Russian AEW?

[LoBlo]

Has anyone else noticed that there's no Russian version of the E2-Hawkeye ingame? Don't tell me that the Russian SAG tatics didn't use AEW aircraft... that would seem really reckless.

Does anyone know the RL AEW aircraft that the Russia Navy used, or it they even had one?

[ASWnut101]

No, they haven't had one at all. They don't have a carrier force like ours.

[PeriscopeDepth]

IIRC, they used AEW helicopters.

PD

[sonar732]

This was the closest one that I found for a Naval AEW to be utilized on Russian carriers.

An-71 Madcap (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/an-71.htm)

Three aircraft were built before the An-71 was cancelled in favor of the twin-turboprop Yak-44 [which was in turn cancelled in 1993].

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Actually, the Madcap was supposed to be land based. Apparently, the Mainstay was more for the PVO to patrol its northern borders (its relative lack of tracking ability won't be a big problem then). The Madcap was supposed to be for the VVS. Given their small size, I'm guessing they planned to produce a lot of them.

They tried toying around with the idea of making it sea-based for awhile, but decided that there was too much modification work to do and decided to go with a fresh plane called Yak-44 (a large E-2 lookalike). They were about to make a prototype and then the Soviet Union collapsed. Damn it...

[SeaQueen]

Don't tell me that the Russian SAG tatics didn't use AEW aircraft... that would seem really reckless.

Does anyone know the RL AEW aircraft that the Russia Navy used, or it they even had one?

The Soviets mostly relied upon land-based aircraft for supporting it's naval forces. They really hadn't tried to develop carrier based aviation until almost the fall of the Soviet Union. From a naval perspective, the Soviets were concerned with defending their coasts from attacks by American carrier battle groups and cruise missile carrying submarines, as well as preventing American amphibious ready groups from reaching striking distance. As a result, they really didn't expect their naval forces to be outside the reach of land-based aviation.

The Moscow and Kiev classes were helicopter carriers. They were more like European aircraft carriers, which is to say they were essentially like US LHDs, except they had more emphasis on the ASW role. Their fighters really didn't stand much of a chance against NATO aviation.

The Kuznetsov, in this sense should be looked at as an experimental design. They were definitely moving more in the direction of building US-style supercarriers, but ultimately it was a goal that was never realized.

[LoBlo]

That makes sense. Any strike group without a AEW system in place is going to be at a supreme disadvantage... especially if there main adversary tatics are based on carrier strikes. Does anyone know what the Russian land based AEW was then? I'm assuming somethings been developed that's equivalent to AWACs.

[ASWnut101]

I think it was a Il-76 that was modified to carry a large radome on its "back."

[PeriscopeDepth]

Seaborne, they certainly DID have AEW as I mentioned before:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-31.htm

Land based AEW:
Older, all phased out I believe - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/tu-126.htm
Current - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/a-50.htm

PD

[PeriscopeDepth]

And a picture, rotary AEW aircraft are weird lookin...

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits2-pages/moscow_2005_files/day_05_27.jpg

[ASWnut101]

I was thinking Airplanes...:-?

[LoBlo]

And a picture, rotary AEW aircraft are weird lookin...

http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/visits2-pages/moscow_2005_files/day_05_27.jpg

Weird setup no doubt. No has to wonder how its performance would stand up to an full radar-domed airplane. No doubt lack of altitude is a disadvantage. Both raw energy output to power the radar as well as onboard data processing power would be worsened as well.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The Soviets mostly relied upon land-based aircraft for supporting it's naval forces. They really hadn't tried to develop carrier based aviation until almost the fall of the Soviet Union. From a naval perspective, the Soviets were concerned with defending their coasts from attacks by American carrier battle groups and cruise missile carrying submarines, as well as preventing American amphibious ready groups from reaching striking distance. As a result, they really didn't expect their naval forces to be outside the reach of land-based aviation.
Actually, there were some attempts under in Grechko's era (late 60s, early 70s) to build an aircraft carrier (Project OREL and the like). Unfortunately for the Russian Navy, it is the buttend of the 5 Soviet services, so when Ustinov took over, he was pretty much against any conventional carrier.

According to the Japanese Wiki, it might have been because Ustinov thought they were "Imperialist offensive weapons" as per Stalin's opinon! Interesting theory, but as good as any because it couldn't have been based on logical thought. No one that saw Forger could seriously think it is any good as a carrier aircraft even if one assumes it worked!

Some of his wonderful logic were like this: The Navy proposes a 65000 ton carrier (twice downsized from Orel) with 2 steam catapults for 52 conventional aircraft. Ustinov screams and demands a smaller carrier using VTOL aircraft. So they cut 10000 tons, one catapult, and 6 aircraft off the new design. Ustinov screams no because combat coefficient dropped by 30%... Does he expect no loss from his size reduction proposals? Sigh...

[SeaQueen]

Some of his wonderful logic were like this: The Navy proposes a 65000 ton carrier (twice downsized from Orel) with 2 steam catapults for 52 conventional aircraft. Ustinov screams and demands a smaller carrier using VTOL aircraft. So they cut 10000 tons, one catapult, and 6 aircraft off the new design. Ustinov screams no because combat coefficient dropped by 30%... Does he expect no loss from his size reduction proposals? Sigh...

HA! It sounds like LCS with airplanes! :D

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Weird setup no doubt. No has to wonder how its performance would stand up to an full radar-domed airplane. No doubt lack of altitude is a disadvantage. Both raw energy output to power the radar as well as onboard data processing power would be worsened as well.

No details about the Sea King AEW, but the Ka-31 definitely is no comparison. Its estimated range against a fighter is only 100-150km. It can track 40 targets by itself. If it has to datalink (say to a ship's more powerful computers), that number drops to 20.

[XabbaRus]

From wikipedia so only as an initial source


he ASaC7 is a further upgrade of the AEW7, itself an upgraded version of the original Sea King AEW2A, which entered service as a result of the lessons learned during the Falklands War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War). A crash programme saw two Sea Kings (XV650 and XV704)modified and flying within eleven weeks. The first AEW2As were deployed to the South Atlantic soon after the Argentine surrender aboard the newly commissioned HMS Illustrious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Illustrious_%28R06%29). They successfully detected probes by Argentine aircraft at long range, possibly preventing further action between the protagonists. 13 Sea Kings were eventually modified. The main modification is the addition of the Thales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales_Group) Searchwater radar (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Searchwater_radar&action=edit) which is attached to the side of the fuselage on a swivel arm and protected by an inflatable dome. This allows the helicopter to lower the radar below the fuselage in flight and to raise it for landing. The Mark 7 models lack the redundant radome above the rear fuselage. The main role of the ASaC Sea King is detection of low flying attack aircraft. It also provides interception/attack control and over-the-horizon targeting for surface launched weapon systems. In comparison to older versions, the new radar enables the ASaC7 to simultaneously track 400 targets instead of the earlier 250 targets.

[Linton]

From the RN website:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.2373

[Kapitan]

They use AEW helos although they have had AEW planes think they had a bear converted at one point.

they dont put much reliance on carriers they are a submarine navy unlike the USN which is a carrier navy.

[SeaQueen]

..unlike the USN which is a carrier navy.

You know, in the past that was the case, but I think that's becomming less so. The reason carriers were so important in the past was the nuclear strike issue. They were as much a component of the nuclear triad as ballistic missiles and land based bombers.

I think in the present day and into the foreseeable future there's going to be more of a balance between carriers and amphibs. Carriers can provide CAS and a load of strike support, but amphibs go into the littoral, which means they go into harm's way, to put boots on the ground, which for all conceivable conflicts is at least as important as dropping lots of ordinance. Both CSGs and ESGs provide a whole lot of Tomahawk cruise missiles as well. In that sense, the two provide complimentary components and the Navy is starting to move more in that direction.

While the carriers definitely have more glamour at this point, I think amphibs are starting to become more and more prestigious. It's certainly the place to be if you want to see combat action. The last cruise missile shot at a US capital ship wasn't at a carrier, it was at an LPH (the Tripoli). Unlike carriers, which can stand off, amphibs need to get relatively close to land to do their thing, which means shore based ASCMs, mines, small boats and missile boats in addition to the usual threats.

[Kapitan]

Yes i agree with that sea queen with all the issues going on in 3rd world areas and some other areas an amphibious force is very nessasery and its america who has the biggest fleet of anphibs even though russia has a fair few the americans have more.

But in this day the russians dont realy need too many amphibs where would they use them?

[SeaQueen]

But in this day the russians dont realy need too many amphibs where would they use them?

I never argued that Russia needed more amphibs, just that in the US Navy amphibs are getting more prestigious, and before they were sort of the unwanted step children of the Navy. Now it's starting to become more balanced. The ultimate expression of that is the LPD-17. They wanted to put AEGIS style VLS tubes in it, for heaven's sake, and make it almost like a surface combattant! That's a big deal.

[Molon Labe]

It's certainly the place to be if you want to see combat action. The last cruise missile shot at a US capital ship wasn't at a carrier, it was at an LPH (the Tripoli). Unlike carriers, which can stand off, amphibs need to get relatively close to land to do their thing, which means shore based ASCMs, mines, small boats and missile boats in addition to the usual threats.
Okay, I hadn't heard of this. I tried googling it, and I'm getting hits for a mine strike on the Tripoli during ODS, as well as a Seersucker attack agains the Missouri which was shot down by the Gloucester (with 2 Sea Darts). But nothing about a missile on the Tripoli. Do you have any details? :D

[ASWnut101]

Maby she got it confused with the Stark, eh?;)

But yeah, I haven't heard of a missle stike on the Tripoli. Only a mine.

[SeaQueen]

Okay, I hadn't heard of this. I tried googling it, and I'm getting hits for a mine strike on the Tripoli during ODS, as well as a Seersucker attack agains the Missouri which was shot down by the Gloucester (with 2 Sea Darts). But nothing about a missile on the Tripoli. Do you have any details? :D

My mistake. Tripoli did hit a mine. The Iraqi shore-based ASCM range rings extended over their minefields. By the time they were siting mines, they were already well inside the missile's effective range, and they knew it. The goal was to conduct a diversionary assault on Faylakah Island, which was guarded by an Iraqi brigade. The Missouri, the Wisconsin and the Tripoli were all a part of the same group, along wiht the HMS Gloucester, HMS London, USS Princeton, some American minesweepers. The USS Tripoli was the formation's flagship and at the center of it. Two days after the task force came into the northern Persian Gulf, Silkworm batteries were trying to lock onto it. The next day, Tripoli and Princeton both hit mines. Tripoli, lucklily, was still afloat and it was a few days before Tripoli withdrew for repairs.

4 days later, two Silkworms were fired at Missouri (the new flagship after Tripoli was damaged) but whiffed. Two days after that the ships carrying a whole MEF were assembled, off Faylakah Island. A day after that Missouri was attacked again with a pair of Silkworm missiles. One malfunctioned, the second was intercepted by Gloucester.

The reason I had it in my head that it was Tripoli, was that Missouri had taken over her role as the flagship of the amphibious group.

[LoBlo]

You know, just thinking along the lines of AEW...

...the more one thinks about it, the more unlikely it seems that a Russian SAG could ever stand up to a American CVBG (unless the the Kunetsov was involved), even with AEW helos (though I'm still not convienced they have the raw power to discriminate low signal ASCMs well). Here's the scenario...

Russian Shipwreck missiles have a range of around 300-330nm. US F-18 figher/strikes have a operational radius of around 300nm and can carry 2-4 harpoon missile each (70nm range) giving them a striking range of around 370nm. So.. that being the case. A US CVBG launched strike, consisting of around 30 planes and including several dedicated jamming platforms, will fly in low below the horizon to reach strike range (70nm). If an AEW helo is aloft you jam it with dedicated jammers.

Now assuming the Russian SAG has the Grumble missile (active homing?) with around a 107nm radius, it will still be making blind shots at the incoming strike group (not having them on there own radar, just going by the jamming signal from the jammed AEW helo), which will give them poor pk. And that's assuming that the US strike group is flying in directly without misdirection tatics. The F-18 launch their 40+ harpoons at around 65nm (still well outside the horizon of the SAG radars), and bug out back to base with some lingering jammers to impeded the AEW helo's ability to pickup the incoming missiles.

So all that being done, the Russian SAG now has 40-80 incoming harpoons that show up on its horizon at 20nm and now the Russian anti-missile defenses have just over 2 minutes to down all the missiles (hard or soft kill)... and that's without the capability of an AEGIS system... not a scenario anyone would want to be in.

So...

... seems like without an opposing carrier (Kunetsov), the Russian tatics against CVSG have two and only two choices...
1. Only subs can go toe-to-toe with a CVBG, because without intercepting aircraft to meet the incoming strike group, the SAG is sunk.
2. Stay in your own waters, with land-based aircraft protection.

Seems like those are the only two options. There's just no way to protect a SAG adaquately without a carrier wing overhead. So in that case there's probably only limited advantage AEW capabilitiy for such a fleet anyway, because its small benefit without a strike wing to back it up. You'll have fore knowledge of what's coming in but still can't do anything about it until its on your doorstep.