers or only fight countries within land base range. A bit limiting.

All I am saying is that wars are not anymore a matter of naval power.

Machine guns and artillery dominated both conflicts, with tanks greatly increasing mobility of ground forces in the second war, but also air power coming in to its own as well.

I used the term deciding factor, if you disagree with this tell me a counterexample.

Even with total air superiority NATO refused to send in Apaches in Kosovo... wonder why...

Because in Kosovo NATO was "playing" for the clean sheet, the result was already secured.
Don't bother me with the vanilla wars I made it clear from the beginning that I speak about REAL conflicts.

People who make missiles have been saying that for years.

Because the last war was 70 years ago in the first attempt the reality will unveil. Not that hasn't already, bombs aka missiles, dominated US army operations and Georgian war.

Problem is that just as many people have been working on technologies to defeat missiles and who to say they wont succeed too?

I don't know if there is a problem with my English but I already said it twice. There is a fundamental reality. The guys who builds the missile has a few orders of magnitude easier task to do that the guy who builds the anti-missile. As both sides improve the attacking side will always have the advantage. Missile is strictly- attacking weapon.

relying on missiles alone is dangerous- what happens when all your targeting platforms are killed by missiles?

Obviously you will not rely on missiles solely. Being the decisive factor doesn't mean that is the only factor. Air power is of immense importance.
Ground forces are irreplaceable in controlling areas and occupying and changing regimes and everything etc.
Let alone that the term missile is very wide and don't describe only the missile forces but is a wide tool having to do with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, air to air, air to ground, sea landed missiles, manpads, satellites, anti-missile missiles etc. so it's more of mastering the technology and developing the applications than a particular tool or military discipline.


Like always such new technologies make old technologies obsolete. The appearance of missiles make big, slow moving, expensive, populous bodies like surface ships unaffordable like good artillery and later airplanes made conventional close quarter battles a thing of the past. Once you get all your forces together on an open field you are much of an easy target to mobile forces, Klausevich already from 1830

Aviation is just a quicker missile platforms than subs and ships. And it's not like a one big target - more like a mosquito fleet. More planes means more maneuvering targets instead of one big ship/subs. Carrier can launch their attack squadron, it can sneak from the side of a battle group and launch their missiles far from the vector an enenmy is waiting for.

Plus, aviation can protect naval orders from missiles adding new layer of protection in addition to the ship-based AA missiles

So the extra size, cost, planes and human lives of the AC is actually a liability.

Missiles have become very capable, but there are lots of things in peace time and war time that need ships to do... including transport and surveillance. Ships operate best with air cover, which means carriers.

An Army wouldn't deploy and operate without air force support... it would be stupid to expect the navy to do the same.

Assuming again that your opponent has the ability to reach you via serious missile technology.

The fact is that no one probably has no idea who their opponent would be in 10 or 20 years time. When Saddam was helping the US in the 1970s I rather doubt he would be enemy number one by 1990.

All I am saying is that wars are not anymore a matter of naval power.

How do you work that out?

If Russia has to send support to Vietnam or Venezuela or Angola... how will it get there?

The most likely way will be via sea using ships.

I used the term deciding factor, if you disagree with this tell me a counterexample.

How could tanks in WWII and Artillery and machineguns in WWI be deciding factors when both sides used all those weapons in both conflicts.

the use of armed drones was a deciding factor in the US war on Terrorism in Yemen.

Don't bother me with the vanilla wars I made it clear from the beginning that I speak about REAL conflicts.

Tell that to the surviving members of families that lost people in those unreal conflicts.

Might come as a shock but one sided conflicts need to be planned for too. The Russian Navy needs to be able to act in all sorts of situations including sending ships to Syria, which does not mean firing a single shot... they just need to make an appearance to be able to make the other side calm down a bit and be a bit less reckless.

Not that hasn't already, bombs aka missiles, dominated US army operations and Georgian war.

Tanks and helicopters were also heavily and successfully used too.

I don't know if there is a problem with my English but I already said it twice. There is a fundamental reality. The guys who builds the missile has a few orders of magnitude easier task to do that the guy who builds the anti-missile. As both sides improve the attacking side will always have the advantage. Missile is strictly- attacking weapon.

Perhaps it is a problem with your English... attacking sides don't always have the advantage. Missiles are not strictly attacking weapons... have you not heard of SAMs... in particular SAMs like TOR and Pantsir-S1 designed to shoot down enemy missiles and bombs.

the guy who builds the missile has to design it to hit the target, but he also relies on the user being able to find the target, properly identify the target and get past any defences or camouflages or decoys and jammers.

Like always such new technologies make old technologies obsolete. The appearance of missiles make big, slow moving, expensive, populous bodies like surface ships unaffordable like good artillery and later airplanes made conventional close quarter battles a thing of the past. Once you get all your forces together on an open field you are much of an easy target to mobile forces, Klausevich already from 1830

But hang on... if big slow things like ships are obsolete then what about fixed runways, and HQs, and weapons production factories, and Capital cities, and communications centres?

All these things are vulnerable... even more so than ships, yet are widely in use and not considered obsolete...

About intercepting missiles i have a few questions: Do you guys think a RAM Missile or a rim-7 sea sparrow missile launched from an aircraft carrier is able to succesfully intercept supersonic sea-skimming missiles such as the DF-21D?
Or would the missile be almost impossible to intercept on that altitude and speed?

And what do you guys think the new air defence systems should be on a Future Russian Aircraft Carrier?

Is the Kashtan CIWS still up to date? Is there a improved version of the Kashtan? Are their new naval CIWS systems under development in Russia?

Thanks,

The problem of air defence is huge... on paper the Seawolf system should have been able to shoot down any Exocet subsonic sea skimming missile. It was successfully tested against 114mm artillery shells which offer a much more difficult target.

The problem is that on paper and in the real world are two very different things.

On paper the Sea Ram should be able to hit incoming supersonic anti ship missiles. On paper the ESSM should also be able to do the job too.

The problem of subsonic anti ship missiles included a range of options including jammers, decoys, smoke generators, and small calibre gatling guns and SAMs.

The problem of supersonic anti ship missiles has eliminated most small calibre gatling guns and many SAMs as well but some still remain effective on paper.

Having said that newer more capable missiles able to hit targets closer to the water and higher too, and at ever greater range improves defences and increases in target tracking and missile directing channels means more targets can be engaged at one time.

Suffice to say an old system with one target director able to guide two missiles at once on one target can engage one target at a time... when the target is hit it can then engage another target.

Obviously launching two missiles with very high speeds and low flight profiles so they become visible only at the last possible moment greatly increases your chances of getting inside the minimum range of the system without being engaged.

The old Soviet and Russian vessels had 30mm cannon turrets to engage subsonic missile threats and they were effective, but their own development of high speed missiles led to Kashtan and the new replacement Pantsir with 20km range SAMs able to hit targets at 2m above the wave tops and up to 15km altitude... with a carrier likely to have about 8 of these systems and each system with 32 missiles and two gatling guns and at least 4 guidance channels that means at least (4 x 32 targets engaged at one time just with the CIWS, while the Redut based on the land based Vityaz should allow rather more targets to be engaged at ranges of 60-150km.

With an AWACS aircraft operating the radar coverage of the area should be pretty complete offering little chance for sneaker attack.

Of course no defence is perfect but then the carrier will never operate alone and will likely have a Kirov based vessel nearby plus a few destroyers and of course its own aircraft combat air patrol.

In a heavy storm however most ships are not on their best defensive condition... though with modern radar most carrier groups should be able to avoid the worst weather....

I suspect guided artillery shells could become effective against incoming missile threats and also laser air defences might become an option along with nuclear powerplants providing plenty of energy for EM cats as well.

Oops... didn't mention Naval Morfei, which will be a short range lock on after launch short range IIR guided missile also used by Army as a ground based replacement for SA-13 and by the air force as a replacement for R-73.

It will be launched at an incoming target being directed at the target using information from an IRST that detects the targets IR plume (for a missile) or IR signature for an aircraft. Once launched the missile will turn to the direction the IRST detected the target from and then turn on its own imaging IR sensor which unlike earlier IR guided missiles will see an image of the target rather than hot spots. It will have an onboard digital database of 3D IR objects from missiles through various aircraft target types and will look for and find the most dangerous and home in on that. There will likely be a two way datalink to allow the operator to select or change the target selected if needed.

the Lock on After Launch 0r LOAL is required for IIR guided missiles launched from internal weapon bays (on PAK FA) or vertical launch tubes (on vehicles or vessels) where the seeker can't see the target till after it has launched and is clear of the launch vehicle.

Should be an excellent missile that might be used for anti missile use... an Su-35 carrying 3 per weapon pylon should be able to shoot down any AMRAAMs an F-22 fires at it and still have missiles to engage the F-22.

the thrust vectoring rocket motor means only the smallest fins are needed meaning loading several to a pylon should be standard practise. An ARH version would be interesting too...

the seeker fitted to an RVV-BD would also be interesting because a suspected location of a F-22 that is 150km away could be fired upon using an RVV-BD (300km+ range) with the IIR seeker looking all the way passively and not giving away the missiles presence. If it detects an F-22 it can home in on it totally passively with information about the F-22s location coming from ground based NEBO or other long range long wave radar.

This is a nice picture from a new CIWS probably replacing the Kashtan CIWS.

This is said on another forum:This is a Palash/Palmas CIWS, This will be/is already replacing the Kashtan CIWS, its main selling point is the SOSNA-R hypersonic missiles which the Russian Army also want as replacement for Tunguska (Russian Army did not buy Pantsir-S, only Russan Air Force as point defense for their S-300/S-400 systems)

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=36318

Here you can see a nice pimped up design of that Aircraft carrier i posted before, you can see a few defense systems like a vls or something like that. And a few things that looke like SAM's.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pan9hYoMxxY/UjzEyfehd8I/AAAAAAAA3Co/8-B8IF45mfA/s1600/1277141_588797877833176_2044053885_o.jpg

Palash/Palmas CIWS is not an improvement on Kashtan-M, it is a cheaper alternative that uses high speed missiles of much shorter range than Pantsir-S1.

The main advantage of Palash/Palmas over Kashtan and Kashtan-M and Pantsir is that it only carries 8 missiles and has no reloads so you can bolt it onto a deck and connect a power cable to it and it is ready to go.

Kashtan and Pantsir both need several deck levels for 24 missile reloads and extra ammo for the guns and a much more expensive range of sensors including MMW and CMW radar and thermal and digital optics.

Palash/Palmas will be used for cheap vessels and export vessels and very small vessels that don't have the room for the more capable Pantsir.

The Sosna-R missiles of Palash/Palmas have a range of about 10km so half and a quarter the range of Pantsir and new Pantsir respectively, while being more limited in the weather it is effective in... due to it not having a range of radar options, though it can get target data from other radars on the vessel.

I rather suspect if the Russian Army Adopts Sosna it will call it Bagulnik and will use it in light vehicles to replace the SA-13. In such a situation it will not weigh 35 tons like Tunguska, and will still have rather better performance than the 5km range SA-13. Laser beam riding missiles of very high speed would be hard to stop even with the latest DIRCMs because the missiles themselves have no forward looking optic sensors the DIRCMs can blind.

I would suspect however that in heavier brigades the extra range of Pantsir will make it the preferred choice in medium and heavy units.

BTW the missiles the SOSNA-R carries look very similar to the Pantsir and Tunguska missiles and the longer range Pantsir missiles (20km and 40km range) have a higher initial speed than the SOSNA-R.