Thoughts regarding "Admiral Kuznetsov" deployment to Syria...

[artik]

Plus that they have no AWACS and that is a very big limitation for Russian fighters, bigger than for ex American.

Actually they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31 it serves in 3 Navies: Russian, Indian and Chinese

In fact Indian Navy are very enthusiastic users of Ka-31.

I agree that helicopter is less efficient than classic plane based AWACS due to range/speed/loiter time limitations. On the other hand they can operate from any ship.

In any case not every carrier need to be Nimitz... When Invinsible sailed to south Atlantic, it hadn't even comparable capabilities to Kuznetsov or even smaller recent INS Vikramaditya.

[artik]

I think building a dedicated tanker, even that size, but hopefully larger than the S3 should be able to carry 15k+ gallons of fuel for offloading to strikers and fighters.

The problem with dedicated tankers is that they are big and when not in use do not provide any added value. US Navy in and airforces general move to multi-role aircraft so figher can do strikes and do refueling. No need for A-6 or special tanker when same aircraft can do all the jobs - it significantly simplifies logistics and makes the force much more flexible.

Consider - you need to bomb targets that do not have proper air-defences/air-forces so you need mostly striking capabilities with limiter air-to-air force. You can also come closer to the target and not needing air to air refueling in first place, on the other hand you can have strong air defenses with more limited striking capability fighting against capable opponent.

Finally - on of the most important uses of buddy refueling system ins't only to increase the range but also help planes in need that due to various reasons may run out of fueling before landing.

So... it isn't that simple. You always need to consider logistics and price you need to pay. Also any naval task group is dependent on a fleet of sea tankers to pump jet fuel to Nimitz class carriers that can't sustain long combat without refueling...

[Zimme83]

Actually they have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31 it serves in 3 Navies: Russian, Indian and Chinese

In fact Indian Navy are very enthusiastic users of Ka-31.

I agree that helicopter is less efficient than classic plane based AWACS due to range/speed/loiter time limitations. On the other hand they can operate from any ship.

In any case not every carrier need to be Nimitz... When Invinsible sailed to south Atlantic, it hadn't even comparable capabilities to Kuznetsov or even smaller recent INS Vikramaditya.

Ka-31 is very limited in its capabilities and it will be hard to use them to provide radar coverage over a combat zone, if Awacs are vulnerable to enemy fighters then the Ka-31...

Kuznetsov might work in a Falkland style conflict - if they can get the support ships it need. But Russias problem is that they need a Nimitz... They wants to be a superpower and then they need a full size carrier (or a few). Kuznetsov will not be enough against a more qualified enemy.

[Shuffler]

Ka-31 is very limited in its capabilities and it will be hard to use them to provide radar coverage over a combat zone, if Awacs are vulnerable to enemy fighters then the Ka-31...

Kuznetsov might work in a Falkland style conflict - if they can get the support ships it need. But Russias problem is that they need a Nimitz... They wants to be a superpower and then they need a full size carrier (or a few). Kuznetsov will not be enough against a more qualified enemy.

Wow.... How many tugs does it take to get it to the Falklands? Can the tugs refuel off the carrier?

[NatCigg]

Better fear him;  from what i read, the outcome of this war is to be decided  by "flying scrolls"/missiles  not boats.
Back in 90s during his first term, the orthodox communities identified him as the "the King of the North ", "the one who was ,won't be but will come again ", and wrotte about his  2nd term. There are churches in Russia worshipping him as a reincarnated saint.
He is immortal,  chosen  for a mission to stand against the Antichrist and destroy the Babylon.

(Image removed from quote.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/12052939/is-vladimir-putin-immortal-conspiracy-theory.html

flying scroll = computer guided missiles 

[Meatwad]

Paper aeroplanes

[Gman]

Artik most of that makes no sense.  If it did, why does the USN rely on land based tankers so much still? 

The problem with dedicated tankers is that they are big and when not in use do not provide any added value

No added value?  Considering that now the USN has to use UP strikers to perform tank duties, where as with a dedicated tanker force, those aircraft are now added to the strikers and fighters column.  There is a reason creating a CVN based tanker is a priority with the USN right now, even gone so far as to test the new UCAV as a dedicated tanker to free up strikers.  A single dedicated tanker would be able to do the job of a 4 ship or even 8 ship of buddy tankers.  A dedicated tanker isn't THAT big, no larger a deck footprint than what the AWACS birds would take up, plus as already stated, the current force structure of a carrier air wing is FAR smaller than what the ships can handle in the first place.

Your point that the strikers/tankers can do both jobs - actually, no they can't, not simultaneously, when they are set up for buddy refueling, they are doing THAT job, not striking, the USN doesn't task their SH set up with the buddy refuel tank to do strikes as well, THEN become a tanker - it's tasked as just a tanker, again, removing it from the strike capable aircraft at that time.  Yes, it can be used as a striker instead of a tanker just by configuring it so on deck, but then there wouldn't be ANY tankers available if that was done, and the entire point is that the SH/Hornet's range is pretty short for a striker, thus the need for tankers in the first place.



The SH is a fantastic strike fighter, however it IS very range limited.  Considering the range of land based anti ship weapons, and the range of anti ship fighters and strikers potential threats have, this is not very far, hence the huge use of buddy tankers.  Buddy tankers have NO advantage, it's all in the minus column, again, those SH aren't part of the strike force and then somehow magically become tankers to tank everyone on the way home.  It's one mission or the other.  Since there IS so much free space left in the air wing, why not use a dedicated fuel bird and free all those strikers up, as the range issue isn't going away for the SH unless some magic new propulsion system comes along. 

Range is of major importance - what makes the Russian carrier so poor - aside from the constant breakdowns, but in terms of theory - is that it's aircraft and strikers have such limited range due to the non-catobar ski jump deal.  The SU33 has to be downloaded in fuel and/or weapons just to get off the deck, the Mig29k is an improvement, but still has a range and payload that's even worse than the Superhornet. 

[Serenity]

Artik most of that makes no sense.  If it did, why does the USN rely on land based tankers so much still? 
No added value?  Considering that now the USN has to use UP strikers to perform tank duties, where as with a dedicated tanker force, those aircraft are now added to the strikers and fighters column.  There is a reason creating a CVN based tanker is a priority with the USN right now, even gone so far as to test the new UCAV as a dedicated tanker to free up strikers.  A single dedicated tanker would be able to do the job of a 4 ship or even 8 ship of buddy tankers.  A dedicated tanker isn't THAT big, no larger a deck footprint than what the AWACS birds would take up, plus as already stated, the current force structure of a carrier air wing is FAR smaller than what the ships can handle in the first place.

Your point that the strikers/tankers can do both jobs - actually, no they can't, not simultaneously, when they are set up for buddy refueling, they are doing THAT job, not striking, the USN doesn't task their SH set up with the buddy refuel tank to do strikes as well, THEN become a tanker - it's tasked as just a tanker, again, removing it from the strike capable aircraft at that time.  Yes, it can be used as a striker instead of a tanker just by configuring it so on deck, but then there wouldn't be ANY tankers available if that was done, and the entire point is that the SH/Hornet's range is pretty short for a striker, thus the need for tankers in the first place.



The SH is a fantastic strike fighter, however it IS very range limited.  Considering the range of land based anti ship weapons, and the range of anti ship fighters and strikers potential threats have, this is not very far, hence the huge use of buddy tankers.  Buddy tankers have NO advantage, it's all in the minus column, again, those SH aren't part of the strike force and then somehow magically become tankers to tank everyone on the way home.  It's one mission or the other.  Since there IS so much free space left in the air wing, why not use a dedicated fuel bird and free all those strikers up, as the range issue isn't going away for the SH unless some magic new propulsion system comes along. 

Range is of major importance - what makes the Russian carrier so poor - aside from the constant breakdowns, but in terms of theory - is that it's aircraft and strikers have such limited range due to the non-catobar ski jump deal.  The SU33 has to be downloaded in fuel and/or weapons just to get off the deck, the Mig29k is an improvement, but still has a range and payload that's even worse than the Superhornet.

Beat me to it!

[GScholz]

Or you could use that extra space to ad even more strike aircraft...

[Serenity]

Or you could use that extra space to ad even more strike aircraft...

We don't necessarily need MORE strike craft, what we need is fewer cycle hours on the pilots, airframes, and equipment. The UCAV is actually a GREAT option for our tanker.

[GScholz]

The Su-33 is being phased out in favor of the MiG-29K since the Su-33 production line closed with the collapse of the USSR and never reopened. Only about 35 were produced. It was more cost effective to just piggy back on the Indian order since they had already paid for opening the production line.

The SU-33 cannot take off with a full war load from the two forward launch positions. It can launch with full load from the aft launch position that uses the maximum amount of deck space. It can however launch from the forward two positions with enough fuel and weapons for scrambling fleet defense ops.

[Gman]

The Mig29k is a much better aircraft for a naval strike fighter on paper, no doubt, lots to read about the Indian navy and how they have used theirs.  If they ever build a catobar carrier they'll really be able to load that thing up too, even with the stobar method now they are much improved, yet still not able to lift what they can from land based or catobar systems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDqlAmJjsg

I'd not realized how much fuel that X47 UTanker (haha) UCAV can carry.  Empty weight is under 15k for that thing, and it can be launched off the deck at 47k - depending on how the internal bays are configured with tanks instead of weapons, that means a potential for a LOT of gas, easily 20k, but probably far more, no info out there on exactly how much, but it'll be a lot.  The tests worked out well too, I suppose with the basket method it's easier for the AI to do tanking than a probe method ever would be for the USAF.  Stealth tanker would be good for defense similar to what Artik pointed out too, that the SH buddy tankers could at least defend themselves/jettison/run, unlike a dedicated tanker.  Hard to find that X47 probably if it went L/O if it needed to.  I wonder if it'll happen, USN doing a limited run on X47 UTanks...

[artik]

@Gman

Several notes a6 and f18 tanker carry similar amount of fuel but 1/2 of old a3. So it isn't small tanker, also not the huge a3.

Now the flexibility isn't in same mission. Technically you can take a tanker for every strike aircraft or even do something crazy like Brits did on Falklands with Vulcan.

So you can create have either small or huge carrier fleet depending on needs and tradeoff the difference.

Now regarding limitations of STOBAR you are wrong it does allow high load takeoff. BTW stressing the airframe much less in comparison to tanker takeoff from catapult.

Look at this point in video you linked

https://youtu.be/rwDqlAmJjsg?t=253

[GScholz]

Yes, with the MiG's tremendous power to weight ratio, I would be very surprised if it couldn't take off with max load from the aft launch position.

[Rich46yo]

Yes, with the MiG's tremendous power to weight ratio, I would be very surprised if it couldn't take off with max load from the aft launch position.

(Image removed from quote.)

A thing thats pretty stressful to engines and airframes even under normal conditions without having to stress them further with maximum loads. Its not like the Russians need more hard flying on their engines in the first place. Isnt that one of the main reasons for the ski jump?