The world's newest aircraft carriers

Given the E-2 Hawkeye is not stealthy, and even if it was the act detecting it would cause it to be detected and destroyed.

Regardless - there was a point to asking how far out the fighter can detect a plane. Your math also assumes a linear path. Meaning that if the Hawkeye is sitting out 300 km from the carrier and its radius of detection is 500 km from it. An enemy fighter flying in from an angle other than on a linear path would be closer to the Carrier prior to detection. The carrier would then need to have many Hawkeye's and a whole lot of aircraft protecting each one.

The range of the P-800 onyx anti ship missile is 400 miles. It is fired from a stealth plane which likely reduces the detection range but even if it didn't, and we assume a linear path, the fighter will close half the distance prior to being intercepted which puts it in range of the carrier.

In addition, the Russians could use the land based Kalibr cruise missiles (these travel slower but have a range of over 1000 miles). These missiles can also be fired from ships and subs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

We can imagine numerous scenario's ... all of them ugly. The Russians could fire salvos of these missiles coming from different directions. The larger ships have 24, smaller ships say 10. Not sure how many the subs have and they would also be fired from land. 10 missiles x 3 coming from 3 different directions would overwhelm the fighters trying to shoot these missiles down. The reality of "arithmetic" soon is realized as the fighters supply of missiles is depleted.

This leaves the Hawkeyes undefended with the fighters chasing down missiles the Russian fighters take out the hawkeye's and continue towards the carrier to within range of the really dangerous anti ship missiles travelling at Mach 3.

In addition you have the P-1000 Vulcan anti ship missile which flies at Mach 1.5-2.5 and have a range of up to 1000 km.

Then come the Ziron's - the latest "hypersonic" Russian anti ship ("carrier killer") missile which has a range of 600 miles and travels at Mach 6-8. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/russia-develops-mach-six-anti-ship-missile#gs.4b5j_Jo

A carrier only has roughly 40 super hornets. These were designed in the late 80's and first took flight in 1995 - over 20 years ago. Each can carry 6 air to air missiles. You are only going to have at max 20 planes in the area where the missiles are coming from. Even if every missile found its target (which is abject nonsense) that means at max it can intercept 120 missiles. More realistic is 40 - especially in the case of the faster Onyx and Vulcan variants. Russia can fire hundreds of missiles.

This also assumes that none of our planes get shot down which is beyond hubris. AA missile technology has advance along with anti ship missile technology. Not that the planes would have time to fight (or be in a good position to fight which is crucial) as they would be chasing missiles.

 

You understand that there are severe restrictions on the use of Sonar during peacetime by international law, yes?

 

Not True https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/1...rypton-missiles-to-cover-arctic-region_656033

And the Hawkeye's would not be around long.

 

Provide evidence for both claims por favor.

 

What stealth aircraft do the Russians have that can carry the Oniks internally?

 

The conventional attack on the carrier would not fail. Regardless, if you think the Russians are going to allow a sustained attack on "Mother Russia" without doing everything in its power to repel that attack ... you are dreaming.

 

And if you think they are going to immediately commit suicide unless they are taking WW2 level casualties, you are insane.

 

They do not need to use stealth aircraft. Nice cherry picking btw.

 

So why did you bring up stealth aircraft?

The Russians don’t have any stealth aircraft that can carry their anti-ship missiles internally. Carry them externally means throwing stealth away.

 

I did not say they would immediately go to nukes. The idea that a carrier, after attacking Russia, could survive the Russian conventional onslaught is laughable nonsense.

 

Yes you did. You said that if a conventional attack on a carrier failed, the Russians would immediately escalate to nuclear war. That’s idiotic.

 

They do not need stealth aircraft. That you dwell on a cherry picked side comment... despite my previous response (they do not need them) while ignoring the main thrust of the post shows how unable you are to defend your claim that a Carrier can survive.

 

1) you do not know what the Russians would do in the case of a failed Carrier attack.
2) what is idiotic is your claim that nuking carrier that was attacking Russia would escalate to full out nuclear war.
3) Once again you avoid the main thrust of the post which is that the Carrier would not survive the conventional attack.

 

And you keep conflating maximum range with effective range. Unless you are launching missiles blind, you aren’t going to launch an anti-ship Missile attack from a thousand miles away.

 

No military planner in the world is so ****ing stupid to go “Well we launched one attack and it failed. Let’s immediately escalate to nuclear strikes and open ourself to retaliatory strikes.”

 

You asked my opinion, I provided it. Opinion does not need proof but, you are obviously free to research the validity of it.

 

The "thousand miles away" claim is laughable nonsense. While it is possible for a carrier to conduct one strike from that distance, a strike from which almost none of the planes would return if that strike was conducted in an area that had air defenses, that is it.

Then the carrier would have to run away fast. There could be no sustained attack at a distance of 1000 miles. If a single strike was contemplated a long range bomber would make more sense.

The bottom line - our Carriers are obsolete in relation to an attack against the Russian homeland.

 

You keep wailing away on the basis of a hypothetical (and a strawman because this is not in relation to "one strike") because you can not deal with main thrust of the conversation is that an aircraft carrier is obsolete in relation an attack on the Russian homeland.

 

Air defenses would be the targets of Tomahawk strikes by the carrier’s escorting destroyers, cruisers, and subs.

A single strike with PGM doesn’t have to be sustained to be devastating.

 

Dude, do I have to link to the posts you’ve made where you are claiming that the Russians would nuke any carrier that survived a conventional strike?

 

What would be the point of hitting a small part of Russian air defenses with a Tomahawk strike ... and nothing further ?

So you figure that this objective is worth the cost of a carrier strike group ?

 

The claim was made on the basis of a sustained attack as has been stated numerous times to you now.

Your desperate attempt to avoid discussion of the central premise - that our carriers are obsolete in relation to a "sustained attack" on the Russian homeland ... is noticed.

 

Sigh...you really have zero military planning background at all do you?

The Tomahawk strike against the air defenses CLEARS THE WAY for the carrier strike. Taking out the entire Russian base at Murmansk would be worth such a strike.

 

You were the one claiming a single strike from 1000 miles. Now you are claiming a sustained attack which would require the carrier to be much closer.

So if not murmansk ... what is the target ? If it is inland the carrier group would have to be all that much closer. The range a Super Hornet is roughly 1000 miles and same for the tomahawks.

Further .. where is the evidence for this 1000 mile claim Mr. Military Planner

 

A carrier isn’t going to be used against an inland target in Russia. Land based aircraft would.