Well, why not build copies of Gearing-class? Really proven technology with proven upgrade capabilities? Gearing-class has also been proven to be capable of long deployments, has proven ASW, AAW, ASUW and land-attack capabilities, with best technology of it's time, so it should be perfect ship for any navy. PLAN CV's should also, IMHO, stick up with proven technology, or in another words F6F which has best kill rate of any carrier plane...
kirov class battle cruiser
- Thread starter nevidimka
- Start date
DD-710 Gearing-class example is, IMO, out of proportion, although some of them served up to 1998!
We are talking of a very large ship- many less advanced navies around the world were given older ships by their allies, and they served or still serve for many years under new flags.
But, on the aviation side, they are now building H-6Ks based on old Tu-16, and in the US, LM is building C-130Js based on 1950s era C-130!
What is "F6F"?
We are talking of a very large ship- many less advanced navies around the world were given older ships by their allies, and they served or still serve for many years under new flags.
But, on the aviation side, they are now building H-6Ks based on old Tu-16, and in the US, LM is building C-130Js based on 1950s era C-130!
What is "F6F"?
F6F Hellcat
Primary US Navy carrier fighter in the latter half of WWII.
From Wikipedia:
"Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers) and destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, 28:0 against Kawanishi N1K-J, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 306 Hellcat aces,"
Primary US Navy carrier fighter in the latter half of WWII.
From Wikipedia:
"Navy and Marine F6Fs flew 66,530 combat sorties (45% of all fighter sorties of the war, 62,386 sorties were flown from aircraft carriers) and destroyed 5,163 enemy aircraft (56% of all Naval/Marine air victories of the war) at a cost of 270 Hellcats (an overall kill-to-loss ratio of 19:1). The aircraft performed well against the best Japanese opponents with a 13:1 kill ratio against Mitsubishi A6M, 9.5:1 against Nakajima Ki-84, 28:0 against Kawanishi N1K-J, and 3.7:1 against Mitsubishi J2M during the last year of the war. The F6F became the prime ace-maker aircraft in the American inventory, with 306 Hellcat aces,"
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #44
Lets get back to the main topic pls.
I advocate a new Kirov class as this ships can play a role of deterrence as well as join a CBG n form a formidable power projection when the need arises.
It wouldnt nessesitate russia building n maintaining 6 larger n more expensive aircraft carriers.
Plus newer weapons with longer reach and probably hypersonic speeds will allow it to attack from safer distance.
I advocate a new Kirov class as this ships can play a role of deterrence as well as join a CBG n form a formidable power projection when the need arises.
It wouldnt nessesitate russia building n maintaining 6 larger n more expensive aircraft carriers.
Plus newer weapons with longer reach and probably hypersonic speeds will allow it to attack from safer distance.
Actually I do agree, I can't see a reason why anyone would construct a single role aircraft carrier nowadays. On the other hand, I can't see a convincing reason for a Kirov-size surface combatant. IMHO, it would make more sense to invest in smaller surface combatants (from 6000-10000 tons) which would have a lot of VLS cells, long range bomber arm (which Russia already has), submarines and an AWACS solution which would not need a carrier. More platforms offers more flexibility for scenarios other than large scale war, better coverage and also more damage resistance.
If we take even off the shelf Russian weapons, their range is so impressive there's no real need for carrier aircraft. Cruise missiles and SAM's already have ample range for counter-air and ASUW/land attack missions.
Since you used both deterrence and power projection in the same sentence, what deterrence missions and roles to you envision a Kirov class performing?
I normally look at deterrence missions on a strategic scale, therefore done by SSBNs which Russia operates. Surface fleets I view as more tactical in nature. Just my mindset.
Would not an aircraft carrier be in a far better position for power projection than a large criuser?
If expense is an issue, why not use the CG Slava class which would be a less expensive than the Kirov class?
I presume you mean to attack other ships as I doubt the Kirov class has any land attack capability. Why hypersonic???
Gives you less reaction time.
Ah, but the strange thing is that the USN kept them for a couple years after they removed the Mk-13's.
Actually I wonder why is it so often assumed that aircraft carrier would be a particularly good tool for power projection with present day weapons. 1980's confrontations over Falklands, Lebanon and Libya were fought 25 years ago with weapons of different generation. Nowadays bombers and cruise missiles pack enough punch for all land attack missions. These are joined very soon by long range precision shells fired from 5" and 155mm guns. In future EM gun may be the tool to replace aircraft almost altogether within it's range.
Aircraft carriers provided strike aircraft for Bosnia, the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan.
Whilst cruise missiles can perform some land attack missions, they can not perform all power projection missions as a carrier fighter such as:
Air Superiority - Latest BVRAAM and SRAAM capabilites with high maneuvering for close in combat.
Air Interdiction - Precision ground attack weapons such as JDAM as well as BVRAAM capability.
Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) - Sophisticated electronic detection sensors and "fire and forget weapons" to target and destroy enemy air defenses including airborne fighters.
Close Air Support - Communications with forward air controllers and wide array of battlefield support weapons.
Maritime Interdiction - Requirement for antiship missiles and datalink for passive approach and weapons launch.
- - -
Also important for power projection are amphibious operations. There are aircraft carriers dedicated just for amphibious support.
India and China are investing in carrier battle groups. and each are planing to have more than just 2 carriers.
-
Last edited:
Aircraft carriers are certainly order of magnitude better for force projection than everything else naval based.
Yes, albeit not very effectively. For all these conflicts carriers were important but not at all crucial. Meanwhile, USN's and RN's cruise missile capabilities were very important.
This role is beginning to be disputed by long range SAM's with CEC.
Also doable with bombers for long range, and closer to shore with guided shells or sea launched tactical missiles. Did sea-launched ATACMS ever come to fruition?
For some time yes, although I doubt this mission will be carried out in very near future more effectively via networked horde of UCAV's pinpointing targets for various munitions.
For Afghanistan-style conflicts UCAV's and bombers are more effective, for conflict against well-equipped power I don't see CAS having a chance.
On the other hand, with tremendous cost of aircraft, I would not think development of longer ranged ASM's should prove to be an insurmountable problem.
I do agree with that role completely that amphibious role is relevant, but that may be filled up with various other ships such as LHA's.
All in all, I think CV's are terrific ships, but I doubt whether they're cost effective anymore. Carriers also have their limitations, notably short range of their strike aircraft if operating without extensive tanker support and quite low sortie rate.
Of course there's the issue that by operating a carrier all powers except the mighty USN have to tie their entire navy into defending it, thus making the carriers air wing (and perhaps a small number of cruise missiles) their navies only offensive weapon. The RN story where the fleet is drastically cut to buy carriers (for which I doubt full air wing will be ever bought) is an example of this phenomena.
For costs, one JSF is estimated to cost around 115 mil USD, while cost of a DDG-51 is around 1000 mil USD. Thus for a cost of a fighter wing of CV (F) alone one could buy, for example, four very capable surface combatants which are also extremely useful for stability operations, BMD etc.
Not true, the company I work for is experiencing a boom in the number of fittings which we are selling to Russian shipyards, after Norway and Korea it's our third largest market. Shipbuilding in Russia is a strong industry, naval shipbuilding in Russia has suffered, commercial has not.
If anything the Russian's are better than the US at commercial shipbuilding.
Last edited:
For India there has been a carrier in their Navy for some 50 years and indigenous carrier project for a very long time, since 1980's, so it's understandable they're wasting their money. It is not unusual nowadays that weapon projects outrun their real usefulness. Escorting India's carriers and resupplying them (and escorting the supply ships) will eat up the Indian Navy.
As for China, I'm very puzzled, it is very hard to see need for it except as a status symbol. Maybe there has been discussion between US and Chinese admirals. Even single experimental Chinese carrier will be gift from heaven for USN carrier spokesmen.
But anyway, it's very hard to see any sensible operational scenario for a Chinese carrier in colonial ventures, regional conflicts or a full blown conflict against the US.For India the project started taking any form in the 89-90ish time frame, with the economy going crazy in the 90s it all stopped like a lot of other things.
The navy was after the government which sanctioned the project around 99, for the project and the required modifications to the CSL's shipyard, cant imagine any work with out the money.
Still a long time into the project coming into being
I think even the ships that will serve with these ships seem to be emerging. Let’s see how they go (with the mutual delays).
Even for China, the Aircraft carriers seem to have a good purpose serving in the Indian Ocean securing the seas for the future fleet with air support, showing the flag, extending foreign policy (or interfering around the world), I can see how if the PLA-AF had bases in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives (too small eh), the PLA-N would have been satisfied with the state of affairs, however that is not happening any time soon (if ever) and if it does will have some great political and financial setbacks as compared to the carriers.
The navy was after the government which sanctioned the project around 99, for the project and the required modifications to the CSL's shipyard, cant imagine any work with out the money.
Still a long time into the project coming into being
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/...raft_carriers_induction_may_be_delayed_Antony
I think even the ships that will serve with these ships seem to be emerging. Let’s see how they go (with the mutual delays).
Even for China, the Aircraft carriers seem to have a good purpose serving in the Indian Ocean securing the seas for the future fleet with air support, showing the flag, extending foreign policy (or interfering around the world), I can see how if the PLA-AF had bases in Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri-Lanka, Pakistan, Maldives (too small eh), the PLA-N would have been satisfied with the state of affairs, however that is not happening any time soon (if ever) and if it does will have some great political and financial setbacks as compared to the carriers.
The very same question could be asked of the US,do they really need carriers. If the US need them I can't see any reason why the Chinese wouldn't have any use of them.As for China, I'm very puzzled, it is very hard to see need for it except as a status symbol. Maybe there has been discussion between US and Chinese admirals. Even single experimental Chinese carrier will be gift from heaven for USN carrier spokesmen.
Well, inertia is one very good reason. The USN has perfectly good carriers and infrastructure for them, as well as long range bomber arm and load of cruise missiles and, most important of all, money to operate them. Scrapping carriers would bring savings only in very long term, as US carriers have long lifes ahead of them. However, in Chinese case there's the need for starting up the whole show from scratch, and I doubt that it's worth it even for a possible future superpower.
Apparently it is to reinforce their "string of pearls" 'strategy/doctrine' ie. safeguard their bases along the major seaborne oil routes to the Gulf and also 'deter' USN CBGs and of course match regional rivals such as Japan and India.
That may explain why the project seems stalled for now...
Its the Zheng He argument, which is pushed by the pro-carrier proponents in the PLAN. Its kind of weak, considering that China seems to prefer to extend its influence through economic muscle and deft diplomacy. Another problem is the PLAN's own timidness; they don't even send their latest and best ships for foreign port visits. Its always like the older 112 Harbin or 113, or the 167 Shenzhen. The only time they sent something new, and I mean built in this decade was the DDG 168 Guangzhou and its trip to Russia and Europe this year, but that seems to be a fluke, since 167 Shenzhen was on repairs and refit.
The PLAAF does not have bases in Myanmar or any of these countries.