Future of the Admiral Kuzetsov and Naval PAK-FA?

Quite significant – still an important and the most survivable way to target OTH.

RORSATs?. I would have agreed until the US SM-3 shot a couple of years back. Now, closely netted, HALE UAV’s in volume I’d say offer the only real surviveable possibility.

And how was the technology dangerous and unreliable? That’s as dumb as saying the USSR couldn’t run a series of satellites.

The power systems were unreliable. After their 70-day lifespan they were intended to shoot the reactor section into an alleged ‘safe’ parking orbit before the rest of it came down. Operationally the problem was the relatively large quantity of debris that they ejected with the payload stayed in the same orbital plane causing significant hazard to follow on sats. That is not to mention the wider problem that at least 4 satellites reactor sections failed totally and didnt go up…..but came down. Only pure dumb luck saw those reactors miss populated areas. You find the concept of dumping 50lb of uranium on some unsuspecting populace an acceptable risk for the operation of the RORSAT’s?. If so I’m rather glad the politburo of the day saw things a bit differently!.

Anyway we are moving away from the basic point here which was that Legenda was intended to operate a pair of active satellites and a pair of passive ELINT birds as its system components. That was last achieved, IIRC, in 1986 and the last active radar bird flew in 1988. Legenda failed as a system, significantly, in 1986 and almost totally in 1988. ELINT is a method of tracking ships at sea but, unlike the RORSAT component, it is totally dependent on the target emitting on something recognisable. The RORSAT had no such limitation which was one major reason why it was there in the first place.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the USSR got real time coverage of the Falklands showdown via the Legenda system.

You did read that and Legenda did track the RN group. Apparently when the Task Group was on station in the south atlantic Legenda was able to follow them closing the islands and moving off until the seas got too heavy for uncluttered returns.

The concept worked Dionis I agree with that. The US are trying to do something similar with the concept at the moment with SBR. What I said was that Legenda flopped and it did. There were no RORSATs in orbit after 1988 and only half a system for two years preceeding that – where you say it flopped between 86-88 is academic.

Youre the one whining about an insignificant point pal!.

Quite significant – still an important and the most survivable way to target OTH.

Nice try to put a spin on it. Truth is the US-AM modernised variant was cancelled before the state collapsed because the whole technology was considered unreliable and potentially dangerous.

Liana being ‘more multipurpose’ is great but it’s not a RORSAT system is it?. Its an ELINT system with the same problems the US-P and -PM satellites had. So, not really a dependable ocean recon capability is it?. More multipurpose though!!

And how was the technology dangerous and unreliable? That’s as dumb as saying the USSR couldn’t run a series of satellites.

Pretty sure I read somewhere that the USSR got real time coverage of the Falklands showdown via the Legenda system.

Liana/Lotos was AFAIK designed to replace Legenda, yes.

There is funding going to a new generation of Russian SAR sats. The first one is supposed to be launched in 2012-2013. Its meant to be the Russian counterpart to the German SAR-LUPE.

The only working Russian satellites currently on orbit that could provide some targeting information about the location of a CBG are probably the few ELINT Tselina-2. The world has moved on and now its not the 1980s, Russia don’t really need 10s of low orbit satellites to spy on US CBG and they on the other hand have absolutely nothing to do in the North. Russia in my opinion will move slowly towards something a bit smaller than the Queen Elizabeth. Right now Kuznetsov’s main and only task is to soldier on, train carrier pilots and the fleet, and stay operational until new carriers are built. It’s a bit like the ISS – the merit is not that much on what is done on board the station but the very presense, organization, and experience gained from continued operations.

Absolutely agree with all of that. Russian naval doctrine now, as I understand it, is aimed to provide control and sovereignty protection over Russia’s EEZ and territorial claims. A couple of medium fleet carriers in the northern and far east fleets is certainly going to be of massive benefit in servicing that requirement.

Oh yes my whiskers are in pain! :rolleyes: (Not so much as yours due to the news from the last 6 months 😉 )

Youre the one whining about an insignificant point pal!.

The concept was certainly not a “flop” which is what you made it sound like. The US-A satellites were taken offline, likely to be replaced with a more reliable version. Then the USSR fell apart, go figure. Now, Liana/Lotos-S is taking over – and I believe the system is more multi-purpose. If it hasn’t already, considering these satellites are never fully identified upon launch.

Nice try to put a spin on it. Truth is the US-AM modernised variant was cancelled before the state collapsed because the whole technology was considered unreliable and potentially dangerous.

Liana being ‘more multipurpose’ is great but it’s not a RORSAT system is it?. Its an ELINT system with the same problems the US-P and -PM satellites had. So, not really a dependable ocean recon capability is it?. More multipurpose though!!

The only working Russian satellites currently on orbit that could provide some targeting information about the location of a CBG are probably the few ELINT Tselina-2. The world has moved on and now its not the 1980s, Russia don’t really need 10s of low orbit satellites to spy on US CBG and they on the other hand have absolutely nothing to do in the North. Russia in my opinion will move slowly towards something a bit smaller than the Queen Elizabeth. Right now Kuznetsov’s main and only task is to soldier on, train carrier pilots and the fleet, and stay operational until new carriers are built. It’s a bit like the ISS – the merit is not that much on what is done on board the station but the very presense, organization, and experience gained from continued operations.

I suppose it is a subjective term. To me though a system that spread radioactive debris across the north of Canada, the South Atlantic, just off the Japanese coast and all over low-earth orbit and is then discontinued because of its inability to operate safely cant be termed any other way than ‘flop’.

Apologies if that tweaks those sensitive little nationalistic whiskers of yours Dionis.

Oh yes my whiskers are in pain! :rolleyes: (Not so much as yours due to the news from the last 6 months 😉 )

The concept was certainly not a “flop” which is what you made it sound like. The US-A satellites were taken offline, likely to be replaced with a more reliable version. Then the USSR fell apart, go figure. Now, Liana/Lotos-S is taking over – and I believe the system is more multi-purpose. If it hasn’t already, considering these satellites are never fully identified upon launch.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

There is nothing to agree or disagree on here?. There is an objective truth at work….you made a statement that the Soviets wanted the same CATOBAR carriers that the US had. That statement is absolutely incorrect. Soviet naval doctrine as it was pursued had no place for them. The carriers they built served the function that they were designed to serve…..end of story. Whether US or French carriers were ‘better’ through greater flexibility, in this context, is utterly irrelevent.

Let’s remember that the Kuznetsov was to be followed by a Large Carrier equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Clearly, the former was a stepping stone to the latter.

No Scot that isnt clear because, despite the steam cats, Ul’Yanovsk wasnt a US style supercarrier either. The design was conceived to fulfill the same mission as the previous carriers – bluewater sea control/denial. Had Legenda and Mars-Passat worked there is every possibility that the evolution into Ul’Yanovsk would not have happened.

Yak-44 was being designed to provide sea control….not support naval strike missions ashore. Ul’Yanovsk’s waist cats were provided for the Yaks NOT the Sukhoi’s!. The carrier was still optimised to provide low-sortie rate, but, high endurance CAP sorties to form an outer air engagement zone backed with massed SAM defences in the group.

You must understand Scot that ship designs are not just plucked out of thin air or are mindlessly copied off others designs for the sake of having them. Ship design follows closely behind the doctrine of the service ordering the ship. USN carrier design follows US doctrine of engagement and forward presence. Soviet carrier designers had no brief to incorporate elements supporting those kinds of operations. They had a brief to build carriers that could provide a certain number of high-endurance CAP sorties at a certain radius from the carrier for a specific flying programme. They further had the requirement to make the carrier, always a HVU in itself, a very hard target to attack successfully. That the designers arrived at a 60k ton hull is nothing to do with carrier-envy of the USN it is down to the fact that they felt a 60k ton hull was necessary to get the job done.

I hope you get this now as I dont know if I can make it any clearer?.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

Let’s remember that the Kuznetsov was to be followed by a Large Carrier equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Clearly, the former was a stepping stone to the latter.

And as you’ve been told, more than once, the catapult was for AEW aircraft only, & it would also have had a ski-jump for launching its fighters. Their payload & range were thought adequate for their role, which did not include strike.

SU had the H.W Backfire for carrying out attack, they would have been better off stationing the CBG between Iceland-Norway, loaded with fighters & purely as AD protecting AWAC’s & Tu-22M doing their share.

Scot you are labouring an irrelevent point. Were the Soviet Air Defence/Heavy missile carriers as flexible as a Nimitz? No they weren’t. No-one contends that they were though.

This isnt a question about which doctrine was more flexible or more effective. You contended that the Soviets wanted CATOBAR fleet carriers. Well….they didn’t. They wanted the carriers they developed and for the purpose they developed them. In their single role they would, likely, have been very effective as closing the group would have been very difficult and the Flanker CAP plus deep MEZ would have made air attack a hard proposition.

Judging the ship against any other scale would be flawed…you might as well criticise a Nimitz for not being able to submerge!. You are criticising the ships for not being something they were never designed to be!.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree.

Let’s remember that the Kuznetsov was to be followed by a Large Carrier equipped with both Catapults and Arresting Gear. Clearly, the former was a stepping stone to the latter.

Naval Strike Aircraft are far more capable and flexible than Surface to Surface Missiles launched by Escorts. So, the point is why tie so much into a Carrier like the Kuznetsov that offers so little.

Respectfully, the Russian (i.e. Former USSR) Strategy for such Ships is hardly an effective one.

Scot you are labouring an irrelevent point. Were the Soviet Air Defence/Heavy missile carriers as flexible as a Nimitz? No they weren’t. No-one contends that they were though.

This isnt a question about which doctrine was more flexible or more effective. You contended that the Soviets wanted CATOBAR fleet carriers. Well….they didn’t. They wanted the carriers they developed and for the purpose they developed them. In their single role they would, likely, have been very effective as closing the group would have been very difficult and the Flanker CAP plus deep MEZ would have made air attack a hard proposition.

Judging the ship against any other scale would be flawed…you might as well criticise a Nimitz for not being able to submerge!. You are criticising the ships for not being something they were never designed to be!.

Moderator Message

That post was beyond painfully obvious. Thank you Scooter.

By the way, learn the name of the damn ship.

We’re not here to point out one another’s flaws – whether real or imagined, TR1.

Let’s have no more of it. That goes for everyone else, too.

Thanks

GA

Thats because you are looking at aircraft as the primary weapons system and not at the Soviet force package. Again, remember, Kuznetsov is not a Fleet Carrier in the western sense. You must shake off this idea that ‘its a big carrier therefore is like, and is used like, an American one’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Look at the group that would form around an early 90’s, non-USSR collapse, Kuznetsov. Close consort would be a Kirov, perhaps a pair of Slava’s, a couple of Kresta/Kara class cruisers and, say, 6 total Soveremenny/Udaloys.

Inside of the Flanker CAP, in that group, you have north of 350 area SAMs. I stopped counting SHORADS SAM’s at about 600!. You have 64 heavy AShM’s and, owing to them and jet/chopper radar, an ability to keep hostile surface vessels at least a good 200km away from the group. A few years later with Ul’Yanovsk and Yak-44 the Soviets may have finally been able to exploit a bit more of the range of those missiles.

As I said the Soviet group would be a very tough nut to crack without NATO assigning significant resources to the task. The assigning of those resources being, as I said, a victory in itself.

Naval Strike Aircraft are far more capable and flexible than Surface to Surface Missiles launched by Escorts. So, the point is why tie so much into a Carrier like the Kuznetsov that offers so little.

Respectfully, the Russian (i.e. Former USSR) Strategy for such Ships is hardly an effective one.

Yes, and far more capable than the Kuzetsov!

That post was beyond painfully obvious. Thank you Scooter.

By the way, learn the name of the damn ship.

The Russians had a Super Carrier hull in placed right before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was said to be Nuclear powered and have the capability to launch aircrafts via steam catapults. The design were there the technology was there but the money was not. The Ulyanovsk could had been a heavyweight force out at sea working along side the Kirov Battle Cruiser.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk

Yes, and far more capable than the Kuzetsov!

It also had a battery of anti-ship missiles & rather a lot of SAMS, & venturing within range of it would put you in a hot spot where SSNs & LRA patrol aircraft would be likely to find you.

You keep going on about flexibility, thus demonstrating that you haven’t got the point. She wasn’t designed to be flexible: she was designed to do a specific job well.

I get the point. Yet, that doesn’t make the ship effective nor cost worthy.

Is China really that reliant on orbital assets for targeting? I was under the impression that they don’t have many suitable satellites (SAR or ESM, rather than EO) anyway, so they would probably use OTH-SWs for coarse surveillance, followed by fixed wing reconnaissance for targeting.

At anti-access ranges they dont have that much in the fixed wing inventory that has any endurance on station. Agree that OTH is their likely cueing system but they will need something to classify, track and stay in one piece while calling in the shot!.

Additionally, by escalating the conflict to include ASAT warfare the US would expose itself to reciprocation – China has demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities after all. Since they arguably stand to lose more from such a move, the US may chose not to exercise that option unless absolutely critical and accept the VLS payload penalty in the meantime.

I’m not sure the US do have more to lose in that scenario. Fixed sites in China….the first to be reduced by TLAM/CALCM…like OTH radar, airbases, SOC’s, fixed air defence sites etc dont need targetting assistance from satellites. They are well mapped already. Against that Chinese satellite capability would very definitely be critical to the enabling of the access denial systems employed. Purely in the short term initial, naval force entry phase, of combat the Chinese would most definitely need space-based assets more than the US would.

The problem comes if an aggressor can develop the ability to unravel a key part of the anti-access weapons system. This is what the USN has done with SM-3. With the ability to engage opposing LEO imaging reconsats the ability of the ASBM shooter to target the aggressor ships, at the all important anti-access range, is jeopardised until a more surviveable platform can be fielded to ensure the viability of the weapon system and reinstate the threat posed by it.

Is China really that reliant on orbital assets for targeting? I was under the impression that they don’t have many suitable satellites (SAR or ESM, rather than EO) anyway, so they would probably use OTH-SWs for coarse surveillance, followed by fixed wing reconnaissance for targeting.

Additionally, by escalating the conflict to include ASAT warfare the US would expose itself to reciprocation – China has demonstrated anti-satellite capabilities after all. Since they arguably stand to lose more from such a move, the US may chose not to exercise that option unless absolutely critical and accept the VLS payload penalty in the meantime.

Deactivation of satellites —> flop is your personal and relatively baseless conclusion then.

All Russian military personnel who talk about the system never mention anything peculiar about it. This is the kind of stuff I know for a fact you pay no attention to because you have no Russian language capability.

I suppose it is a subjective term. To me though a system that spread radioactive debris across the north of Canada, the South Atlantic, just off the Japanese coast and all over low-earth orbit and is then discontinued because of its inability to operate safely cant be termed any other way than ‘flop’.

Apologies if that tweaks those sensitive little nationalistic whiskers of yours Dionis.