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:CdG versus Kuz - Francois   8/10/2005 10:13:54 PM
If it makes you feel any better I do think the French have a better understanding and implemintation of carrier aviation. CdG is certainly the better of the two. But as you said, it all depends on who has the best strategy and leadership under fire.
 
Quote    Reply

boris the romanian    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - Phaid   8/11/2005 1:23:14 AM
"Well... The N-001 may be able to find gross terrain features on land for navigation, but a mountain or a 5,000 foot runway and its hangars on flat ground is a far cry from a moving ship surrounded by sea clutter." I would think that an aircraft carrier would be a lot easier to find via radar than a runway surrounded by typical Siberian ground clutter (i.e. trees, shrubs, , and a schittload of them). Note that N-001 does not have any software to automatically "select" possible contacts, this is all done manually by the pilot via the display. While this may hamper Flanker in littoral operations, a large runway-like contact on the high seas can only mean one thing. "All accounts I've ever seen of SU-27K / SU-33's with Kh-31 is that it's a nice display option but they have no way to target them, as their avionics fit is the same as the SU-27 Flanker B. Same thing with the Kh-41 mockup seen at static displays." IIRC, the Kh-31A needs only to "beam ride" for a fraction of its flight time in order to get on course. Beam riding is perfectly achievable by the missile when it is following the Flanker's lock on the large terrain feature (i.e. carrier). Once the inertial phase takes over, the Flanker is relieved of all guidance duties, and the missile flies autonomously to the general vicinity before the active radar takes over. Kh-31P is even simpler to launch (indiscriminately) as it can be tuned in to the Flanker's RWR. The seeker can be given a pre-launch frequency band and launched once the RWR has a source, though this is far more feasible at sea than over land. The pilot can decide when the missile is in range via the radar picture. A far cry from a Su-24 or Su-34 launched Kh-31P (or an F-16 launched HARM, for that matter), but it still works. "In any case, using Kh-41s is unlikely; the SU-33 already cannot take off from the Kuznetsov with a full fuel load no matter what its loadout, much less with a four and a half ton missile." I agree that Kh-41 operations are very unlikely indeed. But the Su-33 can operate from carriers with a full AA missile load and 8000kg of fuel, although it cannot land with such a load.
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier    RE:Why the French? To DarthxxX   8/11/2005 8:42:12 AM
From DarthA:"Good. But 1 Horizon vs several dozen ASMs? Oh and without Aster 30s? Good Luck. Maybe if you can hold out til 2006-2007 if the Russians are kind enough to allow it...;) link link Also with just one Horizon achieving saturation is a non issue." But CDG has Aster on board, 36 missiles (Aster 15/30), each LaFayette fregates can carry 16 Aster-15, if only Aster15 is used it give a first wall at 30 km (remember that Aster15 is able to contact his target and explode), then we have second line with Crotale at 10 km and a last one at 6 km with the Mistral/Sadral. Here is an excellent link about french naval forces ( better with IExplorer): link You can found,ASM able: 13 destroyers 10 (at least) corvettes. AA able (the destroyer are counted for ASM too): 4 destroyers 5 fregates (LaFayette if fitted with Aster-15) 1 Duquesne with Masurca 120 km range 2 Cassard with SM-1 50 km range 1 Forbin (Horizon) Aster-30... maybe. Ps: your links are about the terrestre Aster, naval Aster30 tests occured in 1997
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Why the French? TDidier   8/11/2005 1:03:00 PM
Thanks for the links. Aster seems very promising but the Aster 15 vs dozens of Supersoninc ASMs is a little weak. Your detection times are good but I would personally want more time to engage.
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier    RE:Why the French? DarthxxX   8/12/2005 9:39:18 AM
Russia has a lot of SSN but how much SS-N-27 (I gess) are one, two or three SSN able to launch simultaneously? I say SSN because I see no way for a surface ship to be close enougth to shoot. How much SSN would be sink during or just after the shooting? A lot of destroyers with a large fleet of anti-sub helos all around the CDG. The only way to shoot a carrier and have a chance to escape safely is to be just under him and shoot it with a torpedo. It is the tactic used by Rubis class during NATO exercises against US CBG. Hard to do for a heavy and fast but noisy SSN.
 
Quote    Reply

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
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