Warfare Could a modern warship mangage simultanneous attack of 17 planes?

[Yevgeny]

I dont know who 'The Others' are but what I will say is your comment offered nothing to the discussion but fuel in the fire. You talk of trolls and yet every Russian comment, you jump all over. That is not cool or very intelligent mate. It has got to stop

Im afraid words not gonna help. What would help is infraction points.

 

[AAR Galileo]

@AAR Galileo
I understand your pov. I however never bought the ad leaflets of military hardware providers. The 100% interception is too optimistic for me. Attack missiles have also improved in term of speed, attack profile, decoys and stealth.
It s the eternal shield vs spear fight. A 50% to 75% of interception seems reasonable if not overly optimistic to me

That's why I wrote "on paper" but even when you have AA missile like the RIM-161 Std 3 or an ASTER 30 that can intercept Ballistic Missiles flying at more than Mach 5 (Black Sparrow) with a direct hit kill you can have some faith on the missile to intercept a fast (Mach 2+) ASu Missile. By the way, the ASTER family was developed with the Brahmos/Oniks characteristics in mind.

For the attack profile, well you have either slow missile sea skimming with pop-up capabilities or fast one (hypersonic) flying at 100 feet (or more) at least with no pop-up cap (the structural stress on the misisle body will be to much). There is rumor about subsonic flight then hyper attack mode for the 3M54T (SS-N-27 Sizzler family) but not confirmed.

For the decoys, when you see the path followed by the US, they develop the MALD family then add jammer and now they tested one with warhead. "If it has to fly like a missile, look like a missile, be smart as a missile then why not add a warhead?"
Who use aerial decoys, the list is short : USA.

Stealth, well there is not a lot of AsuM with stealth capability AGM-158(C), KEPD-350 and the stealth or low radar visibility features are located on the nose of the misisle, that why there is the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), an asset (eg F-35, F-15SH, E-2D, RPAS, ....) can locate the missile from the side or above and transmit the interception vector to a ship OTH with update of the info in real time.

The ship will always have some advantage, it size (more weapons, CM, radar, CWIS, decoys, ....) and the fact that she will always be in a shared networks of information.

On the simulation video I posted, we consider that it's a mission kill, the ship has no more reliable defense against an attack, he must return to a port to refill the Seaviper.

 

[Bombardier]

Im afraid words not gonna help. What would help is infraction points.

And you were right. prior to your message I was forced to issue a ban, we will not tolerate behaviour like that here

 

[Chazman]

You do realize USAF and USN lose dozens of aircrafts due to technical failures each year,

Sad but true. Especially after Obama's budget sequester. But that doesn't invalidate my comment on the Kuznetsov's Syrian operations, which were a disaster. It's remaining aircraft had to be moved and operated from the airbase at Latakia . And in fact, the Kuznetsov itself was nearly lost last year in a dry dock accident and it will take years, (if ever) before it is put back into service.

 

[Yevgeny]

Sad but true. Especially after Obama's budget sequester. But that doesn't invalidate my comment on the Kuznetsov's Syrian operations, which were a disaster. It's remaining aircraft had to be moved and operated from the airbase at Latakia . And in fact, the Kuznetsov itself was nearly lost last year in a dry dock accident and it will take years, (if ever) before it is put back into service.

Disaster for islamist militants maybe. Despite losing two aircrafts the airwing conducted 420 combat sorties hitting 1200+ enemy targets at the time of crucial battle for Aleppo. And they never operated from Latakia. Where did you get this information from?

 

[Chazman]

Desaster for islamist militants maybe. Despite losing two aircrafts the airwing conducted 420 combat sorties hitting 1200+ enemy targets at the time of crucial battle for Aleppo. And they never operated from Latakia. Where did you get this information from?

Various press sources.

Russian Aircraft Carrier Is Called Back as Part of Syrian Drawdown (Published 2017)

A senior general ordered the country’s only carrier to return home from the Mediterranean as Russia begins to pull its armed forces from the war in Syria.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Yevgeny]

Взлет без посадки – Мир – Коммерсантъ

РпонеделÑник ÐиниÑÑеÑÑÑво обоÑÐ¾Ð½Ñ Ð Ð¤ подÑвеÑдило поÑеÑÑ Ð¿Ð°Ð»Ñбного иÑÑÑебиÑÐµÐ»Ñ Ð¡Ñ-33, вÑодивÑего в ÑоÑÑав авиакÑÑла авианеÑÑÑего кÑейÑеÑа «ÐдмиÑал ÐÑзнеÑов», наÑодÑÑегоÑÑ Ñ Ð±ÐµÑегов...

www.kommersant.ru

Well Russian sources with the reference to MinOborony claimed that airwing might have been relocated to Latakia in case airfinisher would not be fixed. They never claimed it actually had been relocated to Latakia. The fact is by the end of December 2016 oppostion forces in Aleppo were completely crushed. In January 2017 Kuznetsov departed home. Perfect timing.

 

[Grazhdanochka]

Kuznetsov has Issues few doubt it. It does not make russian Naval Aviation, I emphasize aviation worse of in readiness, quality or else. It always mostly was based from shore anyway.

US Military losing more Aircraft also becomes complicated by fact you are comparing losses when one must compare as percentage of Fleet and of Sorties and Missions. The trick being that Parked Aircraft seldom crash.

Despite all of this you are becoming misdirected from main Topic

 

[Yevgeny]

Kuznetsov has Issues few doubt it. It does not make russian Naval Aviation, I emphasize aviation worse of in readiness, quality or else. It always mostly was based from shore anyway.

US Military losing more Aircraft also becomes complicated by fact you are comparing losses when one must compare as percentage of Fleet and of Sorties and Missions. The trick being that Parked Aircraft seldom crash.

Despite all of this you are becoming misdirected from main Topic

Thank you, Captain Obvious!