Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers

[Feanor]

Admiral Vysotsky mentions several key features of the plans for the Russian navy, including another long distance voyage for the Russian navy in 2008, more Bulava tests, sea-trials for Yuri Dolgorukiy, and a carrier construction program.

ww w.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2008/russia-080404-rianovosti06.htm

en.rian.ru/russia/20080404/103755786.html

news.mail.ru/politics/1691357/print/

Is this more saber rattling and empty promises or is there perhaps a few grains of truth amongst the official b.s.?

 

[Distiller]

That carrier requirement is an old story.
Financing the whole package, incl air wings and escorts, is another thing.

It would be also a new VMF doctrine, since so far they used their carriers either as ASW, or as OTH-targeting platform for their missile saturation attacks. Carrier based aerial assets didn't have any real attack role, just a little forward air defense.

I think the background of all of this is the desire to develop an expeditionary amphibious warfare capability. I don't think they would just drop their pretty successful anti-CBG doctrine in favour to shoot it out with the USN on an equal basis.

 

[Viktor]

Well with MARV developt and new naval satelite targeting system in the proces of deployment who needs antishp cruise missiles :unknown .

Well Im sure Graney class SSN will retain some powerfull capabilities as a carrier killer.

 

[Dr Freud]

I really wouldnt recommend using MARV, as that means using ICBM, which would probably result in a bunch of nukes fired back at the motherland.

With russias tu 22m, i would have only fighters on the carrier, providing air cover for tu 95 recon, and tu-22m for strikes

 

[Feanor]

The current Kuznetsov carriers both fighters and (ground? sea?) attack aircraft (Su-25's reworked for carrier duty). I was wondering what you guys think about this. Is it serious? Is there really going to be a carrier construction program?

 

[Sea Toby]

Not knowing much about the Russian fleet, I think they would be better off with amphibious ships, much like the rest of the world. But if they are going to build a carrier fleet, they will need around six of them. The long standing peacetime rotation of three as a general rule still exists.

 

[Dr Freud]

Russia really dont depend a whole lot on shipping, its difficult to see how they could justify the spending.

 

[Jon K]

That carrier requirement is an old story.
Financing the whole package, incl air wings and escorts, is another thing.

Considering that UK cannot seem to operate even a single VSTOL carrier nowadays, Russian dreams of 5-6 CVBG's are clearly unrealistic. This kind of unrealistic thinking damages prospects of Russia developing a sustainable military.

 

[ASFC]

No, Britains problem is political, i.e the decision to retire the FA2 early and give the RAF domince has caused problems for the Fleet Air Arm. All things considered the Royal Navy has done a stirling job at maintaining its 'Carrier' capability since the cancelation of its last big tops in the 60's, with little or no help from the Govt. (I do not consider a problem with a fridge to be marking the end of the UK being able to operate its ships :unknown.)

Russias problems are not only going to be paying for it, but maintaining it. They have little or no expertise in operating sustained CV operations and there is no country willing to help them out. These reports seem to be for domestic consumption rather than to be taken seriously on the international stage.

 

[Feanor]

Except that there are now rumors that if India doesn't purchase the Gorshkov, it could go to the Russian Navy.

 

[Jon K]

No, Britains problem is political, i.e the decision to retire the FA2 early and give the RAF domince has caused problems for the Fleet Air Arm. All things considered the Royal Navy has done a stirling job at maintaining its 'Carrier' capability since the cancelation of its last big tops in the 60's, with little or no help from the Govt. (I do not consider a problem with a fridge to be marking the end of the UK being able to operate its ships :unknown.)

I disagree, if a country decides to maintain military forces it has to spend money operating them. Without doubt RN and Russian Navy (after work-up) would be able to operate large carriers on sustained basis. However, with current financing this is clearly an impossibility.

 

[Wall83]

Russia has not enough money to give the airforce more then 5-10 fighters a year so I dont think they will start building any aircraft carrier soon. Maybe in 2020-2030 the russian economy has recovert so much that a new carrier can be included in the russian military bugdet.
No most money now will go to the new SSBN class,Borei.

 

[flyer19999]

Russian Carrier Group

Russia is a very large country and really does not need carrier groups like the United States. It would be better if Russia spent the money for carrier groups to develop fifth-generation fighter aircraft to include a new longe-range bomber, more and better air defense missiles sites, more and better ICBM's, manned spacecraft, and fifth-generation attack submarines.

Aircraft carriers make a very good target for high-speed cruise missiles and short-range ballistic antiship missiles.

 

[Sea Toby]

Short ranged ballistic missiles? You would risk an all out nuclear war with a short ranged ballistic missile? How do you target the carrier over the horizon? By the time the missile got there the carrier would have moved somewhere at 30 knots. And the carrier would still have its electronic warfare suite along with its chaff launchers. Am I missing something here?

Everyone talks of long distance cruise missiles, they are great at hitting stationary targets. Unfortunately, carriers aren't stationary. The question remains, how do you target something you don't see over the horizon?

 

[Dr Freud]

How do you target the carrier over the horizon? By the time the missile got there the carrier would have moved somewhere at 30 knots.

A good point Sea Toby, i was reading dumb stuff about the "unsinkable carrier England", that guy just completely missed the point that you dont have the coordinates on the runway.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Short ranged ballistic missiles? You would risk an all out nuclear war with a short ranged ballistic missile? How do you target the carrier over the horizon? By the time the missile got there the carrier would have moved somewhere at 30 knots. And the carrier would still have its electronic warfare suite along with its chaff launchers. Am I missing something here?

You would need to have long range OHR capability or AEW&C/HALE UAV or have surface/SSK/SSN units engaged. Even then you would need to put a seeker on the front of the RV, and it would have t be maneouverable enough to have some sort of an engagement basket. If you had good track data, a decent seeker and as maneuverable an RV as possible the chances of a hit are still slim. Add to that SM3 and navalised PAC3 chances go to form slim to none. The only way you would make this system viable would be to put a nuke onboard.

Everyone talks of long distance cruise missiles, they are great at hitting stationary targets. Unfortunately, carriers aren't stationary. The question remains, how do you target something you don't see over the horizon?

This is a big problem with the whole 500km pluss SSM's. If they are high altitude search then the time difference between launch and ariival of the engagement area would not make that much of a difference considering the reduced LOS limitations. However that makes them vulnerable to SAM fire. The new gen, low altiude SSM's dont have that luxry. Again you have to have an asset in the area or long range radar to get the target track data.

 

[flyer19999]

Sea Toby haven't you heard of active homing and home on jamming? There are lots of ways to defeat moving targets with cruise missiles especially one as large as an aircraft carrier. They make real good targets. The U.S. hasn't faced anyone with good enough technology to get the job done yet.

 

[Sea Toby]

I do recall chaff diverting missiles, and I have heard of electronic countermeasures, the trick of masking your image and showing a greater image somewhere else. Its like aircraft, shoot and forget, and you end up shooting down an airliner, not a military aircraft. Or in the navy's case, shoot at your spy trawler or heaven forbid, a cruise ship filled with vacationers. If you don't have a specific target in your crosshairs, I would rather not fire the missile. Its the same when hunting an animal.

There are also things such as the Geneva convention, and war trials after a war, win or lose. Shooting off missiles blindly will surely see justice at some world court, or even worse, at your court martial.

This reeks of my father belonging to an Honest John missile battalion. Fire at the target several miles away with a nuclear warhead, and watch the cloud of radiation envelope yourself.

 

[AegisFC]

Sea Toby haven't you heard of active homing and home on jamming? There are lots of ways to defeat moving targets with cruise missiles especially one as large as an aircraft carrier. They make real good targets. The U.S. hasn't faced anyone with good enough technology to get the job done yet.

It isn't that easy. The carriers have escorts with very good active and passive defense systems. Home on jamming is nice, but what if the jamming unit is a Nulka hovering a few hundred yards away from the escort? Chaff isn't the only toy you can launch out of the chaff launchers either, it can fire rounds designed for seduction or distraction of an incoming missile. Then you have air craft like the EA-18 which can bring a lot of other abilities to help defend the carrier.
The point is to get at the carrier you have to go through the escorts who have a lot of passive and active tricks up their sleeve.

 

[flyer19999]

Carrier Groups

Sea Toby/others: There are other means of acquiring target data; satellites, submarines, and surveillance helicopters/aircraft. Many modern attack subs carrier underwater-to-surface missiles and have satellite/aircraft communications. I'm not talking about a third-world country attacking a carrier group but a country with equal technology. Additionally, there are some missiles that don't have to hit the target but just get close enough to release a homming torpodeo. There is no weapon system made that cannot be defeated.