kirov class battle cruiser

[Ozzy Blizzard]

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 hard power component that a real, deployable, sustainable carrier capability brings to any global power is something that can not be provided by any other asset. This is a significant partner to and improvement of a nations soft power. Therefore in the mid term a decent carrier capability is definatly somewhere in PLANs future, IMHO.

The PLAAF does not have bases in Myanmar or any of these countries.

IIRC there are 4 air bases in mynmar that have been upgraded (runway length) to take large aircraft (strategic), something the Mynmar air force does not posess (PLAAF does). I would assume that if needed PLAAF would have acsess to bases in Mynmar with little time of notification.

 

[funtz]

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.

I think its the global anthem for all carrier proponents.

What economic muscle (mutual trade?) and what deft diplomatic moves? What does it have to do with a offensive situation?

If the PLAN observes a need for it they will in no doubt go for it.

The PLAAF does not have bases in Myanmar or any of these countries.

Nor will they ever try to do this with out recognizing the added financial and political complexity, at which point a sea based option is better.


Any recent Pics of them Kirov.... anyone?

 

[Jon K]

The hard power component that a real, deployable, sustainable carrier capability brings to any global power is something that can not be provided by any other asset. This is a significant partner to and improvement of a nations soft power. Therefore in the mid term a decent carrier capability is definatly somewhere in PLANs future, IMHO.

That's the traditional carrier argument but I'd like to see some sortie arguments behind it. Carrier air wing is there to find things and to hit all kind of targets. These missions are no longer exclusive to manned short range aircraft. In any opposed scenario much of the carrier air wing can not be used for offensive missions anyhow. Besides, carrier aircraft are quite short-legged unless carrying very light loads.

For soft power projection hospital ships and amphibious ships are useful, as displayed by Tsunami rescue efforts.

While Galrahn notes in his blog that carrier based fighters are useful as escorts for long range bombers, it is, IMHO, very questionable what benefits does this bring to escort fighters flying from land bases and especially escort UCAV's. It is also notable that there are very real prospects of not only refuelling but also re-arming aircraft in flight.

In Chinese case one may also question how is it possible to use carrier based air power against Mongolia or Stan's?

In USN's case the arguments above are also valid, but the difference is that USN has spent almost 90 years gaining experience and building infrastructure to operate it's carriers, and already has many of them, so it does not make sense for USN to think about replacing carriers in at least 20 years, after which there may be a number of game changing technologies available.

 

[funtz]

That's the traditional carrier argument but I'd like to see some sortie arguments behind it. Carrier air wing is there to find things and to hit all kind of targets. These missions are no longer exclusive to manned short range aircraft. In any opposed scenario much of the carrier air wing can not be used for offensive missions anyhow.

Besides, carrier aircraft are quite short-legged unless carrying very light loads.

For soft power projection hospital ships and amphibious ships are useful, as displayed by Tsunami rescue efforts.

What the USN and their carriers? They have a very effective AEW/surveillance capability because of these.

How about defensive missions? Or do the amazing SAMs achieve that on their own, or will the amazing land based options be immune to SAMs?

short legged in comparison to what the Air Force? or the "absent" long ranged UCAVs being launched from the sea?

How many missions can a long ranged bomber carry out in a day? How many long ranged bombers are there?

In Chinese case one may also question how is it possible to use carrier based air power against Mongolia or Stan's?

In USN's case the arguments above are also valid, but the difference is that USN has spent almost 90 years gaining experience and building infrastructure to operate it's carriers, and already has many of them, so it does not make sense for USN to think about replacing carriers in at least 20 years, after which there may be a number of game changing technologies available.

Why indeed, no Mongolia does not need a aircraft carrier

how is land based air power effective in providing air cover to Ships out side of the immediate region, or will the safety of sea lanes of trade/supplies etc. be considered a secondary objective/done through other means for some time to come?

in 20 years a lot can happen, all around the world.

 

[Jon K]

What the USN and their carriers? They have a very effective AEW/surveillance capability because of these.

E-2 is extremely good asset, for sure, but I doubt whether it's cost effective compared to operating land based AWACS platform with tanker support, especially when considering that the land based platform can be much larger.

How about defensive missions? Or do the amazing SAMs achieve that on their own, or will the amazing land based options be immune to SAMs?

SAM technology has advanced in giant leaps, and not only SAM technology itself but it's networked combat capabilities. Besides, combat power of a fighter lies with it's missiles anyhow.

As for short legs, the range of carrier air power is not so much limited by it's aircraft but lacking tanker assets. Adding tankers to carrier wing dramatically cuts number of strike aircraft available. Land based bombers have lower sortie rate than carrier based planes, but the payload they can carry and the time they can orbit around target is also much longer.

Sure, ship launched strikes via cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles (feasible technically) have their drawbacks, but one has to consider the good side of them, which is the ability to mass the strike and overwhelm enemy defenses.

how is land based air power effective in providing air cover to Ships out side of the immediate region, or will the safety of sea lanes of trade/supplies etc. be considered a secondary objective/done through other means for some time to come?

To defend trade properly one needs to convoy ships to defend against sub threat too. To keep fighters for CAP is the least effective option available due to high cost grounds. Fighters ain't cheap anymore, with price of nine JSF's one can buy good AEGIS ship (KDX-III's cost) which has staying power, sonar and ASW chopper, or two slightly less capable escort ships (FREMM, for example).

 

[funtz]

E-2 is extremely good asset, for sure, but I doubt whether it's cost effective compared to operating land based AWACS platform with tanker support, especially when considering that the land based platform can be much larger.

How many AEWC&C/tankers to provide similar coverage to all present concerns? Operating how far from the home base? How much that add up to?

SAM technology has advanced in giant leaps, and not only SAM technology itself but it's networked combat capabilities. Besides, combat power of a fighter lies with it's missiles anyhow.

SAMs: if so effective cancel out everything that flies, regardless from where they take off/launch (land-sea-aircraft), including the AEWC&C, bombers and refueling platforms. At this point probably a need for more EW planes and tankers will arise?

As for short legs, the range of carrier air power is not so much limited by it's aircraft but lacking tanker assets. Adding tankers to carrier wing dramatically cuts number of strike aircraft available.

Can land based tankers only supply fuel to land based planes?

IF the combat aircrafts on the carrier can work temporarily in the tanker roles, there is no need to compromise the number of strike aircrafts on a ship. After all a carrier will not launch all her planes in a single mission.

Land based bombers have lower sortie rate than carrier based planes, but the payload they can carry and the time they can orbit around target is also much longer.

Which combat zone? How long can they stay over a combat zone compared to a smaller strike plane? what bombers do you have in mind? taking off from what place? what amount of maximum payload of a bomber is utilized for random missions?

Sure, ship launched strikes via cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles (feasible technically) have their drawbacks, but one has to consider the good side of them, which is the ability to mass the strike and overwhelm enemy defenses.

Well then why have ships at all, just long ranged missiles?

What happens when the missiles run out?

How protected is the Ship?

cruise missiles/TBMs against ground based targets like armored vehicles?

To defend trade properly one needs to convoy ships to defend against sub threat too. To keep fighters for CAP is the least effective option available due to high cost grounds.

Fighters ain't cheap anymore, with price of nine JSF's one can buy good AEGIS ship (KDX-III's cost) which has staying power, sonar and ASW chopper, or two slightly less capable escort ships (FREMM, for example).

Submarine threat is a part of it, so are aerial threats and ships and their combination. Everything that can be a threat will be a threat including sabotage, marine special forces, mines etc. etc. For air defense still a solid role can be played by the planes.

How does that(AEGIS) account for a large number of planes launching some missiles from 250+ kms, in waters far off from home base?

How many sorties can the ASW choppers on a ship provide in a day? how safe are they from threats not visible to the Ships they take off from? How effective is the sonar to threats that are 50 Kms away?

No AEGIS -JSF in the Chinese context.

 

[Jon K]

How many AEWC&C/tankers to provide similar coverage to all present concerns? Operating how far from the home base? How much that add up to?

To evaluate these concerns and to compare options I think we have to develop some kind of scenario in which China would use her carrier forces. Let's take an extreme scenario, distance-wise. How about need to project power into Nigeria with overflight rights over Myanmar but not over any other state? Flying from China it would take some 18 000km's from China to Nigeria.

Using current US equivalents as rough guidelines, how many CSG's could China forward deploy there in realistic timeframe? One, two or three? Whatkind of nominal carrier would China deploy? USS Kitty Hawk?

 

[Salty Dog]

What the USN and their carriers? They have a very effective AEW/surveillance capability because of these.

How about defensive missions? Or do the amazing SAMs achieve that on their own, or will the amazing land based options be immune to SAMs?

Fleet air defense of a CVBG and the carrier itself involves a layered concept. In very simple terms:

The first layer involves airborne E-2 and fighter CAP as well as ready deck fighters, to meet unknown/hostile targets over the horizon.

The second layer are the AAW AEGIS/SM-2/3 systems.

The third layer are point (self) defense AAW RIM-7 ESSM, RAM, CIWS.

Underway Condition III steaming or higher, all of this will be active 24/7.

In the USN all systems are used in a CVBG, each serving their own purpose. Sure you can reduce/eliminate the fighters, but not substitute.

 

[Salty Dog]

Carrier Aircraft

That's the traditional carrier argument but I'd like to see some sortie arguments behind it. Carrier air wing is there to find things and to hit all kind of targets. These missions are no longer exclusive to manned short range aircraft. In any opposed scenario much of the carrier air wing can not be used for offensive missions anyhow. Besides, carrier aircraft are quite short-legged unless carrying very light loads.

I feel comparisons between land based and carrier based aircraft are not valid, especially if you are comparing sortie, rates, performance, range, weapons loads, etc.

Carrier aircraft can easily be land based, but it doesn't work the the way around. Carrier aircraft need to withstand launch and recovery cycles, sea environment conditions, shipboard maintenance, etc. These conditions lead to compromises in the airframe, performance, materials, maintenance, etc. for the carrier fighters.

For these reasons, land based aircraft will always come out on top.

Still, the F/A-18 and E-2 has managed sales to countries that do not operate aircraft carriers. Of interest, history wise the USAF acquired the F-4 and A-7 after the USN did.

 

[funtz]

To evaluate these concerns and to compare options I think we have to develop some kind of scenario in which China would use her carrier forces. Let's take an extreme scenario, distance-wise. How about need to project power into Nigeria with overflight rights over Myanmar but not over any other state? Flying from China it would take some 18 000km's from China to Nigeria.

Using current US equivalents as rough guidelines, how many CSG's could China forward deploy there in realistic timeframe? One, two or three? What kind of nominal carrier would China deploy? USS Kitty Hawk?

What kind of platforms do you have in mind (for this 18k KM exercise)?

What would be the threats faced?

 

[crobato]

Like Jon says, I really have a hard time seeing a usable and plausible scenario for a PLAN carrier in the near future.

If the PLAN observes a need for it they will in no doubt go for it.

Exactly, and that's why the project is stalled for now.

In the meantime, as of 2007, the PLAN finished one large LPD, and two large hospital ships. So they're truly interested in soft power projection as well as providing aid to countries in crisis.

The only reason why I see the PLAN may pursue a carrier, or at least study it, is more of an insurance policy for the long term future which no one really knows. But for now, China is trying to improve its international image, and a PLAN carrier group sailing down the Pacific and Indian oceans is not going to help.

 

[Firehorse]

I don't think the Russian will invest any $ on new Kirov follow-ons, especially if they are to build new CVs. The Soviet Navy was primarely a sea-denial/defensive force, and Kirov class fitted that orientation. Now, the RFN will be expanded within the more "lean & mean" model in mind. And were their ships/subs can't be, for any number of reasons, the long-range bombers will fill the gap!

 

[Salty Dog]

I don't think the Russian will invest any $ on new Kirov follow-ons, especially if they are to build new CVs. The Soviet Navy was primarely a sea-denial/defensive force, and Kirov class fitted that orientation. Now, the RFN will be expanded within the more "lean & mean" model in mind. And were their ships/subs can't be, for any number of reasons, the long-range bombers will fill the gap!

Which bombers will fulfill these missions? Naval air (AF-MF) has about (45) Tu-22 and the Strategic Air Army has only about (15) Tu-160?

I do not know of any new bomber projects except for a newer Tu-160 version. In cany case the Tu-160 is more of a strategic asset vice tactical even if it does carry a 3000Km nuclear tipped missile (Kh-55/AS-15).

 

[Jon K]

I feel comparisons between land based and carrier based aircraft are not valid, especially if you are comparing sortie, rates, performance, range, weapons loads, etc.

This is especially so in USN's case where decades of development has produced a broad range of useful aircraft. But if we take a look at China, which is probably not able to purchase US aircraft, it would have to develop a number of carrier based specialized aircraft alone to develop capacities nearing USN naval air arm, not taking into account the time and effort needed to develop a good doctrine and training base for naval air arm.

 

[Jon K]

What kind of platforms do you have in mind (for this 18k KM exercise)?

What would be the threats faced?

Well, if we start with hypothetical carriers let's take USS Kitty Hawk as a baseline ship. To be able to surge two carriers halfway around the globe there is probable need to maintain four ships which should be taken into account, a plausible maximum number of Chinese operational carriers for 2025, I think. As for baseline bomber, let's use a plane which has B-2's load carrying abilities but is not stealthy thus cannot be used for independent penetrations. B-2 is the slowest strategic bomber around, so a speed of some 800km/h might be useful as reference speed. Super Hornet might be a good reference plane for a strike fighter.

As for threats, I think we have to assume something against which carriers would excel, so would you have an idea?

 

[Firehorse]

Which bombers will fulfill these missions? Naval air (AF-MF) has about (45) Tu-22 and the Strategic Air Army has only about (15) Tu-160?
I do not know of any new bomber projects except for a newer Tu-160 version. In cany case the Tu-160 is more of a strategic asset vice tactical even if it does carry a 3000Km nuclear tipped missile (Kh-55/AS-15).

That hyperlinked map showed ranges for all 3 types, unrefueled and refueled, from bases in Russia, and they would use both Naval and AF bombers if the situation warrants. The Russian article was talking about defending against ships armed with LACMs, using stand-off AShMs from 300-4500km away. If you look closely, only Southern Australia, NZ, Antarctica and most of S.America with waters around them won't be covered. BTW, the USAF B-52s & B-1Bs have also anti-ship mission capability.

The Associated Press has learned that U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend.
A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZnc42XeC-4PKplrnx74ylj3JSLAD8UOC0700

A few more pics of PV.

 

[onslaught]

How long would it take for the bombers to get to say, the Pacific? How long would it take for the cruise missiles to reach their targets? Unless, the Russians have long-range bomber bases in Siberia, it will take quite some time to reach a threat. That's not to mention figuring out the nature of the threat. This is where a naval presence comes in. They can hang around a certain place where as bombers have to go back and forth from target to base.

 

[Firehorse]

SATs, MPAs & AGI ships http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/balzam-ssv-pics.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/vishnya-class-ssv-169-dnsn9002636.jpg can monitor big areas, and supersonic Tu-160s & Tu-22s can be there in a matter of hours. And they do have bases in the Far East!

 

[gf0012-aust]

How long would it take for the bombers to get to say, the Pacific? How long would it take for the cruise missiles to reach their targets? Unless, the Russians have long-range bomber bases in Siberia, it will take quite some time to reach a threat. That's not to mention figuring out the nature of the threat. This is where a naval presence comes in. They can hang around a certain place where as bombers have to go back and forth from target to base.

They don't have the numbers to do anything except run ferrets basically. Russia is not the Soviet Union of old. They don't have the logistics to run a serious theatre event - esp long distance.

 

[Chrom]

1. Surprisingly to you, there are airbases in Siberia, and generally all over Russia.

2. Officially, there are about 90 Tu-95 + 16 Tu-160 as strategic forces. There is a little point to have any more as number of total nuclear warheads is restricted. So, by increasing strategic bomber numbers Russia will be forced to decrease land/SSBN based warheads. Not very wise. This is also prime reason why USA have similar low numbers of B-2 and B-1.

3. The official numbers of Tu-22M3/M5 is 170 in active service + 100 in reserve. By any account it is more than enouth to mount successfull atack on any CBG or even any imaginable group of CBG's. Remember, Tu-22M do not need to enter protected CBG space to launch AShM's.

4. Su-34 should be produced at rate 10-12 per year. They have enouth range to be used as maritime strike/ecscort aircrafts against any CBG close enouth to reach russian borders.