Admiral Kusnetzov Vs Charles De Gaulle What Is More Capable And Powerful ??

[overlander]

comparing these 2 carriers what of them is more capable in terms of air defence missiles, offensive weapons and finally comparing its air wing mainly rafale vs su-33 fighters, i know that kusnetzov some times is not fully operational but excluding this factor what of the 2 carriers is more capable ??

 

[tphuang]

comparing these 2 carriers what of them is more capable in terms of air defence missiles, offensive weapons and finally comparing its air wing mainly rafale vs su-33 fighters, i know that kusnetzov some times is not fully operational but excluding this factor what of the 2 carriers is more capable ??

sometimes not fully operational? When was the last time it left the shipyard?

pretty much a landslide here in favour of De Gaulle. Rafale-M vs su-33 and E-2 vs Ka-31, big difference.

 

[Grand Danois]

The C4ISR and supporting assets decides this massively in favour of CdG, whatever the mission is. It may have a heavy missile load out, but Kusnetzov simply does not have the kind of power projection and capability that CdG represents.

 

[contedicavour]

Besides, the Kuznetsov is not nuclear powered, which limits autonomy in long deployments. The former USSR had plans for nuclear powered follow-ons to the Kuznetsovs but they didn't materialize in time.
I'd be curious to see plans for the class of new carriers the Russian Navy is talking about (even if I am very sceptical about numbers and timings)

cheers

 

[Big-E]

If the Admiral is in full working order then the Ruskies win. You all are forgetting her loadout of shipwreckers.... actually I think they upgraded to something even better. The De Gaul will be at the bottom as soon as she is picked up by the picket flights... given no escorts. That's head to head. Given the poor surface attack capabilities of the Admiral and her wing the De Gaul takes the cake in all aspects especially with AWACS.

 

[contedicavour]

If the Admiral is in full working order then the Ruskies win. You all are forgetting her loadout of shipwreckers.... actually I think they upgraded to something even better. The De Gaul will be at the bottom as soon as she is picked up by the picket flights... given no escorts. That's head to head. Given the poor surface attack capabilities of the Admiral and her wing the De Gaul takes the cake in all aspects especially with AWACS.

Wow good old Cold War & Tom Clancy memories
If the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles were launched, Aster-15s embarked on the De Gaulle can destroy at least some of them. Horizon escorts can handle a lot more as well.
On the other hand, if the Rafales launch ASMP cruise missiles against the Kutznetsov, I'm not that sure about its capability (SA-N-6 and SA-N-9 plus Kashtan) to defend itself.
On the other hand, if we leave the ASMP aside, Exocets have lower range than the Kh35 used by the navalized Flankers...
Still, my key doubts are about the Kuznetsov's real operational status.

cheers

 

[Salty Dog]

As a complete weapons systems package we need to take into account the embarked aircraft and their capabilities.

The CDG has several advantages over the Adm K:
- CDG aircraft can be launched with all the advantages of CATOBAR vice STOBAR.
- CDG has E-2s embarked, The Adm K does not have airborne AEW.
- French naval aviation has a legacy of proven experience, whilst Russia in just exercises.
- CDG is 10 years younger than the Adm K and most likely with newer C3I, sensors, and self-defense systems.

CDG does not carry any ASCMs such as the SS-N-19 (Soviets were obsessed with big missiles), but that's not what the French need in their CVN.

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

I have some brand new pictures of Admiral Kuznetsov, I can post them if you want???

 

[kilo]

An Admiral kutznetsov battle group is not meant to go one on one with other carrier battle groups. It's air wing is to weak on offensive firepower. It is meant to provide cruiser battle groups with air defense and it's fighters can escort bombers to the target.

 

[Salty Dog]

An Admiral kutznetsov battle group is not meant to go one on one with other carrier battle groups. It's air wing is to weak on offensive firepower. It is meant to provide cruiser battle groups with air defense and it's fighters can escort bombers to the target.

These arguments surface all the time. You do not need a carrier to provide air defense for your cruisers. It's the other way around. You can provide air defense with area defense missiles quite a bit more cost effectively than with 24/7 CAP, especially in the case of the Russian carriers which have very limited fixed wing assets. Sure you can keep the fighters at ready 5 or ready 15, however your area AAW defense system will react quite a bit faster than sending the alert aircraft aloft.

Why would you use carrier fixed wing assets for bomber escort? Bombers should have their own land based escort. You also pull away your fixed wing air defense assets to protect your carrier.

Aircraft carriers are for power projection. Why spend all that money otherwise?

 

[Kosovo=Serbia]

I will post it anyway, because I am going now and will be away for few weeks,
and if you find this off topic, please delete if you want...........................

 

[Chrom]

These arguments surface all the time. You do not need a carrier to provide air defense for your cruisers. It's the other way around. You can provide air defense with area defense missiles quite a bit more cost effectively than with 24/7 CAP, especially in the case of the Russian carriers which have very limited fixed wing assets.

25 years ago SAM's hardly reached 100km distance, and even that against high-flying targets. Morever, how you would support Tu-22M/Tu95 AShM's attack against enemy CBG without own carriers? Even now, when ship's SAM's range reached 200+ km - it is still much closer than 800+ km for range for SU-33, and again doesnt work that well again low-flying targets.

BTW, Kuznecov have airborne EW - in form of Ka-xx helos.

Sure you can keep the fighters at ready 5 or ready 15, however your area AAW defense system will react quite a bit faster than sending the alert aircraft aloft.

Lets assume possible enemy aircrafts attack is detected 400-500km away - pretty realistic scenario in case of really massive attack. Current USA naval strike aircrafts do not really have enough fuel to make supersonic approach all the way, so they will most likely approach just below 1M speed. That would give 20-30m reaction time for aircrew - more than enough to launch ALL Su-33 from Kuznecov. Even in case of supersonic approach (1.7M) there is still about 10-15 min warning time.

Why would you use carrier fixed wing assets for bomber escort? Bombers should have their own land based escort. You also pull away your fixed wing air defense assets to protect your carrier.

Because the range of Tu-95M is 8.000+ km. The range of Tu-22M - 2500-3000 even without inflight refueling. Find me a possible escort fighter...

Aircraft carriers are for power projection. Why spend all that money otherwise?

Because even limited force projection is better than none.

 

[gf0012-aust]

BTW, Kuznecov have airborne EW - in form of Ka-xx helos.

Helicopter AEW is not comparable to fixed wing. It lacks power and depth of interrogation - its a hail mary solution

Lets assume possible enemy aircrafts attack is detected 400-500km away - pretty realistic scenario in case of really massive attack. Current USA naval strike aircrafts do not really have enough fuel to make supersonic approach all the way, so they will most likely approach just below 1M speed. That would give 20-30m reaction time for aircrew - more than enough to launch ALL Su-33 from Kuznecov. Even in case of supersonic approach (1.7M) there is still about 10-15 min warning time.

You're making the mistake of thinking that the CVN's aircraft are the primary air defenders - they're not. They're secondary. You're also ignoring the fact that USN fleets don't cruise bunched up - and a war time footing is very different to peacetime missions. The primary air defence layer could and would be "tens" of Km away from the fleet centre.

The USN doesn't use CAP as primary air intercept. Thats why they have AWD.

The role of the Ticos and Burkes is to act as the main layer for air delivered intrusion.

USN air defence is layered. Their aircraft don't enter the AW layers. Their job is to either strike or pull in the leakers.

 

[kilo]

Helicopter AEW is not comparable to fixed wing. It lacks power and depth of interrogation - its a hail mary solution



You're making the mistake of thinking that the CVN's aircraft are the primary air defenders - they're not. They're secondary. You're also ignoring the fact that USN fleets don't cruise bunched up - and a war time footing is very different to peacetime missions. The primary air defence layer could and would be "tens" of Km away from the fleet centre.

The USN doesn't use CAP as primary air intercept. Thats why they have AWD.

The role of the Ticos and Burkes is to act as the main layer for air delivered intrusion.

USN air defence is layered. Their aircraft don't enter the AW layers. Their job is to either strike or pull in the leakers.

AEW helicopters aren't totally useless I've heard they're pretty good at detecting sea-skimming missiles.

CAP may not be the best for the USN but Russia lacks the aegis SM-2 combination. For Russia i think a combination of Su-33 and shore based A-50s or ship-based radar is an important part of an air defense system that includes chaff,decoys, and helicopter decoys a lot like the U.K. in the Falklands War.

 

[gf0012-aust]

AEW helicopters aren't totally useless I've heard they're pretty good at detecting sea-skimming missiles.

I'm talking about comparative to the power that an E2C/D brings to the table. There is no comparison.

CAP may not be the best for the USN but Russia lacks the aegis SM-2 combination. For Russia i think a combination of Su-33 and shore based A-50s or ship-based radar is an important part of an air defense system that includes chaff,decoys, and helicopter decoys a lot like the U.K. in the Falklands War.

The UK in the Falklands was playing handicapped. The use of helicopters was due to some fast tracking of AEW technology that up to then was still in review. They had no other choice deployable that was better.

The Falklands is a good example of what happens when you run compromised capability.

 

[Salty Dog]

AEW helicopters aren't totally useless I've heard they're pretty good at detecting sea-skimming missiles.

CAP may not be the best for the USN but Russia lacks the aegis SM-2 combination. For Russia i think a combination of Su-33 and shore based A-50s or ship-based radar is an important part of an air defense system that includes chaff,decoys, and helicopter decoys a lot like the U.K. in the Falklands War.

If your AEW helo (some KA model) detects the incoming missile or aircraft, the CAP must still be vectored for intercept which in a large ocean battle-space may be a very long way off. Plus you are taking for granted the Su-33 will get a lock-on to engage the target. That all won't last very long as the EA-18G will be frying your A/S radars.

Russian cruisers have the SA-N-6 (S-300) AAW system which has a pretty good range and should be able to defend against a variety of subsonic sea-skimming missiles (and of course attack aircraft).

The RN helo AEW during the Falklands were also up against the likes of A-4, Super Entendard, and Dagger aircraft. Hardly the present day F/A-18 and Rafales with stand-off jamming support.

 

[Salty Dog]

25 years ago SAM's hardly reached 100km distance, and even that against high-flying targets. Morever, how you would support Tu-22M/Tu95 AShM's attack against enemy CBG without own carriers? Even now, when ship's SAM's range reached 200+ km - it is still much closer than 800+ km for range for SU-33, and again doesnt work that well again low-flying targets.

BTW, Kuznecov have airborne EW - in form of Ka-xx helos.

Lets assume possible enemy aircrafts attack is detected 400-500km away - pretty realistic scenario in case of really massive attack. Current USA naval strike aircrafts do not really have enough fuel to make supersonic approach all the way, so they will most likely approach just below 1M speed. That would give 20-30m reaction time for aircrew - more than enough to launch ALL Su-33 from Kuznecov. Even in case of supersonic approach (1.7M) there is still about 10-15 min warning time.

Because the range of Tu-95M is 8.000+ km. The range of Tu-22M - 2500-3000 even without inflight refueling. Find me a possible escort fighter...

Because even limited force projection is better than none.

You must also consider sensor/information sources that are external to the CVBG. The Tu-22/95s are will most likely be picked up as they go wheels-up. The longer the aircraft launch range the better as this allows the CVBG to reconfigure it's layered air defense assets. The CVBG at sea is in a heightened alert status anyway especially if a hostile posture exists.

I do not see how the Su-33 factors into a CVBG attack.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

You're making the mistake of thinking that the CVN's aircraft are the primary air defenders - they're not. They're secondary. You're also ignoring the fact that USN fleets don't cruise bunched up - and a war time footing is very different to peacetime missions. The primary air defence layer could and would be "tens" of Km away from the fleet centre.

The USN doesn't use CAP as primary air intercept. Thats why they have AWD.

The role of the Ticos and Burkes is to act as the main layer for air delivered intrusion.

USN air defence is layered. Their aircraft don't enter the AW layers. Their job is to either strike or pull in the leakers.

I'm haveing a problem with this one. The AEGIS equiped ship may indeed be the primary AD asset, however i seriously doubt the CAG would simply sit back and try to "pull in the leakers". This is an extreemly limiting doctrine. By operateing in this manner you serverely limit you defenceive options. All SM series missiles are outranged by contemporary "threat" AShM's and are line of sight limited. By not utiliseing your formidable fighter wing as the "outfield" defence the bad guy can sit outside your SM-2 footprint and lob shipbusters at will. Considereing the number of fighters sitting on a CVN thats an awfull, awfull waste.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I do not see how the Su-33 factors into a CVBG attack.

It complicates the CAG's job significantly and it would also protect tanking assets and transit routs. Escorted bomber packages should have a better chance of delivering its payload in the face of a fighter threat than going it alone.

 

[gf0012-aust]

This is an extreemly limiting doctrine.

I'm not going to go into detail. Air does not go into the layers that are provided by the rest of the fleet.

Layered battlespace is sanitized for that response element.
CTF's on a warfooting are very spread out. so the outer intruder guards have far more depth of capability than the CAG. Sure the CAG can go in and play a role, but defence is layered for a reason.

A cursory look at CAG operations in both gulf wars is a subtle clue....