Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against. It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.

Russia needs carriers because aircraft are the best way to find and stop threats to surface ships and submarines.

Russian aircraft carriers will not be used to invade countries like US carriers do, or British or French carriers do... they are to protect Russian and allied surface ships in international waters going about their business.

Zircon makes aircraft carriers obsolete like ATGMs make tanks obsolete and MANPADS makes aircraft obsolete.... ie they don't.

Zircon will be a very potent weapon, but nothing is perfect.

The best air defence includes aircraft as part of that air defence... the best air defence for the navy has fixed wing carriers and long range fighters.

Having VSTOL aircraft at sea is like having helicopters on land defending airspace...

No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

Carriers can go as fast as you want to make them... it is power to weight ratio... a very big carrier would need a huge power plant to go very fast... smaller vessels need less power to go the same speed.

You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

How hard a carrier is to sink is determined by the quality and performance of its escorts and its own aircraft... any defence can be overwhelmed with numbers but then numbers matter in defence too so more carriers and more escort ships will stop more powerful attacks.

Russia can reduce the strength of the attacks by pre-empting any attack with a few nuclear armed Zircons sinking enemy platforms before they launch strikes on Russian surface vessels.

An attack of 1,000 Harpoons might be successful, but shooting down or destroying the aircraft or ships carrying those Harpoons before they launch make the job of defending easier, so long range AWACS and fast fighters can intercept and start to blunt a massive attack earlier and more effectively than waiting with no aircraft at all when the first missiles start coming over the horizon.

GarryB wrote:

But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against.   It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.

Russia needs carriers because aircraft are the best way to find and stop threats to surface ships and submarines.

Russian aircraft carriers will not be used to invade countries like US carriers do, or British or French carriers do... they are to protect Russian and allied surface ships in international waters going about their business.

Zircon makes aircraft carriers obsolete like ATGMs make tanks obsolete and MANPADS makes aircraft obsolete.... ie they don't.

Zircon will be a very potent weapon, but nothing is perfect.

The best air defence includes aircraft as part of that air defence... the best air defence for the navy has fixed wing carriers and long range fighters.

Having VSTOL aircraft at sea is like having helicopters on land defending airspace...

No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

Carriers can go as fast as you want to make them... it is power to weight ratio... a very big carrier would need a huge power plant to go very fast... smaller vessels need less power to go the same speed.

You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

How hard a carrier is to sink is determined by the quality and performance of its escorts and its own aircraft... any defence can be overwhelmed with numbers but then numbers matter in defence too so more carriers and more escort ships will stop more powerful attacks.

Russia can reduce the strength of the attacks by pre-empting any attack with a few nuclear armed Zircons sinking enemy platforms before they launch strikes on Russian surface vessels.

An attack of 1,000 Harpoons might be successful, but shooting down or destroying the aircraft or ships carrying those Harpoons before they launch make the job of defending easier, so long range AWACS and fast fighters can intercept and start to blunt a massive attack earlier and more effectively than waiting with no aircraft at all when the first missiles start coming over the horizon.

Smaller Carrier means smaller propulsion....means less power to weight ratio and btw Power to weight isn't the only thing that determines a ships speed the hell man. you made no sense there at all.

that is why there are smaller ships that go slower than 100k carriers.

Ah the nuke argument go head let Russia fire a nuke it will only doom it's self.

That also wasn't the point of the statement you are bringing up things that have nothing to do with what was said. so forgive me if I have no desire to respond to stuff wasn't part of the statement.

kvs wrote:BS.   One target has less survivability compared to two.   That is physics and not forum onanism.

Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.  

One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster.   That would actually
be a clear advantage.  

The relation 1 to 2 would be the relation between the 43000 tons and the 100000 tons options. For the case of the 70000 tons, the relation would be of 2 to 3.

1 of 100000 vs 2 of 43000
2 of 100000 vs 3 of 70000

But in the study is said that an aircraft carrier of 43000 tons can not meet the missions of 100000 tons aircraft carrier.
In the study is assumed that an aircraft carrier of 70000 tons would be able to do it, but this is questioned in the letter of the US Navy.

As consequence even in equivalent tonnage there is a gap on potential to reach missions. This is something that we can see also in the refered to other armament.

1 T-55 vs 3 PT-76 (to talk about armament of the same age)

This is also phisics, and you know well how at the time 1 T-55 was profered to 3 PT-76. The reason of why small tanks fall to Main Battle Tanks was its lack of hability to meet the missions, basically by its lack of firepower. With small aircraft carriers it is the same.

I can understand if the entire concept of aircraft carrier is questioned, but the advantage of big aircraft carriers over smaller aircraft carriers is perfectly clear from a technical point.

Finally to note that in the same study, there is a relation of the missions that a US aircraft carrier must meet:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

Table B.1 Mission-Essential Task List for a Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

NTA 1.1 Move tactical forces.
NTA 1.1.1.7.1 Provide engineering and main propulsion.
NTA 1.1.1.7.2 Provide combat systems, deck, and communications.
NTA 1.1.7.3 Provide damage control.
NTA 1.1.2.3.1 Sail ship from port, anchorage, or moorage.
NTA 1.1.2.3.3 Conduct flight operations.
NTA 1.1.2.3.7 Conduct small-boat operations.
NTA 1.2.1.2 Conduct airspace management and control.
NTA 1.2.11 Conduct navigation.
NTA 1.5.9 Conduct information superiority operations.
NTA 2.2.1 Collect target data.
NTA 2.2.3 Perform tactical reconnaissance and surveillance.
NTA 2.4.4.2 Define the battle-space environment.
NTA 2.4.5.5 Provide intelligence support to targeting.
NTA 3.1 Process targets.
NTA 3.2.1.1 Attack surface targets.
NTA 3.2.5 Conduct EA.
NTA 3.2.7 Intercept, engage, and neutralize enemy aircraft and missile targets (DCA).
NTA 3.2.9 Conduct nonlethal engagement.
NTA 4.1.3 Provide munitions, pyrotechnics, and specialty items.
NTA 4.1.4 Maintain explosives safety.
NTA 4.1.5 Onload and off-load ordnance.
NTA 4.2.4 Provide petroleum, oils, and lubricants.
NTA 4.3 Repair and maintain equipment.
NTA 4.4.2.2 Provide food services.
NTA 4.6.3 Provide U N R E P.
NTA 4.8.5 Maintain cultural awareness.
NTA 4.12.2 Provide ambulatory health care.
NTA 4.12.3Provide surgical care.
NTA 4.12.4Provide dental care.
NTA 5.1.1 Communicate information.
NTA 5.1.3.1 Maintain and display the tactical picture.
NTA 5.2.1.3 Review the rules of engagement.
NTA 5.3.9.3 Plan tactical operations.
NTA 5.5 Conduct information warfare.
NTA 5.5.5 Perform information assurance.
NTA 5.6 Conduct acoustic warfare.
NTA 6.1.1.1 Protect individuals and systems.
NTA 6.2 Rescue and recover.
NTA 6.2.2.1 Perform search and rescue.
NTA 6.3.1.5 Establish and enforce a protection perimeter.
NTA 6.3.2.2.2 Review and apply use-of-force rules.
NTA 6 .5.1 Provide disaster relief.

NOTE: NTA = Navy tactical task.

This is what the study is talking about when they say that aircraft carriers of 20000 and 43000 tons can not meet the requirements. And this is what the US Navy is talking about when they put in doubt the feasibility of an aircraft carrier of 70000 able to meet the requirements.

Isos wrote:

As consequence even in equivalent tonnage there is a gap on potential to reach missions. This is something that we can see also in the refered to other armament.

1 T-55 vs 3 PT-76 (to talk about armament of the same age)

This is also phisics, and you know well how at the time 1 T-55 was profered to 3 PT-76. The reason of why small tanks fall to Main Battle Tanks was its lack of hability to meet the missions, basically by its lack of firepower. With small aircraft carriers it is the same.

Yeah but what missions are you talking about ?

Russian will use their carriers as escort carriers from WWII, not the way US navy is using them. They will put VLS on them and their fighter will just provide air cover and keep the enemy far enough so that they can't lunch their missiles at carrier group. The main anti ship armement will be VLS and Oniks or zircon which have bigger range than any other missile.

For land operation if the enemy is well equiped with aviation and coastal missiles no carrier on the world will get close to the shores and won't be helpfull at all because anti ship missiles and their vectors will always be out of range of the carrier defences so even with escort US carriers arae sitting ducks.

With US carrier the main problem is that if you achieve a good hit so that the carrier can't lunch anymore fighters then they are dead because their ships have harpoons for anti ship role and not all of them BTW. All their naval power consist of the good working catapults while russian carriers will always be euiped with weapons used on destroyers (like K armement taken from Kirovs for anti ship missiles and from Udaloy for anti air with naval Tor) that are proven to work. So they don't need a big escort maybe some SSN and 1 destroyer against submarines but against air and naval threat it can deal with anything by itself even if it can't lunch its fighters.

The list of missions and tasks required by the US to their aircraft carriers is also in the previous message.

In the refered to the most military side, you can say what would be superfluous for the Russian Navy in your opinion. I do not see many.

The current US carriers are able, at least theoretically, to operate a carrier wing made of up to around 80 fixed wing aircrafts plus helicopters.

Its main requirements are pretty obvious: to operate sea control on high sea for extended time against any existing opponents, and to be able to counter any regional power land based air force on its own or in cooperation with a second aircraft carrier.

It should be noted that a full carrier wing is made of three to four AEW aircrafts, around six specialized SEAD aircrafts, and sixty to seventy combat aircrafts.

The day a carrier enter its area of operations, all of the above is nearly 100% operative, meaning an air power easily on par with an air force made of more than one hundred combat aircrafts plus support assets.

Two aircraft carriers operating together are on par even with local contingents of a superpower, until additional assets are not sent to counter those aircraft carriers.

Now, let's do some math.

Local air cover requires a minimum of two aircrafts on CAP 24/365, but a more credible CAP would be made of four aircrafts flying in two by two formation.

To maintain such CAP, at least ten aircraft are required for a two aircrafts CAP, and around eighteen aircrafts for a four aircrafts CAP.

Then, you have reconnaissance missions, long range patrols, some specialized (SEAD, primarily) aircrafts, AEW.

Let's say reconnaissance require two by two aircrafts (two performing the mission, two providing escort): you can't take those aircrafts from those accounted for CAP, and you should at least have a second detachment available, so it sums another eight aircrafts.

Long range patrols (different mission from reconnaissance) require two aircrafts, and they fly very very often, so let's say other six aircrafts are needed for such mission, but eight would be far better.

Add to them four to six SEAD aircrafts, four AEW, and sum them all.

We are speaking of 18 (CAP) plus 8 (reconnaissance) plus six (long range patrol), plus 4 (SEAD) equals 36 combat aircrafts, plus 4 AEWs.

It's 40 fixed wing aircrafts, probably the most a Kuznetsov-like hull could manage.

Make it a little bigger (let's say close or around 65.000/70.000 tons) and it becomes possible to pump up all the above mentioned requirements: 20 aircrafts for CAP, 8 for reconnaissance, 8 for long range patrols. six SEAD aircrafts, 4 AEW plus another 2 additional combat aircrafts to provide a backup, an operational buffer, to the aforementioned combat aircrafts.  It equals to 38 standard combat aircrafts, 6 six specialized SEAD aircrafts, 4 AEW.

There is no real power projection requirement accounted for, with the exception of the SEAD mission (it could be seen as power projection tool, but it is equally relevant at sea when defending against an enemy task force because degrading its AAW defenses improves your AShMs chances to hit their targets).

I think, even using the proverbial Eyeball Mk. 1 as a simulation tool, that we have found a reasonable missions' set for a future russian aircraft carrier.

Of course, against little countries, a carrier equipped with around 40 combat aircrafts plus specialized supports as AEW and SEAD becomes a big power projection tool as well.

But in terms of peers' confrontation, it is the minimum to provide just a comprehensive and credible air cover to its own task force.

If you would like to do more, then of course you have to speak of a 100,000 tons, Ford like CVN.

Isos wrote:
Russian will use their carriers as escort carriers from WWII, not the way US navy is using them. They will put VLS on them and their fighter will just provide air cover and keep the enemy far enough so that they can't lunch their missiles at carrier group. The main anti ship armement will be VLS and Oniks or zircon which have bigger range than any other missile.

This refrain about second world war's escort carriers is wrong.

Escort carriers were meant to provide air cover to convoys, so their primary mission was in reality ASW.

In the pacific, they performed well beyond their intended roles, because the japanese's defenses were scattered across the ocean and after Coral Sea and Midway battles IJN was no longer able to confront US main carrier force AND auxiliary task forces.

Japan had to choose what the main threat was, and it was deemed obviously to be the main fleet carriers force.

This approach left islands based garrisons exposed to the escort carriers, that were able to annihilate land based forces accounting to hundreds of combat aircrafts.

Again, it has to be stressed that aircrafts carriers have always the advantage to choose location and time of the attack, and are able to concentrate their air power at will: the thousands aircrafts IJN and japanese Army got on the land based air bases across the Pacific could not support each others, and a few hundreds combat aircrafts deployed on around two dozen escort carriers were able to take them out one airfield after another.

Still, they were so vulnerable and ill suited to any ope sea confrontation that they were quickly phased out after the war: it was not a misjudgement or a mistake.

They had performed beyond their actual capabilities against an enemy that made the wrong choices both in terms of aircrafts and ships ( the Army's aircrafts proved to be far better opponents than the over-hyped Navy's Zero, and Yamato-class battleships were a waste of hundreds thousand tons of steel and other commodities), but had almost zero chances against a smarter opponent.

No?

It's History, not an opinion:
escort carrier's aircrafts destroyed Land based aircrafts at will, using local air dominance.

The aforementioned Su-34s should survive at least preemptive strikes and CAPs before making anyrhing meaningful.

And the AWACS should prove themselves able to survive opponents' tryout to shoot them down.

Reality does not ever change: mobility is always an advantage, and It always shall be.

Nope, under any circumstances.


SSKs literally crawl, there is almost zero chances they could intercept military vessels in open sea, they are mostly useful to defend choke points and close to shore waters, aircraft carrier NEVER go close to shores.

And whoever employ aircraft carriers, do not send them blindly, first a detailed order of battle of enemy's forces is pictured, then a tactical plan is drown, last the carriers are sent.

Carriers are always at advantage if no big mistakes are done, period.

Without exception, no matters enemy's weapons fielded.

There is no credible or even at least real sea denial weapon in the world, period number two.

Isos wrote:

Where do you think they go ?? Tjey will need to go near shores to attack russia or china. They even send a carrier between china and taiwan ...

Russia will never fight US navy in open ocea. They are not stupid.

And carriers will never, never need to come shorter than a couple hundreds kilometers from nearest shore, meaning no land radar, no land based missile, no SSK could see them or reach them.

And what airbase in the world is not mapped and already known in its position?

Answer: no air base in the world.

So there is zero chance a carrier task group would go against superior air assets, unless some big mistake has been made on planning.

Mobile forces are superior, always and everywhere in time and space.

There is no, there was no, there shall never be a case when a fixed defense would be superior to a mobile force.

now, in the past and in the future, without any possible exception.

It's a nature's law.

Yes, we all have seen ambushes on open sea against carriers.

At least in the movies, not yet in the real world.

Peŕrier wrote:Yes, we all have seen ambushes on open sea against carriers.

At least in the movies, not yet in the real world.

Never heard of the Battle of Midway?

Yeah sure, its WW2, but its still a good example of the vulnerability of carriers in a battle between near-peer powers with similar technology levels.  Looking beyond the actual sinking of carriers, WW2 had many examples of carriers rendered useless (mission kill) by a single bomb to the flight deck or torpedo strike causing a list, and yet we still have idiots sermonizing about how carriers are uber-weapons that cannot be scratched in the era of smart supersonic/hypersonic missiles....

And carriers will never, never need to come shorter than a couple hundreds kilometers from nearest shore, meaning no land radar, no land based missile, no SSK could see them or reach them.

Ha ha! The old "we can hit you, but you can't hit us" argument.... What a joke. Apparently this guy thinks all future naval warfare will be an Iraq-style scenario of sitting passively offshore while peppering the other guy with tomahawks at ones leisure...

And what airbase in the world is not mapped and already known in its position?

Answer: no air base in the world.

And what airbase in the world will be put out of action by a bomb on the flight deck, or a AShM hit, or a torpedo exploding under the hull?

So there is zero chance a carrier task group would go against superior air assets, unless some big mistake has been made on planning.

Which is why the Chinese are investing heavily in near-abroad naval air superiority and missile-based A2/AD capabilities, and recon capabilities to allow their effective use.

Mobile forces are superior, always and everywhere in time and space.

There is no, there was no, there shall never be a case when a fixed defense would be superior to a mobile force.

You seem to think that "fixed defenses" constitutes Soviet-era export grade SAM emplacements sitting in open desert? or maybe some hypothetical Chinese air defense equivalent of the Maginot line?... Given that modern Russian and Chinese SAM networks are now inherently mobile, that kinda defeats your comments?

I find it amusing that the US has always boasted that its satraps UK and Japan are "unsinkable aircraft carriers", yet you want us to believe that floating platforms operating 1,000s of kms from their bases are now more potent than the massed land-based strike capabilities of near-peer competitors?

Those stating carriers are big passive sitting ducks are clearly suggesting Russia have no navy in the future.

If the enemy can detect Russian ships from thousands of kms distance and launch missile attacks that will destroy large carriers then how can any vessel survive?

Having airborne AWACS platforms means detecting an attack at its earliest possible time which gives the fleet the most possible time to prepare for an enemy attack.

Carriers are not invincible... no ship is, but what a medium or large carrier offers is combat persistance at extended flight ranges from the carrier to maximise the view and reach of the aircraft of board the carrier and therefore also on the other ships of the battle group.

Having ten fucking stupid little helicopter carriers with short range useless fucking VTOL fighters means bugger all... it is all about AWACS platforms with decent size and view... if such aircraft can operate from your carriers then normal sized land based fixed wing fighters could be adapted to operate as well for much less cost than developing VTOl fighters from scratch.

Having 10 mistral carriers with 6 Sea Harriers on each just means the enemy will use more missiles to destroy your air cover and take marginally longer to do so.

Conversely if you have two large fixed wing carriers the odds are that one of those carriers will be in overhaul or refit so you will likely most of the time only have one carrier available, but with decent AWACS support and decent fighter aircraft in support you will only need one.... any attempt to overwhelm them will result in the concentration of multiple US carriers... the ideal target for a mass launch of Zircon missiles from ships, subs, and aircraft...

Just looking at the Su-57 I would say any 5th gen light naval fighter they make will be rather better able to fight the F-35s in service in the west in the same role... especially if they don't compromise the design by trying to make it a VSTOL design.

And what airbase in the world will be put out of action by a bomb on the flight deck, or a AShM hit, or a torpedo exploding under the hull?

Not many airfields have integrated air defence networks comparable to those operating around a carrier, nor the number and composition of forces actively defending that air field...

Most of the ones you can mention are either US carriers or Russian land based airfields...

Midway was a battle staged by aircraft carriers against aircraft carriers.

There was, and there is still today and in the foreseable future, no chance that land based forces could "ambush" aircraft carriers.

And barring really big misjudgements by naval planners, carriers will strike when and where its more likely they will get local air dominance.

There is no way any country in the world, exept some landlocked ones, could have enough air assets to defend all meaningful targets that lie by or close to its shores.

There is a strict correlation between military capabilities and economical, political and social development: the more military capabilities your country could deploy, the more developed should your country be, which in turn means more possible vulnerabilities and liabilities.

Road networks, railroad networks, powerlines, food processing factories, merchant and fishing ports, city underground lines, refineries, oil and gas depots, data transmission lines, dams, agricultural water supplies, airports, you name them.

And again, within hours a carrier task group could easily sail some hundreds kilometers, moving within or outside the reach of any land air base and its aircrafts.

While the carriers sail, their aircrafts are not consuming mission cycles.

Land based aircrafts, in the hypothesis they could redeploy to reinforce some airbase, will have at least a cycle less in their airframes and engines before maintenance become mandatory, and crews will need rest and have no replacement.

Because nowadays a combat aircraft is able to perform several sorties before getting grounded for maintenance, but crews still need many hours' rest after each single sortie to recover from mental stress and phisical fatigue, it's usual having more crews for each aircraft in a squadron.

Something that ferried aircrafts could not bring along with maintenance tools and people, redicing overall efficiency of hastily redeployed aircrafts.

Land forces = land based assets.

I.e. combat aircrafts, patrol aircrafts, missile's batteries that are land based.

I see you have an optimistic picture about how much work is required to perform even a relatively simple ferry flight, and how much strain it puts upon crews, particularly on combat aircrafts' crews.

A single redeployment requires hours of planning and study before the flight, and should require familiarization flights past arrival to let crews know visually the whereabouts of their new operating base, plus briefings with local operations planners.

Anybody knowing a military pilot, either combat or logistic, could go ask him how much work he has to perform in one day, sometimes for a few days in a row, just to make an uneventful ferry flight.