The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 21, 2010




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:Why the French? DarthxxX   8/12/2005 10:40:15 AM
Well there is the Oscar II's and Kirov Class which could shower the CdG with SS-N-19. Combined with a SU-33/Kh-31 strike from multiple axis and you are looking at a big problem. IIRC those missiles have a range of around 600km+. With a martime recce bird like the Bear prowling aroung the Russians could potentially exploit that range.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please   8/12/2005 12:07:26 PM
I assume we're talking fairly equivalently sized/configured fleets duking it out on the high seas to create a point of comparison. I think there are two things being overlooked here... One problem is that the French have much better support for their naval aviation component. Having a catapult means you can shoot off those nice E-2s. The FN also is experienced with "buddy" refueling, making it MUCH easier for them to run their ASuW mission. When you run out patrolling for the enemy, I believe teh Russians are hampered by refueling...isn't that correct? Also, there are the supposed problems they have with launching at reasonable takeoff weights. The Rafales can go out with more munitions, are stealthier, and can stay out longer with buddy refueling. It's clear who's going to find who first, IMO. Subs complicate things. The French don't have SSGNs. But the French SSNs are quite capable on their own of killing the Russian battle group. That leaves the final problem...experience. You take a Russian fleet out today, and you'll be lucky if they don't blow themselves up. I'm not being irreverent about the past accidents/tragedies. That's some bad #### and it really sucks that it happened. But I believe it indicates the unreadiness of their battle group as a whole. The Kursk was one of the NEW Russian SSNs, and it got $$$$canned by an accident onboard. Warships are INHERENTLY dangerous to themselves. You put big metal boxes out to sea, subject to the corrosion of the sea, and pack them tight with people and explosives. Wow, is that a bad combination or what? The Western navies achieve low accident rates through YEARS of procedures/protocol/experience. The last is the most important. As EW3 will atttest, the saying is that chiefs run the navy. That's because they handle the day to day management of a ship...they manage the enlisted personnel who keeps the ship's GUTS running: the power plant, the systems, everything. At sea, this #### has a surprising propensity to break down. You need to have the day to day operation of all that stuff FIGURED OUT before you even consider fighting it out. I mean, we're talking BASIC stuff here, I think an infantryman's analogy would be like going through basic training/boot camp. That's what the Russians have not been keeping up on. You have to go to sea and keep proficient at keeping the ship running(it's hard enough for the Western navies, I imagine with Russian quality control, it's an absolute nightmare). After the basics, THEN you have to worry about keeping proficient with the shooting. That's why we have exercises. The FN trains with NATO so it can figure out how to respond in a naval engagement. For the Russians, they don't have any of that. How else will your systems operators decipher the sparse information coming in? So...you know who I'm gonna bet on.
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier    RE:Why the French? DarthxxX   8/13/2005 4:32:39 AM
RE:Why the French? DarthxxX 8/12/2005 10:40:16 AM Well there is the Oscar II's and Kirov Class which could shower the CdG with SS-N-19. Combined with a SU-33/Kh-31 strike from multiple axis and you are looking at a big problem. IIRC those missiles have a range of around 600km+. With a martime recce bird like the Bear prowling aroung the Russians could potentially exploit that range. 600km is the limit range, a SSN as no way to detect is prey at 600 kms. How much time need a russian SSN to coordonate a strike with a Tu ? A Tu is a big spot on a radar but 600 kms is an interceptable range for by a CBG, his missiles are supersonic but the Tu has to enligth his target during a large part of the strike. The interceptors (supersonic too) have plenty time to abort this mission. I bet more on a long range strike from onboard fighters. Low enougth over the sea, close to Mach, both Su- and Rafale have impressive capacities and weapons load, but I'm not sure that Su- are able to body-body refuel.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   8/15/2005 5:52:56 AM
slow replying as I've been away with work... USN-Mid, which gets back to what I've been trying to point out - there are far too many realtime variables in favour of the french. firepower means stuff all if you can't get it on target reliably and with consistency. The last foray by the Russian fleet and the littany of disasters that beset both the air wing and the "signature" vessels, are a glaring indication of systemic failure across various disciplines. those E2's will be spotting incoming well ahead of the normal response and evade processes. as for the russians, they can't even maintain decent sortie rates under benign conditions let alone under hi tempo influences. the rafales and entendards would be in and under and with greater persistency than the russians could even dream of mustering. Op Herakles again, is the glaring example of what the French can do under mild shooting conditions, the russians couldn't get 1/5th and they weren't even shooting at targets. finally, french subs vs russian subs? french, every time. i'd be betting on a frog captain on a quieter boat long before a russian captain with a nuke that's suspect. (note they have pulled all their high speed and HPeroxide torps since Kursk - they don't have any comparable underwater weapons to respond with.) and frankly speaking, the French are also well aware of fundamental KH-31 parameters ever since Boeing modified the guidance system during the Vagabond replacement fiasco (thank Clinton again for being a naive and ignorant tool)
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   8/15/2005 5:53:34 AM
slow replying as I've been away with work... USN-Mid, which gets back to what I've been trying to point out - there are far too many realtime variables in favour of the french. firepower means stuff all if you can't get it on target reliably and with consistency. The last foray by the Russian fleet and the littany of disasters that beset both the air wing and the "signature" vessels, are a glaring indication of systemic failure across various disciplines. those E2's will be spotting incoming well ahead of the normal response and evade processes. as for the russians, they can't even maintain decent sortie rates under benign conditions let alone under hi tempo influences. the rafales and entendards would be in and under and with greater persistency than the russians could even dream of mustering. Op Herakles again, is the glaring example of what the French can do under mild shooting conditions, the russians couldn't get 1/5th and they weren't even shooting at targets. finally, french subs vs russian subs? french, every time. i'd be betting on a frog captain on a quieter boat long before a russian captain with a nuke that's suspect. (note they have pulled all their high speed and HPeroxide torps since Kursk - they don't have any comparable underwater weapons to respond with.) and frankly speaking, the French are also well aware of fundamental KH-31 parameters ever since Boeing modified the guidance system during the Vagabond replacement fiasco (thank Clinton again for being a naive and ignorant tool)
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 12:11:07 PM
Both carriers are designed for different battles. The Kuz's is for assymetric low tech warfare during nuclear war after extensive destruction occurs of electronic equipment and repair facilities. As seen in Chechnya, Russians do servicing on the dirt field by themselves with limited supplies. They hurt for sure, but they still have a tempo and their crews develop ingenuity. The Charles' is good so long its tech works. Not only they had problems with their propeller, but the thing is so light it requires automatic roll and pitch control with vanes underwater. The stuff was so complex and the forces so great that it is not working at all in moderate choppy water or above. Also destroy that control system and the thing is like a cork going all over the place.
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 12:53:13 PM
link Someone posted this on another thread, and, see, choppy waters wont work for the carrier.
 
Quote    Reply

Hibou    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 2:57:25 PM
"but the thing is so light it requires automatic roll and pitch control with vanes underwater. The stuff was so complex and the forces so great that it is not working at all in moderate choppy water or above. Also destroy that control system and the thing is like a cork going all over the place." I cannot let Violentnuke write such things. I don't know where you found your sources (maybe some anti-french site) but you are completly wrong. 1. This aircraft-carrier may be "so light" but she is still almost twice as big as the former Clemenceau which did not have any roll control system. 2. Yes the stabilisation system is complex because it's centralising combined movements of different control sytems (rudders, ailerons) underwater and below the bridge but there is no such things as vanes unerwater... 3. This control system is working perfectly and is stabilizing the angle deck to a perfect horizontal in roll until quite big sea states. 4. Even if the system is not in use, or in a storm sea, the CDG is not changing into a cork, it's just more chalenging for our talented naval aviators but no big deal.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/30/2005 2:03:42 PM
I also disagree on matters of principle. Naval warfare isn't like land warfare. You can't compare the tradition of rough field service by the Russian land based arms to naval warfare. Carrier operations are particularly complex and dangerous. Deck operations are TREMENDOUSLY difficult. You're telling me a force with almost no sea time will match a Western CVN in efficiency? At least the CdG pilots KNOW what it's like to recover at night/choppy seas. The Russians don't even go to sea...they barely do any DAY traps.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/30/2005 5:44:40 PM
Clearly the battle posited is greatly impacted by who locates the opposing CVBG first. I have lost track over the years of the cability of Russian ocean survaillence satellites. What are the French capabilities in this area?
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   9/5/2005 3:23:31 PM
The Russians recently held exercises involving multiple launches from Baikonour after a nuclear exchange destroying sattelite capabities. Russians also have excellent intelligence moles and dont really need sattelites. They have human Marxist sattelites all over welcoming pseudosecular bourgeois Europe.
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:28:00 PM
Russians are geared toward nuclear conflict mainly. So we have to put this in the equation when looking at their ugly bare bone systems. Their migs look like flying skulls, any one notice?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:36:50 PM
>>>So we have to put this in the equation when looking at their ugly bare bone systems. Their migs look like flying skulls, any one notice?<<< ---I think I get your point but an example or two would do well for context. Thanks DA
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:57:46 PM
Comparing the Mig25 to the SR71, the former has no electronic, glass tubes, and its engine intakes are crude. In ramjet mode they simply shut the compressor and let the air bypass while it keeps wheeling. The SR71 has a lot of electronics, its intakes stick out in ramjet mode to shut the airflow to compressor and bypasses it around the engine directly to the exit. It also has a nice darthvador evil look. The mig's look is like beyond, like already out (or in?) of the grave or something. As for the criticism about the CDG's control system, it was made by a y kid from the naval division of French SupAero, affiliated with Michigan's AnnHarbor naval university division. Of course he was being y, liking to haze anything in his way, it is typical French Engineer thing to do. But he had no personal experience in the Navy, worked mostly with Aerospatial.
 
Quote    Reply

Francois    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric - VN   9/6/2005 4:23:19 AM
"As for the criticism about the CDG's control system, it was made by a y kid from the naval division of French SupAero, affiliated with Michigan's AnnHarbor naval university division. Of course he was being y, liking to haze anything in his way, it is typical French Engineer thing to do. But he had no personal experience in the Navy, worked mostly with Aerospatial. " I have no idea what you are smoking, but I want some!
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.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