The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please
DarthAmerica    8/9/2005 12:19:53 AM
Which is better at projecting power?

Which is more effective at Air to Ground, Anti-Ship, Air Superiority?

Which has the most balanced Airwing?

Which has the best Fighter?

Which is more effective as a part of its typical battle group configuration.

Which has had the most operational success?

Which Carrier Battle Group would be most likely to win a meeting engagement in the Open Ocean?


As I said. I am interested in opinions so feel free to share. But be kind enough to actually give an opinion. Opinions should be supported by some evidence otherwise its bias. In all considerations be sure to include all the available support assets typically available to High Value Assets such as these.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please   8/9/2005 12:38:22 PM
"I'd argue that the French have got a possible 200-250km interrogation and battle management advantage over a Russian CBG. They have superiority in battlespace management which means that the Russian CBG has to extend and advance assets to go ferreting. Any ferret is a give away, whereas the French are able to bridge that gap with earlier detection strengths. The K's jets cannot rotate at full load or full weaps load - it's been a known problem. they either take off with full AA kit, or they take off with a mix, and any anti-shipping mix reduces AA loadout and commensurate drops in capability. K also has a shorter squadron of FWCA on board, that means reduced sortie rates, higher tempo for existing sortied platforms and less aircrafy to divvy up for strike and or cap. Long range PGM's are also a damocles sword. ;) you telegraph your punches esrlier with stand-off weaps. Plus, the French have been in the battle fleet management game vis a vis fleet carriers for a long time - they're not amatuers. ;)" --gf0012 ---Since we are only talking about organic assets I assume you are refering to the Hawkeyes on the CdG. I would have to agree. CdG has two of them and would likely keep them in rotation around the clock in a high threat scenario such as this. To exploit the radar horizon advantage you would want to fwd deploy this aircraft 50nm to 200nm along the enemies most likely avenue of approach to give early warning especially against Russian long range ASMs. Thats going to require Rafale escort with double the sortie rate due to lower endurance. The Escort would also require an alert element to be able to backup the Escorting Rafales which all together would be about 4 Rafales escorts included. So for continuous operations I would imagine that tempo would be a strain. My estimate is that just this recon and security mission would require 24 fighters and 2 E-2c for sustained operation. Rafale isnt fully deployed so I say the French would have about 10 to 16 of them on CdG. Maybe 20. This is less than desirable for 24 hour operations in my opinion. The French could get away with it by halving the number of Rafales used for defense. But do you want to do this vs up to 2 dozen SU-33? They may have to. But this is somewhat mitigated by the early warning provided by the E-2c. But I also dont want to be stuck on defense. But with only a dozen or so Etendards available for anti-ship strike. I dont have the mass for saturation attack. So I concentrate On the picket ships and try to work my way into the K group. Against Russian SAMs and a 2 to 4 defending Flankers this could be a tough task. My Rubis is clearly the best offensive option and unless the Russians use a careful strategy it is going to win the day for France. The Russians would make the E-2c a very high priority. If its taken down and even a few Flanker survive they could briefly hold air superiority over the CdG group provided the remain outside Aster 15 range. But they could using R-77 supress overwhelme French Aircraft attempting to respond peicemail. Also without that E-2C those SS-N-19/SS-n-22/AS-17 are going to raise hell in the CdG group. Another Russian concern is the Rubis. Probably the primary consern. The Russians could deploy considerable ASW helo for local defence. Also the Russian SSN could attempt to stop Rubis. Although base don GF assessment this seems like it would be playing into French advantages. A Russian deception would be necessary. Perhaps a regular sortie of Flankers to a location 100km+ away from the K careful to remain below the radar horizon and then a brief pop up manuver and simulated landing approach, including radio traffic, where once the Flankers go below the radar horizon they RTB to the K. At the simulated K position ASW Helo, Anti-Air FFG/DDG and/or SSN could lurk. Hopefully this would draw the in the Rubis and decoy away French alpha-strikes. Meanwhile the K main body closes on CdG under strict EMCON and using ESM data. If the Russians can close to within 300km of CdG then I believe the fight will go in their favor. P.S. The Russian skipper is really wishing for an ELINT Bear or May and the French Skipper wants those Horizon Frigates now! This is actually a pretty good match up IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please   8/9/2005 1:35:03 PM
Realistically, though, the Charles de Gaulle is a real, useful, power projection platform. Its design is based on years of experience operating smaller carriers, and its operators are seasoned and well trained. And a CdG task force organically includes everything it needs to truly operate independently -- AEW, strike, reconnaissance, etc. The Kuznetsov is pretty much an experiment. The Russians have no prior experience in full-deck carrier ops, and the Kuznetsov's design reflects this -- STOBAR is a quick and dirty way to get some kind of credible fixed wing operations going, relying less on shipboard systems and lower technological risk, but limiting what the aircraft can do. The Kuznetsov still reflects the basic Soviet philosophy; its goal was to put CAP over a Kirov and/or submarines and to operate with land-based reconnaissance assets, not to be the centerpiece of its own strike group. In terms of power projection, say to support peacekeeping, the French have a lot more capability as they bring airspace control and coordination and better multirole aircraft, and all of their tactical aircraft can perform air to air refueling with buddy tanks. The Russians could put some fighters over the beach, but the French would have a much higher sortie rate and better endurance and coordination. In terms of a naval battle between typical French vs Russian CVBG with no outside support, the Russians have essentially no hope of using their SU-33s in a strike role and they would have to rely on them as CAP. The French group on the other hand is limited (today anyway) to about 14 Super Etendards with Exocet for maritime strike, which I'm skeptical could really demolish the Russian group. Basically it boils down to the problem that the French can detect the Russians but probably can't sink them, while the Russians have a tremendous amount of SSM firepower but wouldn't be able to find the French to shoot at them. And of course in real life it's unlikely the Russians could scrape together enough working ships to form a strike group, and if they do they don't have enough logistical support to conduct flight operations outside their own waters for any length of time.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please   8/9/2005 1:43:41 PM
A Moscow Times article on the last major sortie by the Kuznetsov: link Full text: link
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 1:54:30 PM
Phaid, Why do you think the Russians could not find the French? link or link Flying Recon based on ESM data? Also IIRC the SU-33 can carry the Moskit: link Admittedly though I do not know if they deploy operationally with this capability but they at least advertise the capability. If so its considerably more powerful than Super Etendard/Exocet and much more likely to get through Aster 15 than exocet is through SA-N-6 Grumble.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 2:08:29 PM
Thats very embarrassing. Unless the Russians got their act together the French could really put a hurting on them. Most likely via submarine as they are light on a2g firepower and ship to ship firepower. Just one Oscar II, if it managed not to explode, could ravage the CdG. Or at least it seems that way to me. But I'll let gf decide who wins that fight. And the Article suggested 2 or more Oscars in the group. Ouch! Also the French arent without their Carrier Aviation problems too! Was it not too long ago that a French Carrier Air Wing had to make a "discretionary landing in Atlantic City" and didnt the CdG have a screw loose...;)
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 2:09:26 PM
Thats very embarrassing. Unless the Russians got their act together the French could really put a hurting on them. Most likely via submarine as they are light on a2g firepower and ship to ship firepower. Just one Oscar II, if it managed not to explode, could ravage the CdG. Or at least it seems that way to me. But I'll let gf decide who wins that fight. And the Article suggested 2 or more Oscars in the group. Ouch! Also the French arent without their Carrier Aviation problems too! Was it not too long ago that a French Carrier Air Wing had to make a "discretionary landing in Atlantic City" and didnt the CdG have a screw loose...;) Oh and are those Rafales able to carry air to ground ordinance yet...;)
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 2:20:12 PM
A Ka-31 cannot detect aircraft flying above its own altitude, which is pretty much limited to around 11,000 feet, so its use as AEW is pretty limited. Its data link is limited to about 80km, and it cannot move at speeds greater than 110km/hr with its radar active. Sending it out to find ships operating with CAP is a suicide mission. The SU-33 has no maritime search capabilities, and even though it has been seen at static displays with Kh-31s, it has never been deployed with those missiles. The Ka-31 is best used within the radar and SAM envelope of the battle group, where the shipboard radar can track targets above the horizon and the Ka-31 can detect targets below it. This makes the Ka-31 and the SU-33 a reasonably good combination for CAP, though still nowhere as capable fighters operating with a Hawkeye (which along with a much greater range for both surface and air detection, allows the surface ships to operate in radar silence).
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 2:32:15 PM
Oh and are those Rafales able to carry air to ground ordinance yet...;) No. Nothing but air to air for now, no air to ground until F2 standard, no ship attack until F3 in at least 2007. The air wing I'm assuming here is something like 10 Rafale, 16 Super Etendard, 2 Hawkeye, and 10 helicopters.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 3:16:49 PM
OK well then in that case it seems the French are at a clear advantge but unable to exploit it for lack of offensive firepower with the exception of the Submarine. The Russians OTOH can crush the CdG if they can get close enough, 200 to 300km, but French SA and SSN make this no easy task. Also Oscars could swing things back toward the Russians as they dont need the K group to be effective. Sound about fair to everyone?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/9/2005 3:18:52 PM
Interesting to note that the Aviation elements of both groups are secondary for offensive sea control when compared to the DDGs and SSNs in the groups.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Why the French?   8/9/2005 7:56:34 PM
"OK well then in that case it seems the French are at a clear advantge but unable to exploit it for lack of offensive firepower with the exception of the Submarine." except that the french have the supplementary advantage of being able to liaise and vector their subs using their broader battle management options, far faster, and with greater platform flexibility. they can position and fight far earlier than the russians. they're less blind all round. better management, better knowledge, better training, far greater sea time exp, quieter subs, better persistence, better projection, better product, better ELINT/EWarfare, tighter C4i. Finally, if things were hot, then certifying AG/AShM/ASuM for a Rafale is going to be a non event.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Why the French? Answer for gf0012-aust   8/9/2005 8:28:56 PM
Because I up too late thinking about war when I sould have been cuddling. That being the case my frustrations needed a vent. Being the Don King that I am, and with my love for the French I wanted to arrange a fight with the CdG to with an opponent I though might be evenly matched all things considered. I wanted to see how well a light carrier like CdG would do in a high intensity conflict. Hypothetically of course and with input from professional in fields other than mine. The Russians were chosen as the OPFOR because they have a similar sized Carrier but with obviously different operational capabilities and they were recently in the news. But GF I have to admit I'm a little suprised by your assesment of Russian submarine and ASW capability. Not that I disagree with you because you are the expert. But its not what I expected. The reason is that it seems Russia is increasingly reliant on their SSN/SSGNs and I figured that would give them some competency vs SSN threats. Also based on open sources, it seems that Oscar II and Akulas are fairly modern compared to older Soviet Boats. Another thing is Russian surface vessels seem to bristle with weaponry and a lot of it ASW in nature. I figure they must be somewhat competent. In terms of air power I do not believe the have full of Rafale/Etendards could immediately over power the two squadrons of SU-33 and survive the overwhelming Russian SAM capability on offense. Also I do not believe the FN could survive the Russian ASM if the Surface ships get close enough. Aster 15 seems great but at 30km for R_Max thats hurting vs modern Russian ASMs launched in mass. Relying on airpower alone the FN would have to wage a war of attrition IMO picking off Russian ships one or two at a time over a couple of days all while staying away from the Russian fleet ASMs. Also if you read the original post: link In the last paragraph I was being a little coy but I intended to bring to bear, no pun intended, Bear and Backfire in case this turned into a SPECTRA will massacre all incomming threats debate. The Russians in practice would be likely to use their powerful long range bombers in any major naval battle. But then the debate would be very short if we considered that as I dont think anyone(non-French) would suggest CdG is capable of fighting off a Backfire Regiment.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Why the French? Answer for gf0012-aust   8/9/2005 8:42:41 PM
"But GF I have to admit I'm a little suprised by your assesment of Russian submarine and ASW capability. Not that I disagree with you because you are the expert. But its not what I expected. The reason is that it seems Russia is increasingly reliant on their SSN/SSGNs and I figured that would give them some competency vs SSN threats. Also based on open sources, it seems that Oscar II and Akulas are fairly modern compared to older Soviet Boats. Another thing is Russian surface vessels seem to bristle with weaponry and a lot of it ASW in nature. I figure they must be somewhat competent. " couple of things. A) I'm being fair to both sides. Bring in land based air and the Russians start to be favoured. I assumed that in the interest of fairness this was CBG vs CBG. 1) I'm not an expert ;) 2) Russia had 23 subs scrapped in the last 2 years. She has bugger all subs in a seaworthy condition, another 6 are in the process of being cut up at the moment 3) Russian ASW has not been comparable to "western" systems - they're no match against French systems - not by a golden mile. 4) The only advantage that the Russians really had was speed and dive depth - thats not the panacea of sub warfighting. The french have more efficient boats, better acoustic management, greater experience in having subs ride shotgun with a CBG, and I'd argue, better tactical fluidity 5) You can stack as many weapons as you like on any platform, unless they're cued by effective battle management systems, then all you have is an arsenal ship available for hail mary opportunities. IMV. the French could literally slice up any Russian fleet based on numerical vessel equivalency. They have superior organic management systems, superior training, superior synergy, greater flexibility due to inherent platform advantages. The Soviet/Russian philosophy was to dominate via overwhelming firepower or saturation of platforms - thats only useful if you can dominate the battlespace and the weapons systems are appropriate - they aren't and they can't.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Why the French? Answer for gf0012-aust   8/9/2005 9:02:00 PM
1) I'm not an expert ;) --Compared to me when dealing with Naval issues, you may as well be...;) IMV. the French could literally slice up any Russian fleet based on numerical vessel equivalency. They have superior organic management systems, superior training, superior synergy, greater flexibility due to inherent platform advantages. --Based on your analysis I agree with you. The Soviet/Russian philosophy was to dominate via overwhelming firepower or saturation of platforms - thats only useful if you can dominate the battlespace and the weapons systems are appropriate - they aren't and they can't. --OK I also agree with this. So CBG vs CBG, in isolation, is a likely French Victory considering my original questions and excluding outside help. In the real world with Russian Long Range Naval Aviation and the Russians would be likely to overwhelm the French.
 
Quote    Reply

Francois    RE:Why the French? Answer for gf0012-aust   8/10/2005 1:22:00 AM
Knowing the level of reliability of both MN and Rn, I will go to the french. Rafale, as all french (and actually all western standards) have a really high level of availability and reliability. So you will have flying and combat ready assets if you have 25 Rafales then 70 Sukhois. Beside this, Rafale can take any Su- anytime. The trick is called situation awareness. So if you give the Russians the land based a/c, and say they can take off, and their weapons are working, and they don't get lost because sats are not working, so you have to give me Aster-30 and Horizons. Deal?
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy