



---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 PM ----------





As you can see the Nimitz carries by far the most aircraft. Its important to note that none of the air-wings depicted represent the maximum capacity of the carrier. Simply put, large aircraft carriers are capable of accommodating and operating far more aircraft than is militarily necessary:Obviously the lack of strike-capable aircraft on the Admiral Kuznetsov is out of choice not capability, reflecting a completely different naval doctrine than the Americans. It is well within Russias means to upgrade the Su-33s to a similar standard to the Su-27SM, able to carry anti-ship, anti-radar and precision strike weapons and also enhance the air-air capability. A more likely event is for new-build Su-33s to enter service with a true multi-role capability. This is actually likely to happen in the next few years as the production line for the Su-33s will reopen following an order from China which will reduce costs for a piggy-back domestic order. At any rate if Russia does build more carriers (as they claim) then theyll need more Su-33s or an alternative. Sukhoi did develop a naval strike version of the Su-33 dubbed the Su-27KUB with a side-by-side seating arrangement similar to the Su-32 Fullback. This aircraft was described as a trainer but the interdiction suitability is obvious, although range and weapons load would be inhibited by the STOBAR (Short Take Off But Arrested Recovery) configuration.Another factor is that the Kuznetsov could easily handle another squadron of Su-33s.One curiosity is that I think it makes sense to illustrate the Kuznetsovs Granit missiles alongside the air wing for context. In the USSR naval doctrine the Kuznetsov was essentially just a cruiser capable of providing air defense and ASW aircraft to support a fleet centered around destroying NATO surface and submarine fleets. It was not intended for power projection as the Nimitzs multirole air-wing shows. The Granit missiles were almost the size of a jet fighter and more than capable of sinking any aircraft carrier, and half their support vessels at the same time, even with a near miss thanks to a 500kt tactical nuclear warhead. Its not clear whether the nuke was air-burst, in which case conventional CIWS would have been pointless, or impact fused like ordinary anti-ship missiles. Also, many of the Granits carried conventional warheads of 750kg in lieu of the nuke, enough to sink most ships including potentially a carrier depending on the circumstances of impact. For context thats more than triple the bang of a Harpoon. In the case of the 500kt nuke, thats over 2 million times a Harpoons bang(!!!!).Whilst Granit certainly wins on sheer power, its range sounds more impressive than it is. 625km is certainly a lot for a missile, but not that much compared to an aircraft. Therefore air-launched missiles allow the carrier to be further away from the target to launch an attack. The following very simplistic illustration shows relative distances for the Russian, US and French carriers respectively.Note that I used this website to calculate the radar horizons, assuming a target height of 30m.The Kuznetsov can launch from 625km away but needs a means of targeting the enemy. Because the radar horizon of the Kuznetsov is only about 52km, this must be done by other units. Targeting can be done by warships closer, intelligence sources, or aircraft. In the latter case a Tu-95 Bear reconnaissance aircraft is an obvious candidate. The range at which a Bear can detect a surface target will vary depending on its altitude (the globe is round!). Giving the Bear the benefit of the doubt this might be as far as 675km, although in a heavy electronic warfare environment this would be much shorter. Either way 675km is still well within the intercept range of US or French carrier fighters.It seems probable that a Granit could be shot down by the USs AEGIS system using Standard SM-2ER or SM-2MR missiles. And even if the missile penetrated closer in it has to get through the ESSM and RAM barriers. Id suggest that the Phalanx CIWS would be small comfort against a Granit. To maximize the chances of getting through multiple Granits would be used, hunting like a pack. Its claimed that the Granit can network together so that only one missile needs to pop-up for radar searches, thus reducing the detectability of the others in the pack. However, lets not forget that a near-miss with a 500kt nuclear weapon might not be enough.The regular shipboard anti-submarine helicopter of the Russian navy, the Ka-27 Helix, can be used for targeting. Although Kuznetsov carries 18 of these, they are too short ranged to target the Granit at its maximum range, and their own radars is likely to be quite weak meaning that the Helix probably has to penetrate the AEGIS screen to detect the carrier! Brave pilots!The USNs air-launched Harpoon missile gives the Nimitz extra reach, which is also true of the French AM-39 Exocet. The Exocet is an older missile, arguably the first of the modern breed of sea-skimming anti-ship missiles, but suffers from relatively short range due to its rocket motor. Coupled with the older and weaker radar on the Super-Etendard aircraft this leaves the launch aircraft extremely vulnerable to interception by aircraft or missiles because it needs to get relatively close to the target vessel. The Rafale can also carry the Exocet which will certainly be a more survivable proposition against a modern adversary, but for the moment the Rafale is primarily used for air defense.Another curiosity is that as whilst the Russians have neglected strike aircraft, they embark a massive fleet of anti-submarine aircraft; 18 vs 6 on the Nimitz. These helicopters are relatively short ranged (about 200km combat radius) but drastically increase the survivability of the carrier when faced with its true nemesis; the nuclear powered attack sub. In fact, Russia like France and US regularly deploys attack subs as the first line of defense of the carrier group.