Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Peŕrier wrote:Mixing the roles of an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault one is counterproductive  at best, impossible at worst.

But first they displace around 70.000 tons full load,

second they have no flooding dock nor have they any landing craft at all: they are designed to be compatible with vertical assault large scale operations, up to the point to be able to operate the CH-47, but in doing so they would leave back most of its fixed wing aircrafts

Still, the main and foremost mission behind their project is pure fixed wing aircrafts' operations, with everything from the flight bridge down to the deepest fuel tank or weapons depot designed to maximize high tempo fixed wing aircrafts' operations efficiency.

But it will have to be a purpose built air superiority aircraft carrier, designed to maximize the air cover it could provide and maintain,

+
to fight successfully to get local air superiority in order to create a safety bubble where enemy could not exercise its air power

PapaDragon wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:....
Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

Situation you describe is called post-industrial neo-colonial warfare and yes small carriers would be very useful (30-50k would be my estimate)

And yes making it a combination of LHD and carrier is a way to go, saves time, money and serves actual purpose 90% of time with troop/cargo and anti-sub functionality

GarryB wrote: It is OK... the Russian Navy aren't fools.... they have made bigger carriers and they have made smaller carriers (Kuznetsov and Kiev respectively) and they clearly want the bigger carriers.

A carrier group is going to be expensive to operate whether it has big carriers at its core or one or two smaller carriers... neither option is going to be cheap, but the bigger carrier is going to be more effective and useful.

There is clearly no convincing you that you are wrong...

No one knows who will be right in this regard...
It just depends whose lobby win... but the fact is that if they have to develop a catapult system to get AWACS platforms airborne then it makes little sense to waste time and money on VSTOL... having a cat means even the heaviest fixed wing fighter can get airborne at full load safely.

Most of their fighters will be operating at no where near max weight as they will be armed for Air to air...

Having two large carriers wont be that much more expensive than having 4-6 mini carriers, and the carrier groups will cost the same, so having 3-4 carrier groups worth of support ships and support infrastructure will make the smaller carriers more expensive than the bigger carriers, while at the same time rather less capable.

You need uber-fords only in one case=  full conventional war. Which never happens for Russia.

Who is talking about Ford class ships?

Why shouldn't their new carrier have 4-10 times the number of aircraft?

You need power projection? fine, 4 Su-35s and 4 Su-30SM in Syria. Third year there were not more than 8 fighters,  And they have done their job havent  they?  If 70 fighters would be needed why they were not sent there?

It is a bit expensive using cruise missiles to hit every target... if you are using carrier aircraft it is because it is too far away for aircraft to operate from Russia... which means not just fighters but also AEW and AWACS and light strike and also surveillance would be needed... if not from land then from sea.

Obviously a lot of the observation and light strike could be drones operated from the carrier... but you need a lot of space for extra stuff like that.
The other change from the cold war (other than in raw fire power) is that the new vessels are multi role and that would include the carrier...

When you go to the Chemist do you buy extra small condoms because they are cheaper and you can fit more in your pocket, or do you buy the super large condom because you like it nice and tight around your dick?

Little ones break on big dicks... and you don't get your money back.

I believe drones will do the job. In order to have good look on the horizon you need altitude. There are such drones in testing. V/STOL

The vertical landing component means they will be weight limited... there is a reason the Boeing Century is based on a very very large aircraft... even the Ka-31 is a 12 ton helo... not really a light weight. With 12 tons drone you can have bigger, payload range and ceiling than Ka-31 . And Sentry is no shipborne  like A-100

Persistence, and it is for war... but like previous wars not including WWI or WWII... it is a way of showing smaller countries that in a local event that Russia can turn up and help and no other power could impose and enforce a blockade.
It is a sabre rattling thing... but not to bully little countries... to protect them from bullies.
And no, I am not talking about becoming the world police part two... it will only be for trading allies that the US is trying to bully to stop being trading partners.

4 Su-30SM were enough to keep US from bombing Assad. Example proved you need little because adversary knows after shooting Russian fighter hell gets loose.

That's a good one, for 80's 90's but now surely they didnt think abut it having multi-sensor data fusion and cameras with image recognition  :-)

Smoke and DIRCMS will deal with cameras... and IR flares will give it volume in the IR spectrum...

sure it will be not foreseen :)bT is so why US Navy is afraid of Russian missiles?

Sure and people are prepared for everything right? AFAIK They build solutions on Boyd's loop principle. Strategies are trained off line or in batches and operational parameters adjusted in real time.

The problem is shown with opposing forces training... ?
Garbage in Garbage out.

When they built Google Brain couple of years ago there were also civilian technologies when AI was trained by other AI agent. You dont need to know everything about Russian style of fighting. Algorithms will check millions trials for best strategies. So far in any fight between man and computer in any game computer wins.

Almost 400 ordered F-35Bs also doesn't confirm your thesis.

These orders are politically motivated... which alternative option did they have to replace Harriers on carriers too small for fixed wing fighters?

not really convincing, they didnt have to replace harriers. They wanted V/STOL because of its value in naval conditions.

Peŕrier wrote:Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

 "The largest of[/b] all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck."

At the most basic level, an amphibious force consists of a Navy element � a group of ships known as an amphibious task force (ATF) � and a landing force (LF) of U.S. Marines (and occasionally, U.S. Army troops), in total about 5,000 people. Together, these elements � and supporting units � are trained, organized, and equipped to perform amphibious operations. The Amphibious Ready Group consists of:

An Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA or LHD) � Primary landing ships, resembling small aircraft carriers, designed to put troops on hostile shores. In a secondary role, using AV-8B Harrier aircraft and anti-submarine warfare helicopters, these ships perform sea control and limited power projection missions.

Peŕrier wrote:Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

Wasp as any other LHD in history has never been an aircraft carrier nor has never had the slightest chance to perform any aircraft carrier like mission.

The USA tried with the America to get something close to a modern day escort carrier getting rid of the flooding dock and giving away any amphibious capability, crashed their faces against reality of comcept's failure and reversed the project from the third hull reinstating the flooding dock and practically eliminating most of the fixed wing aircrafts support infrastructure, i.e. giving away the escort carrier concept.

Peŕrier wrote:...Bombing "cavemen" does not exist as a mission or requisite for any major navy in the world...

And any balance conscious (sometimes even cash strapped) military in the world is designing its force structure and its equipment in order to fight against likely peer opponents