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     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
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
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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