Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

A typical carrier air wing can include 24–36 F/A-18E or F Super Hornets as strike fighters; two squadrons of 10–12 F/A-18C Hornets, with one of these often provided by the U.S. Marine Corps (VMFA), also as strike fighters; 4–6 EA-18G Growlers for electronic warfare; 4–6 E-2C or D Hawkeyes for airborne early warning (AEW), C-2 Greyhounds used for logistics (to be replaced by MV-22 Ospreys); and a Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron of 6–8 SH-60F and HH-60H Seahawks.

It is one aircraft, not fighter, per kt, but it is also not exact. Is far less on the Kuznetsov, also less on the USN CVN, but it would be more in the semicatamaran designs proposed by Krylov.

Yes, totally, with more than 20-30 fighters in the deck you cannot really sustain operations.

Isos wrote:Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.

A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.

China can't compete.

Isos wrote:Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.

A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.

China can't compete.

Isos wrote:No they aren't. Lot of ships doesn't mean good navy.

Isos wrote:Japan easily tracks their subs just like russian or US sub are tracking them unnoticed to fill their database with recordings.

Isos wrote:And if they go outside their usual area of deployement they will be at disadvantage of terrain because US, Japan and Russia have mapped the sea much better than them over the years.

Isos wrote:

What are smoking. Russia has upgraded its soviet era SSN and is building Yasen in decent number while the design bureau are working on Husky class. In 5 years the gap will be even bigger since they will get state of art Yasen M.


No they aren't. Lot of ships doesn't mean good navy.

Japan easily tracks their subs just like russian or US sub are tracking them unnoticed to fill their database with recordings.

Their area of deployement is mostly their port or chinese coast. Lack of training. And if they go outside their usual area of deployement they will be at disadvantage of terrain because US, Japan and Russia have mapped the sea much better than them over the years.

GarryB wrote:Not so much an issue for a Russian carrier because they wont be carrying strike aircraft and the fighters and AWACS are there to protect the fleet, not invade some country.

Backman wrote:

mnztr wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:

Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.

I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills.  So there is that.

If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.

Some have, walked out rather wealthy.  But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.

Canada promotes very quickly and has the highest percentage of officers in any military. I once inquired about joning the pilot program and you start at around 60K a year and are making 90 within a year if you have a university education. Problem with being a pilot in Canada is all bases are in places you would not want to live...except maybe Comox BC.

Im from Vancouver but had an oilfield career in Edmonton. Edmonton isn't as bad as it looks. I loved it there.

90k is great except taxes. You'd be paying 20- 25% income tax all in. Russia's income tax is a flat 13%. 9% for business owners.

LMFS wrote:

In general I don't see any combat capability of the unmanned ships that manned don't have, and in fact they appear to be a cheap approach to military capacities, since there will be no one to repair potential failures or combat damage. They will be more compact for sure, but steel is not the most expensive component of ships. All navies will adopt unmanned vehicles

GarryB wrote:
Launching strike aircraft makes no sense if you are not launching fighter escorts and jammer aircraft to help them penetrate enemy air defences...

Not so much an issue for a Russian carrier because they wont be carrying strike aircraft and the fighters and AWACS are there to protect the fleet, not invade some country.

Isos wrote:

Does this mean that China has reached the same level as Russia in capabilities? Probobly not, but they have catched up quite a bit. Will this trend continue for 5 to 10 years i would say they have surpassed them.

What are smoking. Russia has upgraded its soviet era SSN and is building Yasen in decent number while the design bureau are working on Husky class. In 5 years the gap will be even bigger since they will get state of art Yasen M.

Their area of deployement is mostly their port or chinese coast. Lack of training. And if they go outside their usual area of deployement they will be at disadvantage of terrain because US, Japan and Russia have mapped the sea much better than them over the years.

Isos wrote:They have a huge number advantage that they didn't need to spend more on defence. Untill yesterday only Russia with kh-22 had a chance against them.

All the rest could be anhilated by their f-18 and harpoons.

Now lot of countries are developing long range missiles and are buying multi role fighters that can do anti shiping and anti air missions.

Old mig-29A/B or the few mirage that were sold to 3rd world countries couldn't do anything against them. Neither missile boats could get close to their navy.

LMFS wrote:

It was absurd then and it is absurd now to focus on land attack missions, before they killed the F-14 at least they had a proper air superiority plane, now they must be praying for Russia to be fool enough to not take advantage with Su-57K

mnztr wrote:The F-14 was aready quite useless for air superiority. IMHO its a plane that has a much higher reputation then its ability. It has poor manuverability, it has a good (for the time) radar and decent LR missiles. As the range of AShMs grew it kinda became irrelevant. USA has decided the Carriers will not be useful against Russia so just equip them with trucks to dump on weak countries.

mnztr wrote:It has combat range of about 200km more then then F-18 but much lower payload. (6.6T vs 8T) it is also a significantly larger plane.  Also a very expensive platform to operate. At the end it was not really even used as an air to air platform. It is ancient tech, no one is building swing wing planes anymore.

LMFS wrote:

mnztr wrote:It has combat range of about 200km more then then F-18 but much lower payload. (6.6T vs 8T) it is also a significantly larger plane.  Also a very expensive platform to operate. At the end it was not really even used as an air to air platform. It is ancient tech, no one is building swing wing planes anymore.

Maybe you want to read about the advanced variants.

Swing wings have very nice advantages and are actually smart for a naval fighter. There have been also modern proposals with such geometry

mnztr wrote:Hmm I had no idea swing wings still had some sort of relavance. The Panavia Tornado was IMHO probably the most successful swing wing design IMHO. I thought modern aerodesign made them obsolete?

kvs wrote:

limb wrote:Is the russian navy hampered in detecting subsonic sea skimming AShMs(especially stealthy ones like the kongsberg NSM, LRASM and storm shadow) over the horizon by lacking naval AWACS like the E2?

I'm more worried about russian naval groups detecting massed missiles salvos too late. Would it be possible to just build a light carrier that carries unmanned AWACS drones with long loitering capability?

That does not add up.   They would be aware long ago of any such detection gap.   And this is not 1994 where they have no money for
anything and are being sold down the river by a stooge in the Kremlin.  

AWACS will be the first things to be dropped in any serious conflict.   So that leaves alternative means.   Frankly, the nondetectability of sea surface
skimming missiles is something that follows from simplistic approaches dating back to the 1950s with monochrome radar systems.   No-line of sight,
hence no return signal.   But that is not all there is to it.

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a381980.pdf

High frequency over horizon ship-based radars are possible and the real challenge is signal processing to extract the information needed.
Modern computing and high gain radar elements enable practical deployment of such detection systems.   Hypersonic missiles are actually
a way to deal with such detection.   NATzO subsonic AShMs are not a big threat to Russia's navy.