Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Land forces = land based assets

Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

Isos wrote:Btw even russian top military chef said that new english carrier is just a big target. So we can be sure they won't accepte a similar ship but more probably a biger and updated K type ( i.e an aircraft carrying destrpyer)

More like aricraft carrying battleship considering the size and the fact that the Kuznetsov is considered a cruiser.

By the way, I'm not american nor I ever believed or suggested US pilots could operate from a new airbase without rest and familiarization: simply they, as anybody else in the world, won't operate because too risky, unless they got really desperate.

Peŕrier wrote:No, they left their crews rest after the ferry flights to Saudi Arabia and they left them time to familiarize themselves with the Saudi airbases where they were intended to operate from.

The same as anybody else in the world: they need rest, and they need to know their own airbase and its surroundings.

Not the opponents' airbases, unless the opponent is such a sportman that he likes enemies to not risk too much from lack of experience.

Peŕrier wrote:Where all of this comes from?

Nobody but you in that last post talked about the US deployng hundreds or thousands of combat aircrafts close to russian border.

Take a deep breath.

I have always talked about inherent advantages of aircraft carriers against land based aircrafts.

That was and that it is what I'm talking about.

Peŕrier wrote:Again, nobody but you talked about US (or Venusian or whatever else) deploying pilots to attack another country, be it Russia or Chartago or the Klingon Empire.

The reasoning was about aircraft carriers striking against an area, and their advantage in choosing location and time for a strike, getting local air dominance.

This because the opponents, relying on land based aircrafts, will endure difficulties trying to redeploy, within its own borders, aircrafts and pilots to reinforce menaced defenses.

Even if it could promptly ferry aircrafts and crews, they will need some rest, and better again a little familiarization with their new airbase, before getting operational.

Something that grant aircraft carriers a window of opportunity before reinforcement get operational.

Peŕrier wrote:I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

Yes, that's correct.

And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

I wrote that and I replay it as well.

The sea’s average north-south length, from Croatia’s southern shore to Libya, is approximately 800 kilometers (500 miles). http://justfunfacts.com/interesting-facts-about-the-mediterranean-sea/

“These days, not a single batch of MiG-29 fighters is delivered without supplying the customer with special training sessions and simulators,” Ivanov says. “Our knowhow is the use of 3D technologies in flight visualization.”Flight simulation is not a new area for Russian aircraft manufacturers. However, it is only now, thanks to modern software, various hydraulic systems, and 3D visualization of the environment, that simulators have been capable to truly imitate a real flight and its conditions. https://www.rbth.com/economics/2014/09/08/using_a_flight_simulator_with_the_russian_air_force_38133

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

Yes, that's correct.

And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

I wrote that and I replay it as well.

Yeah and I tell you it is stupid because a modern army will detect the carrier and will have modern weapons to destroy it. You can easily move fighters and equipement from one base to another specially if you have all the cargo planes that russia has. So the carrier will be no more than a small base that can be destroyed more easily than a ground base because because everything is in a box of 330x70m, one hit ini the good place and you lose your base.

US didn't achieve to destroy an unprotected Syrian base with almost 100 tomahawks, what would be the result against a russian base protected by russian IADS ?

They don't need to familiarize with anything because in the air you don't follow roads. They have modern navigation systems.

You can say it again and again it will still be wrong.

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

Yes, that's correct.

And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

I wrote that and I replay it as well.

Yeah and I tell you it is stupid because a modern army will detect the carrier and will have modern weapons to destroy it. You can easily move fighters and equipement from one base to another specially if you have all the cargo planes that russia has. So the carrier will be no more than a small base that can be destroyed more easily than a ground base because because everything is in a box of 330x70m, one hit ini the good place and you lose your base.

US didn't achieve to destroy an unprotected Syrian base with almost 100 tomahawks, what would be the result against a russian base protected by russian IADS ?

They don't need to familiarize with anything because in the air you don't follow roads. They have modern navigation systems.

You can say it again and again it will still be wrong.

eehnie wrote:

Isos wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:I wrote that aircraft carriers enjoy the advantage to strike where and when they are most effective putting the opponents in trouble trying to defend its assets.

And I wrote that land based aircrafts could hardly redeploy as easily because they need to fly themselves to new areas of operation.

Yes, that's correct.

And pilots moving in airbase where they did not previously operated, will need to familiarize with it and its surrounding, the same way any human being moving from its hometown to another one still in its own country, will need to familiarize with the new town.

I wrote that and I replay it as well.

Yeah and I tell you it is stupid because a modern army will detect the carrier and will have modern weapons to destroy it. You can easily move fighters and equipement from one base to another specially if you have all the cargo planes that russia has. So the carrier will be no more than a small base that can be destroyed more easily than a ground base because because everything is in a box of 330x70m, one hit ini the good place and you lose your base.

US didn't achieve to destroy an unprotected Syrian base with almost 100 tomahawks, what would be the result against a russian base protected by russian IADS ?

They don't need to familiarize with anything because in the air you don't follow roads. They have modern navigation systems.

You can say it again and again it will still be wrong.

Isos on helicopter carriers you are right, but here I can not say the same.

Land based fighters plus their weapons have a limited range. Also other land based weapons have a limited range. A big US aircraft carrier can select its position and never will afford a direct fight with land based weapons except in a Normandie like scenario. This should be clear enough. A big US aircraft carrier never will go inside the range of the Russian land based fighters + its weapons.

One of the big US aircraft carriers is not a small base. There are not many land bases that can operate at same time around 90 combat aircrafts. Plus, they tend to operate not alone. In a Normandie like scenario, would be around 6 of them?

And also you are wrong saying how easy is to sink an aircraft carrier. If you think 1 tomahawk hit would sink an aircraft carrier of 100000 tons you are wrong. Talking about Midway, it is good to read the reports to realize how the sunk aircraft carriers received multiple impacts before sinking, even were necessary multiple hits under the waterline, and the aircraft carriers of Midway were of 30000-40000 the bigger and under 10000 tons the smaller.

Maybe if hit here or there a single tomahawk would sink an aircraft carrier of 100000 tons, but this is too much if. To be as lucky there are necessary several hits in average. And to achieve 6-8 hits from tomahawks (or Caliber), you can do the calculus about how many of them should be launched with like 90 fighters just waiting them outside of the range of land based fighters.

It is obvious that the fighting strategy of US aircraft carriers vs Russia would be to go to a place just out of the range of Russian fighters + plus their weapons. Maybe at 2500 Km of the coast or even less, creating a zone of air and sea superiority that would not allow the Russian strategic bombers, ships and submarines with weapons of range under 1200 Km (excluding Zircons and S-500 of the scenario), that Russia would have to answer with (unless suicide actions):

- Kalibr (only the longest range variant).
- RK-55.
- Kh-55/101/102.
- SSBN.
- ICBM.

And in this situation the US would be able to attack Russian land with ship and submarine based missiles and would have sea superiority vs the small ships answering them with Kalibr.

Reading the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 we can see that Russia is working hard to avoid this kind of scenarios. The nuclear option is always there, and is very evident looking at the list of weapons available in a situation like this, but Russia wants something else, and is talking openly about non-nuclear deterrence, working the side of conventional guidded missiles, but also working the side of aircraft carriers.

In the previous situation, a Project 23000 Russian aircraft carrier that allows the use of standard Su-57, placed at 1200-1300 Km from the coast would include also in the mix for the Russian defense:

- Russian fighters, in bigger amounts than the shipborne fleet, and "unlimited" capability of replacing loses with aircrafts from land. The Su-57 have longer range than the F-35 which would mean that the Russian aircraft carrier would be able to find a position where the Su-57 are in range of attacking the US aircraft carrier while is safe from the F-35.
- Russian ships would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of Zircons and more S-500, that are also in the own armament of the aircraft carrier.
- Russian submarines would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of more shorter range weapons (always present in bigger numbers) in adition to the RK-55.
- Russian strategic bombers would be allowed to come closer allowing the use of shorter range weapons (again present in bigger numbers) in adition to the Kh-55/101/102.

Consequence, non-nuclear deterrence achieved and sea denial achieved at this distance.

A smaller aircraft carrier with lower number of aircrafts, with underperformer aircrafts and with specific aircrafts that can not be replaced by aircrafts from land would be surpassed by the US aircraft carrier and would not achieve this non-nuclear deterrence.

Also by its size Russia lacks aerial transport capabilities, big time. It would require double, maybe even triple airlift fleet it has now.

Isos wrote:@Eehnie if you want to use an carrier against russia from 2500 km away how are you going to do anything ? F18 and f35 have smaller range than su 35/34 or tu 22m and tu 160. So the carrier has to be closer to the shores.

You don't need to sink it. A good hit from anti ship missile in the good place and it won't be able to lunch jets anymore and becames useless ship. It is a small base with lot of things on it. So the probability to hit munitions or fuel with one hit is big.

I didn't say it is easy but when you know that a su 34 can carry 6 anti ship missiles and they have something like 100 of them it means they can lunch salvos of 600 antiship missiles at the carrier.

You can keep your carrier at 3000 km so that it can't be reached by su 34 but first it will be useless you can t use f 18 and it will always be in range of tu 22 andd tu 160.

That's all.

Also by its size Russia lacks aerial transport capabilities, big time. It would require double, maybe even triple airlift fleet it has now.

We are talking about transporting personnel and spare parts for their fighters. The fighters can fly by themselves from a base to another. Not to transport 2000 tanks in two days. They also have civilian planes that can be used to transport people.

It was said, winning the position the US can attack the land with ship and submarine missiles. Bolded now.