Okay so now you are sacrificing rotary wing assets for fixed wing assets. There goes your AEW, OTH-T and ASW capability.
This is faulty assumption. As mentioned earlier. The CVBG AAW scheme will reconfigure once a Tu-22/95 strike launch is detected.
"CVBG commanders wouldnt know for several minutes if it is real attack or just imitation." - It does not matter, the CVBG defensive posture is the same for a feint or real attack, again, it will adjust accordingly. The CVBG commanders will also have plenty of "outside assistance".
HOW??? Suggest me a way to
It DOES matter. HOW accordingly? Suggest a useful way.
Originally, as i said, there were space for about 40 aircrafts. 24 Su-33 + 5-6 support aircrafts is possible loadout. Ok, lets make it 20 Su-33 and 6 support... still very unpleasant equation for small CAP and quite serious obstacle even for full CVBG wing.
Cant remember exact name, but you it is not hard to find ECM & EW & recon versions. There are still left some in service, and there were a lot of them in 80x. F.e.
Why not? Supersonic is not required to launch AShM's from 500km. In return they have great range and can literally fly circles around CVBG defended space, burning enemy fighters fuel and waiting for them land for refuel.
No problem mate. The "eye in the sky" as well as ELINT, COMINT (and the rest of the "INTS") will piece the puzzle together. Pretty tough to hide a raid (swarm!) as large as you mentioned.
HOW the hell to "configure"??? HOW?? Morever, if they will "configure" airdefence each time something is took off - lol. They would do it all day 24/7. Russian commanders will ensure that constant threat imitation...
This is just sensible defense. If someone threw a punch at you, your reaction should be to get out of the way or block it, whether it was a feint or not.
Yes, yes. But not the forces capable of launching cruise missiles 600km from CVBG. This is just unavoidable limitation of technology. Again, provide substantial defence scenario, and not just "they will magically configure" . Something like : "25 F-14 will take off and fly toward detected bombers as soon as they are detected" , "if bombers change entering vector another 25 F-14 will take off for interception, previos will land for refueling" or "15 F-18 will loiter 300 km toward incoming threat" , etc.Hey Chrom,
Why not 10,000 km stand-off cruise missiles? Remove the strat bomber completely! That is of course not doable - just as the 800 km stand-off is very, very difficult. Ah, yes... the problem with locating and tracking the target...
Why is it a CVN has 75-95 aircraft on board? Is it to provide a meagre 4 jet CAP plus two on alert? No! It is to meet the strat bomber swarm in force. The USN strength is on the ISR side. No "surprise attacks on a CVN/CSG on peacetime alert".
Nope. We mainly discuss US CVBG near USSR land-bases (and away from US land bases) . Else it just make little sence and will degenerate to land based aviation vs land based aviation.
Answered.So no sneaky sneaky. Sorry.
Which support? By definition CVBG is alone away from US land bases. Near US land bases, as i said, it doesnt make much sense.
Which makes it a zero realism, no reality, pointless scenario.
Provided a list of some of the assets. Include the operator with the sat phone near the Russian bases.
As you say, the because of the limitation of the technology, you'll have to consider the target passive and static - so why not make it Russian vs an undefended rusting hulk at anchor scenario? it seems to what you're asking for.
So now the Russians resort to feints. They were good at this by the way.
Hm, no. This is consequence of different purposes: US CVBG is objected for force projection, whereas USSR doctrine is to DENY that force projection and PROTECT own bases.
Cant really understand what you mean here.Provided a list of some of the assets. Include the operator with the sat phone near the Russian bases.
This was allegory. Suggest "active" behavior for CVBG. We will discuss if it is really that active or just form of "passive".As you say, the because of the limitation of the technology, you'll have to consider the target passive and static - so why not make it Russian vs an undefended rusting hulk at anchor scenario? it seems to what you're asking for.
Yes, i havent seen other sources mentioned. E-2/E-3 is not enough. Land based sensors are too far. CVBG sensors are too limited.
So, you dont have other answer than "everything will be good becouse, erm, everything will be good!".
Some here. Enough AShM's will surely penetrate that shield. Else ALL cruise missles (most, btw, much less sophisticated than russian AShM's) would be useless in the presence of single SAM.
The battlegroup wont move into an area that Russia could threaten acces denial to, without massive support and other approp measures. You want to strip them away, so you can get to the carrier.
But that is the EXACT purpose of Kuznecov - so the "The battlegroup wont move into an area that Russia could threaten acces denial to"!!!The battlegroup wont move into an area that Russia could threaten acces denial to, without massive support and other approp measures. You want to strip them away, so you can get to the carrier.
You missed my earlier post: