Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

GarryB wrote:

I think he means "power projection".

And that is the difference.... the US uses carriers for power projection, while the Russians use surface ships for power projection...- they'll use subs for that as well- with all remaining Oscar SSGNs now being converted to carry up to 72 LACMs.

If you are going to call it a style then it would have to be British Style because most of the things used in modern carriers they invented and developed including the angled deck and the mirror based landing system and the catapults...- The Nimitz/Ford CVNs r the styles of their own, due to their layout & size.

They could but they will be the first ships to be lost... the British had most of their heavy helicopters for landing and moving cargo (as opposed to naval helicopters designed for SAR and anti sub duties) on a transport ship called the Atlantic Conveyer... and when it was sunk it was a huge blow to the operation because it meant there were never enough helicopters so everything took longer and was much harder to achieve... - They were trying to retake the Falklands, while the VMF will supposedly try to prevent friendly islands/coasts blockaded or falling into enemy hands.
NP Sevmorput could be used as a floating helo/UAV base & supply ship, stay close to UDK/TAKR & escorted by FF/DDGs & subs. Besides, it could carry many missile containers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevmorput

One of the main features of the vessel was its adaptability to the use of new means of off-road unloading: two KA-32 helicopters with a carrying capacity of 5 tons each on an external sling and two air cushion platforms with a lifting capacity of 40 tons. Their use made it possible to exclude heavy manual work on transshipment of cargo to coastal vehicles, and unloading by helicopters could be carried out regardless of ice conditions, sea waves, bottom and coast relief. The aircraft complex of the vessel included a take-off and landing and three cargo platforms, a hangar with a device for transporting helicopters, a command post, radio technical flight support, a helicopter refueling system, an aviation fuel storage system, a system for recharging helicopters with compressed gases, washing them with water and heating them with hot air.  http://mycity.kherson.ua/organiz/sudozavod/lihterovozy2.html

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/08/russias-project-23900-lhd-to-be-able-to-operate-in-the-arctic/

GarryB wrote:AShBM would be best defeated with early warning and very large ships able to carry S-500 level air defence systems and missiles... so effectively the countries best able to defeat countries with such weapons would be the navies with real Carriers and not small half arse helicopter carriers with a few F-35s on board.

Against such weapons the AEGIS vessels are perfectly equipped, since high flying missiles can be detected by surface level radars and DDGs and CGs are big enough to carry substantial amounts of interceptors. What is clear is that they will never have the magazine depth to match the land-based assets of a big power. Maybe DEW help in the future, and there nuclear carriers or cruisers should be the best equipped both in terms of power generation and size. But I agree that LHDs disguised as carriers have no advantage in this regard, rather the opposite

And that is the difference.... the US uses carriers for power projection, while the Russians use surface ships for power projection... with the US the aircraft are the power and deliver the bombs and shoot down the enemies planes while all their ships protect the carrier and the landing ships, whereas the Russian ships will be projecting the power and the carrier is there to protect the ships from enemy action and counter attack.

By projecting power do you mean attacking land targets? If yes, I have to disagree again, this should not be the main goal of the VMF at all. CMs are ideal to avoid risks for aircraft and their crews, but they are of course incomparably more expensive than dumb bombs launched in a strike sortie and can hardly create the volume of fire needed for real effect on the capabilities of any serious military. The amount of surface combatants needed to create a salvo size of subsonic CM able to overwhelm a decent air defence is extremely high, as we saw in Syria... it simply does not pay off.

If you are going to have two and probably four helicopter landing ships in your navy, don't you think there will be situations where you will be attacking land based enemies with your navy.

The bulk of any land attack capacity will come from ships and subs, but why ignore potential capacity from aircraft.... especially if they are Su-57 based and therefore also fully multirole?

Their role might be limited to approaching the enemy coast at altitude and launching anti radiation missiles at major SAM sites and radar bases to blind the enemy to the incoming low flying cruise missiles. Of it could be a coastal launch of very long range AAMs being fired towards the main enemy airfields as your cruise missiles approach...

Against a particularly weak enemy sending a few Su -57s with glide bombs launched from high altitude to attack critical targets might be considered the best solution.

I don't think they will navalise the Su-32 and carpet bomb the crap out of their equivalent of the viet cong.

Surgical strikes against specific targets are generally best done with cruise missiles... most flexible strikes against other targets make sense to be sophisticated bomber with dumb unguided bombs... or gun artillery if their 152mm naval guns will be reaching 170km.

The question is what kind of conflict you end up in: maybe an US proxy meddling with your allies needs to be remembered their place, maybe there is some geographically limited operation like restoring security in sea choke points where naval intervention makes sense. In general, the navy should not engage strong land based forces or wage a sustained land war effort, it is not intended to do so and trying to develop it that way leads you to where USN is now, wasting billions and walking into obsolescence.

That been said, for strike missions I guess UCAV will largely replace both CMs and manned aircraft, since they have some of the best characteristics of both. Some may be capable of being launched from ships other than flattops, but the vast majority and the most capable ones will still be the ones on board of carriers.

The carriers are supposedly disappearing and Russia should retire the Kuznetsov and not think about further carriers, we are told. Meanwhile in the real world:



Chinese developing the J-15 to launch it with catapults, prototypes already developed.

https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1328686245694885890/photo/2

Chinese zone of interest for the next 20 years is the hot chinese sea and its sea roads.

Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.

There is no need for carriers for Russia. That's quite simple to understand. Modernized Kuznetsov with why not some su-57 and future heli carriers with some VTOL aircraft will be enough.

This is like eating insects and tofu and living on a 30 sqm flat is the new cool... when I see bankers doing it I will believe it. Same applies to carriers, when I see all great navies of the world renouncing to them, I mean actually stopping construction and decommissioning them, then I will assume it is for real. In the meantime it is BS and the way the public discussion is oriented towards questioning the Russian need while avoiding to discuss the expediency for other countries, it just makes it plainly obvious that this is just another attempt to contain Russia by undermining public consent for the development of the oceanic capabilities of the VMF.

For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero. But you will only read praise to their renewed naval might. France? Japan, Korea, Turkey, Spain? India? All second rate military powers are entitled to their carriers, even toy carriers of almost zero real military value in high intensity conflicts, because the lapdogs must be left unimpeded to loot their own countries to support the imperial efforts of the West. In the meantime Russia which is maybe the most powerful military in this world cannot have carriers? To hell with that....

Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.

Russian zone of interest is anywhere, as it is obvious by the developments in Africa, ME, Latin America, Indian Ocean etc. This ridiculous colonial mindset according to which the interests of the West are the whole world but Russian ones are confined to its borders and immediate surroundings is pure delusion on its way to be crushed by the reality. Wait and see.

LMFS wrote:. In the meantime Russia which is maybe the most powerful military in this world cannot have carriers? To hell with that....
.

LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.

For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero.

UK still believes Honk Kong is its problem. They had those carriers ready during the protests. Why didn't they send them there tobprotect their interests ?

China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.

Same for US. North korea and Iran don't have carriers. Why don't they attack them with their 20 carriers ?

Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.

Back in time it was canons, then destroyers, then carrier wings and now its missiles.

Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.

Isos wrote:

For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero.

UK still believes Honk Kong is its problem. They had those carriers ready during the protests. Why didn't they send them there tobprotect their interests ?

China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.

Same for US. North korea and Iran don't have carriers. Why don't they attack them with their 20 carriers ?

Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.

Back in time it was canons, then destroyers, then carrier wings and now its missiles.

Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.

They are useful, however, to provide a better radar coverage with their AWACS and to protect the fleet with their air wing.

Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...

Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.

Arrow wrote:LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.

"Maybe" as in it is arguable, and based in the type of conflicts that actually may happen. For instance in a conventional confrontation NATO - Russia in the European theater, I would not be sure the Western side wins, at all. Russia does not try to conquer CONUS so no point in comparing power projection capacities to such extent.

Bottomline is that RF is a military superpower with enormous potential to export strategic stability to partners all around the world, so pretending it must keep quiet and contained within is borders is just wishful thinking from the West.

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
They are useful, however, to provide a better radar coverage with their AWACS and to protect the fleet with their air wing.

Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...

Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.

Yeah I agree they have their advantages but thinking because you have 2 or 3 carriers you can rule anything but unarmed countries is beyond stupidity.

In open seas they add the advantage of having an aiborne AWACS and fighters that can do anti ship mission but they will also attract more enemy ships and submarines.

If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.

IMO the light carrier of 40kt presented few years ago is a perfect carrier. Just need 2 nuks reactors and one catapult for AWACS. Supercarriers are useless and will eat the money for frigates and destroyers.

But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.

she now has/will have bombers/subs, supported by tankers, satellites & MPA/UAVs, with long range hypersonic conventional AShMs that can neutralize any Western naval groups in any sea/ocean. No need for floating airfields. in contrast, China has more vulnerable coast, SC Sea claims, citizens, overseas interests & SLOCs to protect, besides outflanking India & Japan- therefore, she needs 5-6 CBGs.

Sorry for repeating myself, but I am genuinely puzzled about why it is so hard to get this point through: naval power at sea has essentially the same advantages than at land so it should be obvious why you want to count on it. In fact the vulnerabilities at sea are even worse than at land, due to factors like:

- The practical impossibility to conceal surface assets in the sea
- The concentration of military capabilities on few, highly valuable platforms.

So as discussed before, a vessel at sea has a ridiculously low awareness of what is approaching at low level. There is not going to be an IADS with dozens of radars of all kind, among them OTH, and hidden SAM sites ready to intercept some attack, the ship is alone or protected only by a reduced amount of other ships that are in turn essentially as vulnerable and limited themselves, no wonder that Russian and Soviet ships of big displacement have enormous amounts of SAMs and raise their air surveillance radars as high as possible in their superstructures, trying to compensate for such implicit weaknesses.

To summarize:

> Carriers are not tools of imperialism but simply tools for the use of air power at sea, that is, with missions of naval strike, ASW and AD of the fleet.
> Current paradigm of the use of carriers as per US practice:
- Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack
- Is a doctrinal aberration caused by US imperialism and an overwhelming international supremacy, and should never be used as a reference for the development of the VMF

Tsavo Lion wrote:she now has/will have bombers/subs, supported by tankers, satellites & MPA/UAVs, with long range hypersonic conventional AShMs that can neutralize any Western naval groups in any sea/ocean. No need for floating airfields. in contrast, China has more vulnerable coast, SC Sea claims, citizens, overseas interests & SLOCs to protect, besides outflanking India & Japan- therefore, she needs 5-6 CBGs.

You keep repeating this nonsense despite VMF doing absolutely the opposite:

- Yo cannot perform "self sustained" air operations on the other side of the world in the "Arcade" mode you propose, it is simply ridiculous, sorry, that you even propose this. This is magical thinking, totally closing eyes to any sort of hard facts. Not the first time you do this I have to say.
- VMF is developing surface fleet, modernizing the Kuznetsov, keeping their naval fighters and pilots fit, renewing training installations in Crimea, have PAK-KA and future carrier plans ongoing. So what you say is simply contradicted by known facts.

Isos wrote:Yeah I agree they have their advantages but thinking because you have 2 or 3 carriers you can rule anything but unarmed countries is beyond stupidity.

Warships are intended to battle at sea, what is so difficult to understand? Can't you imagine a carrier being used against other fleets and not against countries? I really don't know if we are speaking in Chinese or what

If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.

Again the same misconception... you don't use the carriers against land forces.

kvs wrote:It is hard to see how carriers are useful aside from operations in the "3rd world".

Think the piracy activities US is mulling, one further step and those tankers sailing to Venezuela will need an escort. Think Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. Any presence that you have abroad needs to be ensured with the navy, otherwise it can be left blocked by US. This is standard naval doctrine, has been so for centuries. So if Russia wants to reinforce ties with any country in Latin America or Africa, which are main development areas in the world, they need an ocean going navy.

If it was going to secure itself for a war with the US in Latin America and Africa, then it would have been
making more effort to build up some sort of carrier fleet.

The fact is that they keep saying exactly that, both in strategic development documents and in individual statements. Russia is developing their international presence at the same pace that they can support it, first in the immediate abroad, then further as they keep creating the ocean going fleet. No incoherence here.

Of course, it is possible that Russia is making a strategic mistake. Having large carrier fleets which it can afford since costs
are not insane like in the corrupt USA, would be a useful deterrent to the yanquis in their conventional colonial adventures.
But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.

Exactly, USN carriers are focussed in achieving sortie generation rates and firepower to compete with land based forces, which is an absurd proposition to start with, while they don't even have a decent AShM, which would be the first step for a naval strike carrier. Offering a prime asset for aggression to the imperial establishment, they can allow themselves to cash it insanely. A Russian carrier would be smaller, much better defended and more practical, and even better, created by a rational MIC. As said above, the carrier program for the VMF is long term but it is live and well, and they have said left and right that they plan to do exactly what you are mentioning.

Warships are intended to battle at sea, what is so difficult to understand? Can't you imagine a carrier being used against other fleets and not against countries? I really don't know if we are speaking in Chinese or what dunno

Exercice and pictures taken by soviet subs showed multiple times that carriers are nothing more than simple targets for a well equiped force.

With modern missiles reaching 1000km range at hypersonic speed that won't change.

Sure if you face Somalian navy or Iranian navy ir north korean navy in the Pacific they may have their use.

But if you face a powerfull country like Israel, France or Russia near their border your carriers are dead meat.

You seem to overestimate a carrier. It's just a a floating airport that need 1 hit to stop its operations. It's easy to spot with long range radars and its aircraft have nothing more than ground based aircraft. It carries around 48 fighters.

With 48 su-35, an A-100 and a 12 su-34 for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country.

If you have Yasen, Tupolevs, kinzhal and other kirovs it becomes just a practice target.

Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack.. you don't use the carriers against land forces.

they were also used against Pearl Harbor naval/AAF bases & Japanese held islands. 
If the VMF get new CV/Ns, they may be pressed for that role as there's isn't much else they'll be used for, & to justify their upkeep. To get that experience, the Adm. K was deployed to the Syria campaign. 

VMF is developing surface fleet, modernizing the Kuznetsov, keeping their naval fighters and pilots fit, renewing training installations in Crimea, have PAK-KA and future carrier plans ongoing. So what you say is simply contradicted by known facts.

it's very possible that these plans may change, & the # of carriers they'll get may be reduced, if not cancelled. Why duplicate the effort with China which for decades to come will be their close ally in the Indo-Pacific? 

So if Russia wants to reinforce ties with any country in Latin America or Africa, which are main development areas in the world, they need an ocean going navy.

they already have it, adding more CVNs won't make it any more so. CGNs with S-400/500 supported by A-50/100s, MPA & UAVs will have the same or bigger defensive bubble around a surface group as any USN CSG.   

With 48 su-35s, an A-100 and 12 su-34s for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country. 

or any country Russia chooses to defend.

If you have Yasens, Tupolevs, kinzhals and other Kirovs it becomes just a practice target.

indeed, they took the A2D potency to a new orgasmic level, denying sleep to the Pentagon top brass- this isn't the Cold War era sea denial force. If all else fails, a few Poseidons can explode underneath CVNs/LHD/LHAs, detonating all their ordinance on board & sending them to the bottom.

@Isos:

yet you keep applying the same arguments and logic of CVN vs land forces... definitely I must be writing in Chinese  

Tsavo Lion wrote:If the VMF get new CV/Ns, they may be pressed for that role as there's isn't much else they'll be used for, & to justify their upkeep.

Maybe they are, that does not mean that they are developed for the purpose and forget the real goal, which is the protection of the fleet.

it's very possible that these plans may change, & the # of carriers they'll get may be reduced, if not cancelled

Because you say it. If you moved you ass a little and actually read Russian relevant documents and interviews with the actual professionals we would not be discussing this. They are not doing or saying anything that contradicts their plans for the further development of the blue water navy, which obviously includes carriers.

Why duplicate the effort with China which for decades to come will be their close ally in the Indo-Pacific?

Yeah, why going to bed with your wife when your neighbour is already taking care? Really...

they already have it, adding more CVNs won't make it any more so.

Russia does not go beyond the involvement they can actually defend, it is purely logical, that does no mean that should not change in the future. They will not be capable of challenging Monroe doctrine just with righteous statements. You justifying they don't need blue water navy because they don't use it is like saying somebody without legs has no need for them because he was never seen running...

CGNs with S-400/500 supported by A-50/100s, MPA & UAVs will have the same or bigger defensive bubble around a surface group as any USN CSG.

Where are those A-100 in the middle of the ocean going to be operating from, are they repairing, refuelling and manning themselves magically, are they beamed to Russia after their missions? What use does any asset have on a foreign land if you cannot keep it operational because of a naval blockade? Sorry, but these speculations of yours are nothing but fairy tales...

yet you keep applying the same arguments and logic of CVN vs land forces... definitely I must be writing in Chinese  scratch

And what do you want to apply them for ?

Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?

Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.

They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.

Isos wrote:And what do you want to apply them for ?

Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?

Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.

They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.

What part of the surface oceanic fleet is also superfluous in your opinion? I mean, a golden rule is that if you don't see a logic to what military professionals do, you should be more concerned about yourself than about them.

Any ship coming close to a well armed country is dead meat.

Navy is good to protect your coast and SSBN or attack weak countries.

Only good ships to have are subs and ships that can launch cruise missiles more than 2500km away.

The rest is useless when you see weapons they will face.

You just need an airforce which is much cheaper to have than a large navy and some 20 SSGN of yaseb class.

Carrier's aviation already made useless surface ships during WW2. Now missiles make pretty much all surface ships including carriers outdated and defenceless when fighting far away from their country.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Iso your logic is based on one what silly idea, On the Russian coast. This is why people say your mindset is simple.

You do realize Russian interests go beyond the coastline? You do realize submarines cannot power project the way ships do right?. Seriously you do not understand naval matters at all, reading what you type shows that.

The fact you do not seem to understand this is silly

Even US and its 20 carriers can't protect its interest 24/7.

When you attack you choose and when and how.

But then against who are they going to protect their interest from ? US, Ukraine, China or some Somalian pirates ?