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
choig439    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please   2/2/2006 4:09:28 PM
You will never see a Victor out in open sea again, at least not as carrier support. Those subs are nowdays primarely used for crew training, and only 4 are left. Most likely the carrier will be supported by one Oscar and Akula class.
 
Quote    Reply

choig439    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/2/2006 4:18:48 PM
"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.)" The Akula II and Oscar II subs are very a good match to the French Rubis, believe me! And you are saying that they don't have any comperable underwater weapons to respond with. You realy dont know what you are talking about. Yes, true they have taken the 65-76 torpedo out of operational status, but they sill have several other 65cm torpedos in their arsenal, as well as 53 cm torps
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/2/2006 4:37:54 PM
"The Akula II and Oscar II subs are very a good match to the French Rubis, believe me! And you are saying that they don't have any comperable underwater weapons to respond with. You realy dont know what you are talking about. Yes, true they have taken the 65-76 torpedo out of operational status, but they sill have several other 65cm torpedos in their arsenal, as well as 53 cm torps" at a force on force level? the russians haven;t been able to run more than 2 fleet exercises in 12 years. the last one saw 60% of the fleet come home at reduced speed due to major equipment failures. as for subs - they've had some 30 destroyed over the last 24 months with another 20 sleighted for wrecking this year. out of their 14 north eastern ports all but 2-3 are closed due to either infrastructure failure or funding collapse. over 9 had unacceptable radiation levels - and that was measured by their own people - not just by canadian and japanese observors. they've build maybe 2 hulls in 7 years - and can barely maintain the remnants of their fleet. the chinese are using french sonar systems on their kilos as the russian export was not up to scratch. they might have some capability - but at a force on force and at a platform level - I'd be giving the acoustic management award to the french by a golden mile. I'd certainly be giving handling and driving awards to the french. they've got more sea time, and better engineering solutions. and I really don't think that a russ 53cm torpedo is any match for current euro offerings - not by a long shot. they'd give a Mk 50 a run for its money. If you look at how much processing power and how much data is stored on the onboard database of a Mk50 - then there is literally nothing that the Russians have that is remotely equiv. and I think I might know what I'm talking about... ;)
 
Quote    Reply

tianjinrob    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/7/2006 4:12:13 PM
Great info... now can someone tell me what happens when the Russians (decrepid or not) just park their fleet and shower their famed anti-shipping ordinance onto the French fleet (tactic originally intended for the US CBG). What do the French have to counter an offensive of that level? Thanks, TJrob
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/11/2006 10:41:53 PM
> Great info... now can someone > tell me what happens when the > Russians (decrepid or not) > just park their fleet and > shower their famed anti- > shipping ordinance onto > the French fleet (tactic > originally intended for > the US CBG). What do the > French have to counter > an offensive of that level? trob, Russia wins. The French would experience simultaneous ballistic missile, cruise missile and torpedo attacks concurrently with mass decoy and diversion probes, given the singular importance of the chief target, CDG. While this multi-layer sophisticated attack itself might achieve impressive results without more, the Russians would invariably include multiple nuclear warheads on their different delivery systems to ensure victory. The French do fine during pre-planned games, however, French systems never seem to hold it all together when faced with 3D holographic attacks of the sort which Russia would be expected to throw at them. CDG would be perceived by Russia as being the jewel in the French crown; consequently, Russia would be expected to pull-out all stops and utilize methods ordinarily reserved for American CBGs, like nukes. Russia wins, though on paper Russia?s fleet itself is incapable of meeting such a challenge on conventional terms alone. v^2
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/12/2006 3:09:50 PM
The French do fine during pre-planned games, however, French systems never seem to hold it all together when faced with 3D holographic attacks of the sort which Russia would be expected to throw at them. I forget, when was the last time the French navy were subjected to such an attack? How would the Russians target the French CV group with enough precision to launch a ballistic missile attack or in real time to launch one with tactical systems? What systems do the Russians even have with any kind of operational readiness that could do this? "Mass decoy and diversion probes"? With what? There are theoretically about 40 Backfires assigned to naval aviation, which to be generous means that less than 20 would be available for a raid. The French CV doesn't have enough fighters to deal with the kind of attack the USN was prepared to deal with in the 80s, but the Russians have no ability to mount that kind of attack today. The whole concept of stream raids of Backfires that Tianjinrob is alluding to is just not something the Russians could do any more. About the biggest threat the Russians present to even a French CV group is with submarines, and even then there are so few operational that it would take a great deal of luck to get one in a position to have an opportunity to threaten the carrier.
 
Quote    Reply

tianjinrob    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   2/13/2006 5:41:26 PM
Thanks for the response to the question guys. Although antiquated, I still believe that Russia has the technology in place to launch a saturation-style attack on a French CBG. IMHO it would only take one operational Oscar and a small (3 or 4) fleet of Sovermeny class destroyers with SS-N-22 (sunburn) to stand off and saturate the good old CDG. But then add to that a Kuznetsov with a small complement of planes to deliver cover and another dimention to the attack... I could be wrong, but I do think the Russians have the ability to saturate the French defences... what do you guys think? TJrob
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   3/21/2006 3:07:02 PM
I do not understand what this thread is all about to be honest . DA had a very bad idea to put a French CBG against an inexistant Russian equivalent IMHO . But just for the sake of a good laugh , I 'll bite . Let 's imagine that Russia can actually put anything to Sea in battle ready condition (first laugh) and stay at Sea for more than a week without heading back to Port (second laugh)and we have a possible Sea battle . Well , here is how things would go : #1 : Russian "Fleet" is spotted and tracked by French Sats . #2 : French CBG head for mid Atlantic to make sure that no Air assets from Russian ground bases are available , while we send a couple of Rubis against the Russian "Fleet" . #3 : Russian "Fleet" is sank , Rubis go back home and French CBG open few bottles of Champagne and Chirac send a fax to the kremlin asking them why in hell they made such a silly move . ********************************************* Same scenario , but this time without using the Rubis : #1 : same as first #1 #2 : same as second #2 , but without Rubis . #3 : French BGC keep an eye on the Russian "Fleet" while keep navigating South until the Russian run out of steam , or decide to go back home , or ask for the West to help to rescue their Ships stuck in the midle of the open Ocean . #4 : we still open the Champagne . **************************************** France decide to fight : CdD launch 10 Rafales and 12 Super Etendards , we shoot-down any SU crazy enough to take off from Kutz , we cripple their "Fleet" with Exocets and we land back without any loss . We open the Champagne ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please - USN-Mid   3/21/2006 3:32:49 PM
BW you got it all figured out! When do you make Admiral...;) I honestly dont know who would win. But I like both French and Russian fleets for different reasons. But you SA advantages are pretty clear in comparison. Hopefully enough to overcome the Russian firepower advantage.
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 2:04:00 AM
For the first time in awhile, I find gf's lack of knowledge somewhat striking, but I think some of it is time sensitive since this thread is old. Also I find understanding of Russian Naval tactics to be very weak per the explainations regarding how the Russian Navy would approach this type of scenario. Keep in mind, following the November 2004 exercise, Putin was pissed. Both the Petr Velikiy and the Admiral Kuznetsov were sent into the yard for repairs, and Putin himself was aboard in September 2005 (about the same time this thread was started actually) when the Admiral Kuznetsov went back to sea. On that deployment, both ships did well, but 1 pilot did crash a Su-33 due to what is called an airfinisher problem. Second, if major combat actions were to happen, both carriers have surge capacity for more aircraft, so you have to determine what would be available. The Charles de Gaulle is deployed right now with only 14 Super-Etendard and 8 Rafales, I think to shape the debate, we have to assume surge. Late last year, after the exercises the Kuznetsov air wing was announced. I am guessing at the CDG air wing, but if my sources are right the planes are operational. Charles de Gaulle 12 Rafale 18 Super-Etendard 8 Dauphin's 2 E-2C Admiral Kuznetsov 20 Su-33 2 KA-31LD Helix 18 KA-27PLO Helix 2 KA-27S Helix I think you have to factor in escorts as well. The French Navy deploys 1 SSN with the CdG every deployment. The Russians on the other hand deploy 1 SSN and 1 SSGN with the Kuznetsov, but additionally deploy 1 SSN and 1 SSGN with the Petr Velikiy, so the Russian Carrier Task Force would have considerably more submarines. On the other hand, the French would likely deploy more surface ships per doctrine. THe CdG task force for example is basically 4 destroyers, but additionally 2 FFGs are deployed in picket roles, because as GF pointed out, the French Navy have far superior C&C than the Russian Navy. Additionally you could expect a 2nd SSN with the FFG screen. French Forces: Charles de Gaulle CVN Cassard Class DDG F67 class DD F70 class DD F70 class DD La Fayette class FFG La Fayette class FFG Rubis class SSN Rubis class SSN Russian Forces: Admiral Kuznetsov CV Petr Velikiy BCGN Admiral Chabanenko DDG (Udaloy) Admiral Levchenko DDG (Udaloy Admiral Ushakov DDG (Sovremenny) Smolensk (SSGN Oscar II) Tomsk (SSGN Oscar II) Gepard (SSN Akula) Leopard (SSN Akula) I think it is a good fight. Questions people should ask is, how far out do you believe the CdG is going to be when it launches airstrikes? That is an important question, because you don't want to give up your position. I don't understand why no one pointed out the obvious. Given the ships listed, the Kuznetsov alone has more Anti-Air missiles than the entire French fleet. I think that is an important detail. The Kuznetsov carries 336 anti-air missiles and 28 anti-ship missiles. THe surface ships for France listed only carry 48 Exocet missiles combined, which means the Kuznetsov alone carries more than half of the total French fleet. Once you add in the rest of the escorts, not to mention the SSGNs it can get ugly. I think the scenario gives the Russian Navy every advantage in equipment, but the fact is, the French have every advantage in training and have the right stand off and detection capability to overcome that advantage. If you add up the tonage, it isn't even close. I also agree with DA, the Horizon class replacing the Cassard as the AAW ship would make a huge impact on this scenario. If you are the French, how far out do you deploy your La Fayette's for screen? If you are the Russians how far out do you deploy your subs? If you are the French, do you use your subs to strike enemy ships or subs? If you think about it, these are tough questions with complicated answers. The French have limited helicopters, but the Russians would have enormous helicopter ASW screens. Not to mention, Russian doctrine operating submarines with surface ships is doctrine that goes back decades, French doctrine using subs with a surface fleet, like the rest of the west including the US, is only about a decade old.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 1:19:19 PM
Galrahn , Russians have few problems : #1 :how are they going to find the French Fleet ? #2 :how are they going to aquire and maintain awareness around their "Fleet" ? #3 :how are they going to provide Air coverage ? French main concern : Russian Subs . Btw , your number of 48 Exocets is off the mark . If you include the ones onboard the Ships + the ones on Super Etendards + the ones onboard the Rubis , the total number is far greater . Of course , that doesn 't mean we are going to use the Exocets onboard the Ships/Subs ... Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Galrahn    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 2:31:55 PM
I did not include carrier air or sub missiles, the number is correct for just surface ships. #1 Not sure actually. Radar coverage for KA-27/31 only extends about 200km for "reliable" surface search, and it is unlikely the Russian surface search would be effective at that range against the La Fayette frigates. Given the max distance a KA-27/31 would be extended (which is only 50km out from the Carrier), your only talking about a max 250km ID zone around the Russian TF. #2 Maintain awareness? Not sure I follow, but the Russians shouldn't have much trouble keeping situational awareness out to 250km on the surface, the problem for them is that without Bears, they would be unable to achieve the same level of maritime surveillance as the French. I am assuming no land based assets for both countries, which makes it harder on the Russians who heavily rely on the Bear for maritime surveillance. #3 Combination of Su-33 and AA missiles should work just fine, particularly considering the Russians have a huge advantage in surface fired AA missiles. Russian Carrier doctrine deploys aircraft as intercepters in blue water, not as strike aircraft. In that role, they would be used as a CAP to keep helicopters off their submarines and able to engage fighters outside of Exocet firing range, which is only 70km. I think the Super Etendard trying to strike the Russian fleet would have a tough time against a Su-33 CAP, while the Rafale on the other hand would be more effective. The problem there is the Super Etendard has twice the range of the Rafale, so in order for the Rafale to engage in air-to-air, without refueling (from say Etendards), the CdG would probably have to be at least within 500km of the Russian Fleet. 500km would start cutting it close, because it makes detection much more likely, and if detection occurs, 1 Oscar II can game over this whole scenario pretty quickly. If you think about it, because the Exocet only has a range of 70km, the Russians have the advantage of 130km reliable coverage for surface search before an enemy ship is in firing range. For aircraft that would depend some on altitude, but the French would likely be at lower altitude, since the Pyotr Velikiy can engage high altitude targets at a range of over 100km, well before the plane could get close enough to shoot an Exocet. It really is a pretty interesting scenario if you think about it, because there is a great deal of complexity for both sides in organzing just 1 effective air strike against the other sides strike force while maintaining a 24/7 defensive CAP, never mind the challanges associated with reliable detection and targetting that would be needed for a surface to surface strike. The US Navy always went to sea during the Cold War with at least 24 interceptors and at least 24 strike aircraft. In this scenario, your only talking about 20-30 total interceptor/strike aircraft, so how many will be intereceptors, and how many will be strike? How many will be used for air refueling? What about ready reserve? Starting after the first 48 hours, reduce by about 1/3 to meet realism in terms of availablity due to maintaince required by operational tempo, and what your left with is a tough scenario that gets more difficult over time, particularly if one side or the other (or both) starts taking aircraft losses.
 
Quote    Reply

TDidier    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 3:30:43 PM
Just a correction, Rafale has twice the range of Super-Et not the reverse. Rafale is able to escort AND refuel a Super-Et strike. 600 km is a pretty reallist range for launching a strike as long CDG has a look at russian fleet since 300 more km due to E2-C and Lafayette + Rubis patrol. I think that a strike with 10 Super-Et with Exocet and AS-30L supported/protected by 6 Rafales is the maximum that french fleet is able to launch in one strike, keeping a good reserve onboard. Of course one rubis move immediatly to the Kutznetov as soon as it is localised... (if the mission is the Kutznetov, of course) For russian, without a Bear support they have no way to spot the french fleet from far away, only chance putting a SSN on the french fleet way, but...
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 3:59:35 PM
I am actually debating the following calls : Is France willing to set up a trap for the Russian Subs ? Is France willing to use 1 Rubis for Exocet launch followed by a direct Torpido attack ? I got an idea , but I need to check if it is feasible or not . (to be continued) Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings    RE:Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov    3/22/2006 4:08:12 PM
Btw , we exclude Nuclear strike as it would be too easy for France (the Super Etendard can launch ASMP Nuclear stand-off Missile) . Cheers .
 
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