Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

New Carriers

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 22 Mar 2009, 01:29
Right. Transporting harriers, and using them in combat are two different things. Not to mention that harriers are a second rate AtA fighter.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3873
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 23 Mar 2009, 03:18
Argentina easily sank the Atlantic Conveyor, so I guess it's not a good example of effectiveness.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 10 Apr 2009, 06:32
The Atlantic Conveyor was sunk by accident. THe origanl target for the exocets where british warships electronic counter measures confused the exocet, and they reaquired an un armed mercahnt ship. The Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine sunk plenty of mercahnt ships yet still lost their war. Although Argentine aircraft hurt the British Navy badly.
Soviet cogitations: 56
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Apr 2009, 03:08
Pioneer
Post 10 Apr 2009, 06:38
Was this the war over the falklands?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Apr 2009, 08:03
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 10 Apr 2009, 18:13
i'd recommend checking this out:

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-th ... -will-die/

he makes several good points why carriers will soon be utterly useless.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 10 Apr 2009, 21:38
Hehe. Dissection time.

Quote:
Here’s the sentence: “Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”


Bullshit. The S-300 ship versions on the Kirov and Slava class ships have ABM capabilities. The SM-2 and SM-3 have limited ABM capabilities. Fighter CAPs can engage SRBMs and IRBMs quite effectively when provided with the targetting info from AEW.

His whole argument rests on a single phrase. There is no evidence of even basic understanding of how a CVBG functions. Just random criticism, and rants about how he'd hang the Navy top brass.

Quote:
“Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.” Now put that together with the fact that the Harpoon, way back in the Disco Era, had a cool little feature called “pop-up.” And what it meant is that the Harpoon itself worked as a ballistic missile. So even in our own inventory, we’ve had a weapon lying around for decades that could have taken out all our carriers.


Because your average AEGIS wouldn't have intercepted it....
What a moron.

Quote:
The reason the Harpoon was designed to hit the target from above rather than the side is simple: a ships defenses are configured to stop planes (and missiles, even though they don’t work against missiles and everybody knows it) coming in diagonally or horizontally. To repeat that sentence again–and I’m going to keep repeating it till everybody realizes what it means–”ships currently [just like in 1977 when the Harpoon entered service] have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.”


Idiotic. The bold section especially. Yes ships individually cannot stop top-attack munitions very well, but a CVBG is a group for a reason. They have overlapping engagement envelopes.

To summ it up, he's an overconfident hobbyist with serious knowledge gaps. The bottom line is that nobody knows how good the new Chinese missile is, and it's certainly problematic. But it by no means makes aircraft carriers (or large surface warships) obsolete. Curiously enough, the Soviet Navy which used lots of small missile boats (which he advocates) was moving towards fielding more and larger surface ships in the 80's. Right before the USSR collapse, the keel of the first planned Soviet super-carrier was laid down.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Apr 2009, 05:55
Quote:
His whole argument rests on a single phrase. There is no evidence of even basic understanding of how a CVBG functions. Just random criticism, and rants about how he'd hang the Navy top brass.


Remember that single phrase comes from the US Naval Institute, not some random war nerd. If they are saying that the navy currently doesn't have adequate defenses against anti-ship missiles, than they obviously think that the current defenses would be essentially useless in a real war. There are also countless examples which demonstrate how this is true. Brecher has raised them several times and so have others who share his concerns. It's getting pretty hard to deny.

Quote:
To summ it up, he's an overconfident hobbyist with serious knowledge gaps.


I hope you don't live in a glass house mate, because Brecher would say exactly the same thing about you.

Quote:
Curiously enough, the Soviet Navy which used lots of small missile boats (which he advocates) was moving towards fielding more and larger surface ships in the 80's. Right before the USSR collapse, the keel of the first planned Soviet super-carrier was laid down.


Has it occurred to you that the Soviet Navy may have been wrong to take such steps? It's hardly surprising though, with the corruption that unfortunately existed and the naivety of the government that existed under Gorbachev.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 11 Apr 2009, 07:43
To say there is no pertection for CBG against ballistic missiles is in correct. Well what is a ballistic missile to you, does an exocet count or how about an Iraqi silkworm. In the Flaklands war, Chaff caused exocets to get confused and lose target lock on a naval ship and find a different target, in the Gulf war a british seadart shot down an iraqi silkworm misslie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS). The a land based application of the naval ciwis system is used in iraq to pertect US installations from rocket attack. THe Standard missile was used to shoot down a satellite as it was on renetry into the atmosphere. Im sure the Standard misslie is far more capable than what the US navy offically says.

Per the the book Rising Tide the Soviet Unions plan for operations against carrier Battle groups was the use of nuclear torpedos, and later cruise missiles. If look at information pertaing to Operation Crossroads, many ships survived nuclear attacks via airburst and underwater explosion. THese where all world war 2 era ships, modern naval ships are built to operate in a nuclear environment. IT is possible for a carrier group to survie a nuclear explosion. If Nato and the USSR where at war or NAto and the Russian federation it would be multiple carrier groups that Russia/the USSR would have to target. The resources needed to attack these multinational carrier groups would be enormous. If nuclear arms where used it wouldnt matter anymore about carriers or not with the concept of Mutually assured destruction im almost certin, it would be a conventional war. Russia would have to strike these carriers with all of her ssgns, and bombers. She would be fighting on multiple fronts. You could bet that there would be some sort of large scale attack on the Black sea fleet, around St. Petersburg (im assuming there is still a large naval presence here im not an expert on Soviet/Russian naval forces), and vladivostok. Im almost sure that Russia/USSR doesnt or didnt have enough assets to eliminate any of the combined NATO fleets that would attack these Naval targets.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 11 Apr 2009, 10:00
Quote:
To say there is no pertection for CBG against ballistic missiles is in correct. Well what is a ballistic missile to you, does an exocet count or how about an Iraqi silkworm. In the Flaklands war, Chaff caused exocets to get confused and lose target lock on a naval ship and find a different target, in the Gulf war a british seadart shot down an iraqi silkworm misslie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS). The a land based application of the naval ciwis system is used in iraq to pertect US installations from rocket attack. THe Standard missile was used to shoot down a satellite as it was on renetry into the atmosphere. Im sure the Standard misslie is far more capable than what the US navy offically says.


The missiles you quote do not follow a ballistic trajectory. They're cruise missiles. The key thing is that a top-attack munition would be outside the engagement envelope of the ship it's attacking. The issue however is that a CVBG has multiple ships + AEW. As a result their engagement envelopes overlap, and cover each others blind spots. This is in addition to sattelite intel spotting the launch, strategic AEW and allied BMD systems tracking the launch (and there are plenty of those in Japan), and of course USAF assets stationed around China.

Quote:
Per the the book Rising Tide the Soviet Unions plan for operations against carrier Battle groups was the use of nuclear torpedos, and later cruise missiles. If look at information pertaing to Operation Crossroads, many ships survived nuclear attacks via airburst and underwater explosion. THese where all world war 2 era ships, modern naval ships are built to operate in a nuclear environment. IT is possible for a carrier group to survie a nuclear explosion. If Nato and the USSR where at war or NAto and the Russian federation it would be multiple carrier groups that Russia/the USSR would have to target. The resources needed to attack these multinational carrier groups would be enormous. If nuclear arms where used it wouldnt matter anymore about carriers or not with the concept of Mutually assured destruction im almost certin, it would be a conventional war. Russia would have to strike these carriers with all of her ssgns, and bombers. She would be fighting on multiple fronts. You could bet that there would be some sort of large scale attack on the Black sea fleet, around St. Petersburg (im assuming there is still a large naval presence here im not an expert on Soviet/Russian naval forces), and vladivostok. Im almost sure that Russia/USSR doesnt or didnt have enough assets to eliminate any of the combined NATO fleets that would attack these Naval targets.


More then correct. The USSR (+Warsaw Pact and allies) did have enough resources to engage the combined NATO forces if not on equal terms, certainly on relatively balanced terms, especially when operating under the umbrella of the land-based AVMF bombers. Modern day Russia (and China) however don't have anywhere near the resources to do this. Keep in mind though, to disable a CVBG it doesn't need to be destroyed. A close enoguh airburst from say a Shipwreck missile would fry all the sensors, destroy the deck, and much of the upper structure of the carrier. That's a mission kill, and a comms kill. The carrier would be reduced to a radioactive floating hulk (with expensive aircraft inside) which the CVBG would have to escort back to port.

Fellow Comrade until I see more then just a single quote (which may well have been pulled out of context) I'm going to hold on to my opinion, which I can support a lot better then the guy who wrote that article. The complete lack of any discussion of a CVBG or it's components, makes the whole article extremely suspect (in my opinion) as written by someone without the knowledge to back up his opinion.

Quote:
There are also countless examples which demonstrate how this is true.


Other then the '02 wargames (I've already debunked that once) what examples can you bring up that demonstrate convincingly that a CVBG is obsolete as a tool of force projection?
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Apr 2009, 12:20
Quote:
Fellow Comrade until I see more then just a single quote (which may well have been pulled out of context)


Brecher provides a link to the statement he took it from in his article. He never simply quoted the line and expected you to take his word for it. You should know this if you have read it closely enough to analyse his arguments.

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 13 Apr 2009, 03:59
Carrier battlegroups are not the end all be all of naval warfare, but destroying them through nuclear means is not a viable solution. Granted in the 80's there was a switch in doctrine for the use of nuclear warheads from strategic to tactical. I think the NATO responce would lead to MAD. THe SM3 is a evolving weapons platform, it did sucessfully enage a satellite (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/). Im confident that it will be able to enage ballistic missiles ADM treaty be damned the Bush adminstration set certain things in motion that can not be easily on done.
However to attack a carrier battlegroup is more difficult then it sounds. Keep in mind a carrier has aircover at all times, it also has organic Electronic countermearues in the form of AWACs, EA6-bs, an ASW screen an Aegis screen. But you are right diable the flight deck and it is nothingmore then a floating warehouse. As operation crossroads shows ships can live through nuclear attack. Theses detonations where low yeild by todays standard, but ships are know hardened to operate in an NBC environment, the guided missles cruisers, and and FFG, and DDG would still surive and have a mission. Yes I do believe that the USSR/Russia could/can sink one, its not as easy as it sounds. A flyover by an ancient tu-95 is not the same thing as sinking one. It will be interesting to see how carrier doctirine evolves as the oceans will be crowed with Russian, China, Indian, and NAto carriers in the near future. IF they where useless you wouldnt see the explosion of carrier building going on.
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 13 Apr 2009, 04:16
TRL have a question about the Cruiser Peter the Great. I read some conflicting information about why the US got rid of Nuclear powered crusiers, some sources said it was because of treaty limitations, and others over cost estimates sadly i can not find the source about treaty limitations. IF if its because of treaty limitations why does Russia still operate peter the great. And how does its combat capabilties compare with say the former USS South Carolina(CGN-37 California class).
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 13 Apr 2009, 10:49
I don't know of any treaty limitations. A quick comparison with the California class quickly tells us that the Kirov class cruisers (Peter the Great is one of them, the Admiral Ushakov (currently being repaired and due to re-enter service) is antoher) are just much larger ships. The displacement of a Kirov is over twice that of a California class. It also carries many more weapons.

California class carriers (according to a quick look on wiki): Armament: • 2 × Mk 141 Harpoon missile launchers
• 2 × 5 inch/54 caliber Mk 45 lightweight guns
• 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
• 1 × ASROC missile launcher
• 2 × Mk 13 missile launchers for RIM-66 Standard missiles (MR)
• Mark 46 torpedoes

Kirov class: 20 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) AShM
14 SS-N-14 Silex ASW cruise missiles (Ushakov only)
12x8 (96) S-300PMU Favorit SA-N-6 Grumble surface-to-air missiles (Ushakov, Lazarev, Nakhimov)
44 OSA-MA (SA-N-4 Gecko) PD SAM
2x RBU-1000 305 mm ASW rocket launchers
2x RBU-12000 (Udav-1) 254 mm ASW rocket launchers
1 twin AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun (2x AK-100 100 mm/L60 DP guns in Ushakov)
10 533 mm ASW/ASuW torpedo tubes, Type 53 torpedo or SS-N-15 ASW missile
8x AK-630 hex gatling 30 mm/L60 PD guns (Ushakov, Lazarev)
6x CADS-N-1 Kashtan missile/gun system (Nakhimov, Pyotr Velikhy)

The Kirov class also provides major organic SAM coverage with the S-300 systems, as well as the Osa tac-SAMs. It's main weapon is the Shipwreck (P-700 Granit) which is a 500kt tactical nuclear cruise missile, designed specifically for penetrating carrier IADS screens, and sinking or disabling carriers. In short it's a heavy cruiser designed for operating against CVBGs along side the Slava class, friendly subs, and the AVMF. It's generally designed to operate as part of a task force, as it's ASW is somewhat lacking. If you look closer, when it was deployed to Venezuela recently it had an ASW destroyer with it.

FellowComrade my mistake. I have now read the article. The article is intelligent, well reserved, and does not agree with what that idiot was trying to say. Instead it notes that this is a credible threat. Not that it makes carrier-ops useless. It also notes that the USN has quickly responded to the new development. It doesn't suggest scrapping CVBGs and instead making a fleet of tiny missile boats. It doesn't hint at the uselessness of large ships in naval warfare. It doesn't rant on and on about how dumb the Navy chiefs are, or how much more intelligent then them the author (and presumably the readers) are. Instead it provides a short and concise view on this new development. It's a solid, well written article. The article you linked to originally is complete garbage. If you wish to continue arguing the point of that article, please be prepared to demonstrate solid knowledge on carrier-ops, and counter-carrier strategies employed at various times, as well as how those fit into the overall context and doctrines of the conflicting sides.

EDIT: Note to Soviet Smitty, the wikipedia entry claims that the Petr Velikiy has been upgraded with the S-400 SAM, instead of the S-300. I find this development very unlikely, so I removed the S-400 from the weapons list. The entry also claims that S-300 variant is the S-300PMU. That's not correct. The PMU is an export designation. The domestic equivalent is the PM. And it's a land-based system. The Naval S-300 variants that I believe were used on the Kirov class are the S-300F. Also the article claims the Tor system to be on the Kirov class. I don't know of this. It does neglect to mention the 192 ADGM Kashtan missiles for the Kashtan missile/gun CIWS.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 25 Apr 2009, 07:14
TRL or anyone familar with Soviet Naval doctrine, what exactly was the Soviet Navy's plan for employing aircraft carriers in combat operations? How would have the proposed Ul'yanovsk carriers been deployed. I dont exepect the Kievs to be able to stand up to a Nato carrier group, although from what I have read the Project Orel carriers would have been a serious threat. The admiral K could it stand up to say and AGEIS system, I personally think a Su-33 would have no problem against an oliver hazard perry class frigate (i know its none Aegis). This site cliams that mig-29K were deployed on the Kievs(http://128.121.102.226/rcar.html), but it also states inaccurate information about the Varyag. I personally thought MIG 29k was an export model only. Could Su-33 or mig-29k's handle the venerable f-14, i know they are no longer in service (f-14). How about the SU-33, MIG29 against F-18's, considering a match up between f-18s and India's future Mig-29Ks. Basically I would like a general comparision between the fighters, and how generally the carriers would be employed. Would they attack a NATO target in unison, or would the soviet carriers avt independtly.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 25 Apr 2009, 08:15
All Soviet carriers that were in service were not real carriers. They were heavy aircraft carrying cruiser. This is more then a designation change. They really were heavy cruisers that carried aircraft in addition to guided missiles and SAMs. They were meant to provide organic fleet air defence. They were not meant for strike roles against enemy carrier groups.

The Kiev class equipped the Yak-38 (12). The current Admiral Gorshkov being re-equipped for the Indian Navy will carry MiG-29K. However this is not the Soviet MiG-29K that competed with the Su-27K (later Su-33) for the Kuznetsov-class carriers. It's a navalization of the MiG-29M/M2. I know little about the old MiG-29K, but presumably it was a navalized Mig-29B, just like the Su-27K was a navalized Su-27S. It could probably give the F-14 a run for their money. They were roughly comparable aircraft, albeit the old MiG-29K lacked range. The current MiG-29K is superior to the F-14. Mainly because it's far newer.

EDIT: I know nothing of the doctrine proposed for the ulyanovsk class. I'll try to find some info for you.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Apr 2009, 02:02
I can't believe no one took note of it, Varyag has been moved into dry dock!
Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Image
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 29 Apr 2009, 02:21
Oh wow. Interesting.

Just to give you guys an update, currently there are stalled negotiations between Russia and China for Su-33 ship-based fighters. China wants to order 14. Russia claims that this is too few to justify restarting the production line, especially since China is likely to copy the fighters for their own navalized Flanker variant, which would make follow-on orders unlikely.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 29 Apr 2009, 02:22
Quote:
I can't believe no one took note of it, Varyag has been moved into dry dock!


What developments do you think will come of this?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 29 Apr 2009, 03:57
Quote:
Just to give you guys an update, currently there are stalled negotiations between Russia and China for Su-33 ship-based fighters. China wants to order 14. Russia claims that this is too few to justify restarting the production line, especially since China is likely to copy the fighters for their own navalized Flanker variant, which would make follow-on orders unlikely.

==What's your source on this? What I heard was that there has never been negotiations on Su-33, the whole thing was just a media hype, here's a statement from the magazine where the Su-33 story originated.

Quote:
KDR interviewed Boris D. Bregman, the First Deputy General Director of SUKHOI Aircraft Company. He said that the talks with China were all at consultation stage and no official negotiation had been initiated so far. Of course, contacts between the two sides are still underway.


And it is rumoured that the Chinese are developing their own carrier borne aircraft J-13.

Quote:
What developments do you think will come of this?

==It appears that the reason why the progress on the Varyag has been so slow is because the PLAN came across it purely by chance, as back in 1999, China did not have a carrier programme, and did no intend to buy Varyag. It really was bought by a Macau based businessman for 20million USD, he offered to sell the ship to the PLAN for the same price, but because there was no carrier programme, the PLAN did not buy it, and instead, it was sold to the 7th Reaserch Institute for studies. Only in 2005, when the carrier programme was finally approved, did work start on the Varyag.

Personally, the ship should begin sea trial in 2-3 years, the first aircraft going on to it would be helicopters and the L-15 advanced trainer, and it will be at least 5 years before it starts to receive fixed wing combat aircraft.
Image
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron