Admiral Kuznetzov class

[Salty Dog]

One aspect of the recent deployment observed was the use of Tu-160s for long range strike, and the Su-33 force able to provide close fighter support to those bombers at the point of attack. Due to the reach of the Russian naval aviation forces, I suspect Russia sees tremendous value in protecting its bomber force with forward deployed carrier based fighters, particularly in a land attack mission profiles against a lesser power.

From a strategic perspective, long range bomber sorties from Russia guarded at the point of attack by forward deployed CV aviation is an enormous capability, a capability beyond any nation in the world besides the United States. In my opinion, that advantage is hardly "less relevant in the current strategic environment", I see it as just the opposite given the difficulty of forward basing for Russia.

I wonder what the reasons were for the Su-33 escorting the Tu-160?

Could it be to develop interoperability capability? Is Russia concerned with the low number of Tu-160s in their inventory?

I feel it would be more difficult to defend a CVBG against just Tu-160s sneaking in, than Tu-160s with a Su-33 escort. Having the Su-33 operating anywhere is a tip off that Kusnetsov CV is in proximity which will raise the awareness level of a USN CVBG putting up an a more robust fleet air defense. The Kusnetsov with her SS-N-19 ASCMs will also surely call attention.

You will probably have DS SSN protecting the CVBG from SSGNs and a SSN shadowing the Kusnetsov.

 

[Chrom]

I wonder what the reasons were for the Su-33 escorting the Tu-160?

Could it be to develop interoperability capability? Is Russia concerned with the low number of Tu-160s in their inventory?

Not nessesary Tu-160. Tu-95 or for more close range strikes - Tu22M3 had more than enouth numbers.

I feel it would be more difficult to defend a CVBG against just Tu-160s sneaking in, than Tu-160s with a Su-33 escort. Having the Su-33 operating anywhere is a tip off that Kusnetsov CV is in proximity which will raise the awareness level of a USN CVBG putting up an a more robust fleet air defense. The Kusnetsov with her SS-N-19 ASCMs will also surely call attention.

USA Fleet air defence would be very hard pressed to intercept anything outside they operational range Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160 have VERY long-range missiles. Ofc, US CVBG fighters could try to intecept these missiles... but well... i dont think they manage it all.

 

[Salty Dog]

USA Fleet air defence would be very hard pressed to intercept anything outside they operational range Tu-95, Tu-22M3, Tu-160 have VERY long-range missiles. Ofc, US CVBG fighters could try to intecept these missiles... but well... i dont think they manage it all.

There are other factors to consider such as how many launch platforms, what range they will launch from, etc. The CVBG will adjust air defense coverage accordingly.

However, my comments were based on using the Su-33 as an escort to Tu-160s which implies a CV Kusnetsov in proximity.

 

[tphuang]

I'm not tuned into the improvements of ithe Su-33, maybe someone knows if the Russians can deploy the Su-33s in a ground attack? I'd guess if not, they have at least been working on it. My theory being, if the F-14D can, the next Su-33 will too some day.

su-33s can be upgraded if the Russians wanted. They are putting some of the latest upgrades onto su-27kub. But again, the Russians might find the cost prohibitive.

 

[Chrom]

There are other factors to consider such as how many launch platforms, what range they will launch from, etc. The CVBG will adjust air defense coverage accordingly.

However, my comments were based on using the Su-33 as an escort to Tu-160s which implies a CV Kusnetsov in proximity.

I very much doubt Tu-160 need any escort. Doesnt make much sence given huge range of Tu-160 cruise missile and (relative) small range of any carrier-based fighters.

As for how many launch platforms... 100+ Tu-95, + 300-400 Tu-22M, + possible "wolf packs" from 500+km away SSN's and missile cruisers... good luck intercepting that. And contrary to CBG's strategic bombers need only couple of hours to relocate from one end of Earth to another.

Adjusting air defence "accordingly"... one can do only so much. USA cant magicaly "adjust" AD to withstand thousands of highly capable AShM's at once. The selling point of USSR naval anti-CBG doctrine was very high range of AShM's, which allows attacking any target out of much danger.

 

[Chrom]

su-33s can be upgraded if the Russians wanted. They are putting some of the latest upgrades onto su-27kub. But again, the Russians might find the cost prohibitive.

Upgrading to SU-27SM/SM2 level would be fairly cheap and allow enouth multi-role capabilites. Then again, i doubt russians see Kuznezov as anything more than training and show asset.

 

[Galrahn]

Ozzy I don't disagree with what your saying, but the only way to build credible forward basing infrastructure is to bring something to the forward theater.

Russia can't afford the large CV, so they go with the next best thing. I still believe we will see the Su-33 with a ground attack capability, but probably not until they have more plane and pilots, and maybe not even until they can get India to pay for it.

The Tu-160s and Tu-95s are both undergoing modernizations, specific to payloads as far as I know, meaning they are slowly being moved from maritime strike and nuclear payloads so they will be able to deploy more conventional weapons like US strategic bombers do. This would give Russia credibility in ground attack for both intervention and deterrence.

As far as numbers of Tu-160s, people should be aware Russia has begun building them again, with full funding achieved last year. Russia produced 1 new Tu-160 and modernized 2 others last year, we'll have to watch for the production rate this year.

By the way, I can see a day in the future where Russia can refuel from tankers in a number of forward locations, if not establish bases. Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and Algeria make the short list. Won't happen without a credible Navy though, forward operations always begin at sea.

Salty Dog, I don't see a Russian fleet buildup intended to compete directly against the US Navy at sea, rather to offer a security alternative to the United States in emerging markets. By the way, keep in mind Russia is not only competiting for those markets against the US, rather they are also competing against China. If military sales to China continue to dry up, that will become more obvious.

 

[Chrom]

As far as numbers of Tu-160s, people should be aware Russia has begun building them again, with full funding achieved last year. Russia produced 1 new Tu-160 and modernized 2 others last year, we'll have to watch for the production rate this year.

.

As much as i know Tu-160 production line is ruined. The 2-3 recently "produced" Tu-160 were produced from unfinished hulls left from USSR times. Reopening the line is possible, but will require huge investment and time. So most likely Russia will just continue upgrading old Tu-160/Tu-22M3 / T-95, and produce new Su-34.

 

[Firehorse]

Where their ships/subs can't be, for any number of reasons, the long-range bombers will fill the gap!
The hyperlinked map showed ranges for all 3 types, unrefueled and refueled, from bases in Russia, and they would use both Naval and AF bombers if the situation warrants. The Russian article was talking about defending against ships armed with LACMs, using stand-off AShMs from 300-4500km away. If you look closely, only Southern Australia, NZ, Antarctica and most of S.America with waters around them won't be covered. BTW, the USAF B-52s & B-1Bs have also anti-ship mission capability.

The Associated Press has learned that U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers flying unusually close to an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend.
A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...3JSLAD8UOC0700

And if there aren't enough bombers, they could take some AN-124s , and/or Il-96T /Il-76MD/MFs and use them as ASh carriers, escorted by Su-30s & IL-78 tankers.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiQAecsvkk"]YouTube - Su-30mki + Su-27 + IL78 - Three together ![/ame]

IMO, Adm. K class isn't going to be built up in large numbers, if at all. Most likely they'll build smaller CVs similar or slightly larger than USN LHA/LHD/LHAs, and put STOVL fighters on them- no need for CATOBAR, and they can be built for le$$! Yak-141 didn't enter series production but could, perhaps in a smaller version, in the future, in a replay of Lavi/J-10 saga.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_di...0&tid=400&ct=4

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNjdTjk-pmg[/ame]

Even the USN extensively used land-based tankers & AWACSes to support carrier airwings- so could the Russians, if need be. The Pac/Ind Oceans are rimmed by many countries friendly to Russia that would permit, at the very least, if not staging, their overflights.

 

[nevidimka]

I think you've mistaken. I belive the Su 33 is to be used when the Tu160 is doing tactical strikes in lesser powered country. If the Tu160 is going to sink a carrier, its will probably sneak in at supersonicly n release its LAShM n get out quick.

 

[Firehorse]

IMO, in the exercises those Tu-160s were used as adversaries for the Adm. K CBG., not only as friendlies. That way, both ships & bombers practiced attacking & defending against each other. At the same time, I don't think that RFN CBGs will need persistent long-range bomber support nor the bombers will absolutely need carrier-based Su-33s to escort them. Both carry LACMs/AShMs and can operate independently.

Admin: Do not duplicate responses. You've already used this argument for the Kirov thread.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think you've mistaken. I belive the Su 33 is to be used when the Tu160 is doing tactical strikes in lesser powered country. If the Tu160 is going to sink a carrier, its will probably sneak in at supersonicly n release its LAShM n get out quick.

When attacking a CBG a Tu 160 or Tu 22 is going to use those those tactics fighter escort or not, ie high speed low altitude penitration. The fact is that a Tu XX is going ta have a very hard time sneaking up on a CBG because of the USAF/USN's sensor footprint. Organic coverage is huge to begin with becasue of 'round the clock E2C, which would pick up a bomber sized target at extreem range, practicaly as soon as it was above the horizon (at low altitude) so thats something like 400 km. But at a theater level the US OHR stuff is going to pick up these bomber packages much earlier. Therefore they will be either be intercepted in transit by land based air power or at the refeuled range of organic interceptors, probably before they even started their attack maneuvers. However haveing fighter cover in the late transit or point of action complicates things significantly for the USN. It cant send fighter packages out to have themselves a field day against un-escorted bombers, they have to engage fighters as the bomber packages are incomeing. It increases the survivability and probability of a kill for the ruskies, that is ofcource if the Kutzenov was not sunk by the USN before said action.

 

[Firehorse]

Good observation, but if they are to carry 4500km range AshMs and let them loose at that distance from the CSG, why would they even need escorts? I won't be surprised if those bombers are fitted with a few A2A missiles- they already have cannons for self-defense!


http://www.truveo.com/Tupolev-Tu160-Blackjack/id/592125620

http://www.truveo.com/Russian-navy-manuevers-December-2007/id/1623677045

 

[Todjaeger]

Good observation, but if they are to carry 4500km range AshMs and let them loose at that distance from the CSG, why would they even need escorts? I won't be surprised if those bombers are fitted with a few A2A missiles- they already have cannons for self-defense!


http://www.truveo.com/Tupolev-Tu160-Blackjack/id/592125620

http://www.truveo.com/Russian-navy-manuevers-December-2007/id/1623677045

There are several important factors that are being ignored by assumptions that aircraft carrying AShMs with a range of 4,500 km can carry out a standoff strike at that range. A range of 4,500 km is well outside the radar horizon of radar systems capable of delivering targetable information. That, coupled with the fact that ships are not stationary, means that the AShM would need some form of off-board supporting sensor system, as well as a comm/datalink system to deliver that targeting information from the sensor(s) to the AShM in-flight. Then there is the minor matter of having the sensor platforms evade detection or be otherwise safe from neutralization by the ships being targeted.

At this point I wish to make the observation that this thread is supposed to be a discussion of the Admiral Kuznetzov-class, as opposed to an exercise or discussion on how to conduct strikes vs. USN CVN/CBG/CTG etc al. There has been a great deal of discussion on that topic in threads like this one here, as well as here, and likely other older threads as well. To put it succinctly taking out a US carrier and/or the associated vessels is much easier said than done due to a combination of different capabilities and factors, such as US sensor footprint (organic and offboard), weapon systems, tactics and retaliation capabilities.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I won't be surprised if those bombers are fitted with a few A2A missiles- they already have cannons for self-defense!

There's a reason why modern bombers (and finalised in the early 70's) deleted gun barbettes, and that is that they could not reach a fighter before the fighter could reach it with its missiles. In 75-76 manned tailgunners ended up as BDA jockeys. In addition the weight of the barbette is counterproductive to getting height and starts to add unneccessary weight (which is important for manouvre as well as effecting bomb load) Unnecessary weight kills range, and range and altitude for bombers was king.

IIRC the last successful bomber kill of a fighter was a B-52 over Vietnam that killed 2 x Mig 21's. The North Vietnamese/Chinese/Russians never engaged gun-kill close from astern after that.

A fighter launched WVR missile (let alone BVR) has the advantage. Thats why tailgunners lost their jobs in the mid 70's.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Please note topic title as pointed out by Todjaeger:

Admiral Kuznetzov class

There is no need to respond to off topic posts at this point on. Any off topic responses will be deleted.

If an off topic comment is important, then start another thread.