Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon May 08, 2017 7:10 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:..........................

    The main difference between small and big aircraft carriers is in the power (size) of the aircrafts that can carry, and in the amount of aircrafts that can carry.

    With small aircraft carriers, even with some people talking openly about helicopter carriers, the naval PAK-FA would be out of the game. Just what the US would love to see.

    The US policy about aircraft carriers is that only them need the big aircraft carriers. They allow not even to their allies to have them. But other countries do not agree. Russia between them.

    USA uses aircraft carriers to predominately engage land targets, not other aircraft carriers or ships. They have submarines for those. And that is why Russia has submarines. And submarines are best engaged by naval helicopters, not other submarines (unless you have to) because you risk higher losses if you fail.

    Helicopter is cheaper than submarine. Submarine or missiles are cheaper than aircraft carrier.

    And why should Russia sink insane amounts of money and, more importantly, time in building aircraft carriers when they already have much better tools at their disposal for dealing with hostile aircraft carriers?

    They have rock solid advantage in missile technology while they are at disadvantage in naval construction. Why should waste resources just so they could play with weaker hand?

    Why play by rules that favor opponent when you can play by ones that favor you?

    Let me put this in terms your 6 year old brain will be able to understand: You should never try to zerg-rush the Zerg.

    That's because there allies don't have what it takes to maintain them.

    The issue should be about better tools to handle hostile aircraft from said Carrier.
    The battles of the Pacific and the Mediterranean in WW2 are a good example, ships will be busy fighting ships, fending of aircraft at the same time will just weaken there weapons load, no matter how well armed the ship.

    No need for insults like that PD. Neutral
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon May 08, 2017 8:34 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    So, again :
    Are you agree about that three seawolf submarine cost as much as two nimitz carrier?

    YES or NO

    No.

    Good,we getting there.

    So , it means  that you don't agree one or both of the next informations:

    1. the cost of the Truman ( comissioned at the same time like the seawolf) was 4.5 billion $
    2. The cost of each seawolf was 3 billion $


    So, 1 or two or 1 and 2 ?

    Both of them are true.

    I doesn't agree with your stupid logic of 3 seawolf = 2 Nimitz. The price of Nimitz is 4.5 million + the price of the planes. So it's Something like 15 billion $ for each Nimitz. So it's 5 Seawolf = 1 Nimitz.

    Back to the topic, even for russian standards it will be the same logic even worse. They can't just build a carrier for the price of a single Akula. That's impossible. The fact that for a simple SSN, Yassen, which is a dev of Akula and Alpha, the price went from 1.6 to 3.0 billion proves that the cost of carrier will be huge because first it's costly, second they never build a carrier, third they will put lot of missile systems on it and that is very expensive, forth they couldn't build heli carrier but bought french mistral so R&D will cost lot, fith they will put naval Pak fa which will cost double the price a Mig-29K, six corruption, seven they also need to build facilities to build one of them ...

    You need to see the difference between you who calculate stupid things like " 3 seawolf = 2 Nimitz " and RuN which takes into acount all the parameters I said above and have to present it to the MoD, MoEconomy, Putin ...




    So, now you saying that the only reason why Russia doesn't has 100k aircraft carriers is because they can't make 72 aircraft for them?
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon May 08, 2017 8:38 pm

    Isos wrote:


    Their F-18 armed each one with 4 harpoons are a good tool against any surface ship ... Their fighters are made for everything from ground Attack to anti ship, arisuperiority, air defence... Every other ship is their to protect carriers. Subs are there to lunch cruise missiles and protect from enemy subs. There many exemples of US navy fighter attacking ship with harpoons, far less exemple of SSN destroying ships with torpedos.

    Modern defences against subs and torpedo make an attack by SSN very difficult, specially if their is some Udaloy deployed to protect the task force. While an helicopter would be found easily by an E-2 and destroyed by an F-18 if it goes far from it's own air defences. The only "free" thing in the battle would be the fighter because of its speed and the fact that it knows ennemy systems so it can stay at safe distance and lunch missiles.

    A potential Russian carrier for just air defence would totaly destroy the "liberty of the F-18s" and then US navy would have to engage its ships in a dangerous way, closer to the battlefield and closer to Russian or chinese missiles and defences. Then the advantage would be to the Russian missiles as they have variety of them and can coordinate lunch of modern low flying Oniks with subsonic Uran, kh-35, kh-31 and very high flying Kh-22 and anti radar missiles. The potential battle would occure near russian borders so they would also have support of the air force.

    However, the best way for attacking carriers is sub lunched missiles from a safe distance. Then you can still run to your base undetected and rearmed.

    The US navy using carriers and aircrafts NOT because that is the most effective or best way to counter the enemy, but because they have the industrial base build for this kind of stuff, and they tried to fit them to any new role.

    So, the simple fact they designated them / using them doesn't means that say against iran they will be usable.

    Actually it is true for any weapon system.

    No one know what should be the performance of the Tu-160,B-2,Onix, yassen , virginia or nimitz during real fight against similar enemy.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 4803
    Points : 4909
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon May 08, 2017 9:23 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:....................

    And why should Russia sink insane amounts of money and, more importantly, time in building aircraft carriers when they already have much better tools at their disposal for dealing with hostile aircraft carriers?

    They have rock solid advantage in missile technology while they are at disadvantage in naval construction. Why should waste resources just so they could play with weaker hand?

    Why play by rules that favor opponent when you can play by ones that favor you?

    Let me put this in terms your 6 year old brain will be able to understand: You should never try to zerg-rush the Zerg.

    That's because there allies don't have what it takes to maintain them.

    The issue should be about better tools to handle hostile aircraft from said Carrier.
    The battles of the Pacific and the Mediterranean in WW2 are a good example, ships will be busy fighting ships, fending of aircraft at the same time will just weaken there weapons load, no matter how well armed the ship.

    No need for insults like that PD. Neutral

    If Russian and US ships ever get into a shooting match it would be instantly forgotten due to events that would transpire 20-40 minutes later.

    As for insults, given the recent track record of that member, I'd say I was being gentle.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon May 08, 2017 9:30 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:If Russian and US ships ever get into a shooting match it would be instantly forgotten due to events that would transpire 20-40 minutes later.

    As for insults, given the recent track record of that member, I'd say I was being gentle.

    Perhaps, but there ships would be at the bottom of the ocean as well.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1234
    Points : 1259
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Mon May 08, 2017 9:36 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:..........................

    The main difference between small and big aircraft carriers is in the power (size) of the aircrafts that can carry, and in the amount of aircrafts that can carry.

    With small aircraft carriers, even with some people talking openly about helicopter carriers, the naval PAK-FA would be out of the game. Just what the US would love to see.

    The US policy about aircraft carriers is that only them need the big aircraft carriers. They allow not even to their allies to have them. But other countries do not agree. Russia between them.

    USA uses aircraft carriers to predominately engage land targets, not other aircraft carriers or ships. They have submarines for those. And that is why Russia has submarines. And submarines are best engaged by naval helicopters, not other submarines (unless you have to) because you risk higher losses if you fail.

    Helicopter is cheaper than submarine. Submarine or missiles are cheaper than aircraft carrier.

    And why should Russia sink insane amounts of money and, more importantly, time in building aircraft carriers when they already have much better tools at their disposal for dealing with hostile aircraft carriers?

    They have rock solid advantage in missile technology while they are at disadvantage in naval construction. Why should waste resources just so they could play with weaker hand?

    Why play by rules that favor opponent when you can play by ones that favor you?

    Let me put this in terms your 6 year old brain will be able to understand: You should never try to zerg-rush the Zerg.

    That's because there allies don't have what it takes to maintain them.

    The issue should be about better tools to handle hostile aircraft from said Carrier.
    The battles of the Pacific and the Mediterranean in WW2 are a good example, ships will be busy fighting ships, fending of aircraft at the same time will just weaken there weapons load, no matter how well armed the ship.

    No need for insults like that PD. Neutral

    Nothing better to expect from someone like PapaDragon

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5587p650-syrian-civil-war-news-12#193297

    PapaDragon wrote:This is Iranian back yard and they are the ones who should be doing heavy lifting here. Instead they sit with their thumbs up their asses and expect to just swoop in once everything is over and assert influence.

    Those assholes even want to setup naval base between Tartus and Latakia. They think it will keep them safe from Israel. Hopefully Russia will give IAF [Israel Air Force] all clear signal to level those dicks at first available opportunity.

    Honestly I can't wait for USA to storm into Iran and turn that rat's nest into another Somalia/Iraq/Yemen.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5587p675-syrian-civil-war-news-12#193372

    PapaDragon wrote:So when those "forces of sanity" get roasted by Uncle Sam I will crack open another soda and enjoy the show.

    I enjoyed Afghan war, I enjoyed Iraq war, I enjoyed Libyan war, I enjoy Syria quite a lot and in will definitely enjoy when Iran gets bled like a big juicy pig.

    And so much more to come. But I thought that I will have to wait several decades before karma kicks in. Instead it was instant. Good times.

    Enough to see what this man really cares about. And obviously is not about the Russian Navy.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Mon May 08, 2017 9:48 pm

    So, now you saying that the only reason why Russia doesn't has 100k aircraft carriers is because they can't make 72 aircraft for them?

    I said that your maths are stupid and proved it. If you have no more arguments don't talk bullshit and don't make me say what I didn't say.



    The US navy using carriers and aircrafts NOT because that is the most effective or best way to counter the enemy, but because they have the industrial base build for this kind of stuff, and they tried to fit them to any new role.

    So, the simple fact they designated them / using them doesn't means that say against iran they will be usable.

    Actually it is true for any weapon system.

    No one know what should be the performance of the Tu-160,B-2,Onix, yassen , virginia or nimitz during real fight against similar enemy.

    They have industrial base build for this kind of stuff because they use them because they think it's the best stuff. Are you stupid ? do you think they invest 600 million every year on Something outdated ?

    What would be usable against Iran if 10 super carriers are not ??? 1 Yassen ? 10 mini boat armed with 2 chinese missiles each one ??

    What simiar ennemy does US have ? 0 they have more carrier than russia has big ships. They have more destroyers and cruisers than russia has corvettes.

    Iran uses disymetric warefare. They have 20 fighters from cold war era, mini subs that have 70 km range and local made torpedos, small corvettes (these corvette were succesfully destroyed by US in Lybia and during iran iraq war), speed boat armed with small guns. The only thing that can be a threat to US is the 3 kilo they have.

    If US starts a war against Iran they will send 3 battlegroup and destroy from the air all the iranian military equipement, bases, industrial area in a couple days. Iran can't do anything, just lunch some scud on Israel. That's the same with north Korea.

    You have 0 argument. You pretend to know things but you don't know basic physics laws. That's pathetic.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon May 08, 2017 10:04 pm

    Isos wrote:

    I said that your maths are stupid and proved it. If you have no more arguments don't talk bullshit and don't make me say what I didn't say.


    C1mon , you agree about that the Russian shipbuilding industry can simply pump out nimitz class carriers as fast as yassens.

    That is it, from that point the capability of russia to make carriers is not questioned, all that prevent them to make them is the military doctrine / priority.

    Thanks for your support, the issues settled.
    Isos wrote:


    They have industrial base build for this kind of stuff because they use them because they think it's the best stuff. Are you stupid ? do you think they invest 600 million every year on Something outdated ?
    it is somewhere between 50-100 billion
    Isos wrote:

    What would be usable against Iran if 10 super carriers are not ??? 1 Yassen ? 10 mini boat armed with 2 chinese missiles each one ??
    maybe 3 million soldier.But I don't know , and you don't know as well. Actually the US military doesn't know it as well.
    Isos wrote:
    What simiar ennemy does US have ? 0 they have more carrier than russia has big ships. They have more destroyers and cruisers than russia has corvettes.
    and they has one thousand more area and interest to protect on the sea than russia . So?
    Isos wrote:
    Iran uses disymetric warefare. They have 20 fighters from cold war era, mini subs that have 70 km range and local made torpedos, small corvettes (these corvette were succesfully destroyed by US in Lybia and during iran iraq war), speed boat armed with small guns. The only thing that can be a threat to US is the 3 kilo they have.
    Iran is the only country in middle east (and maybe in Africa) with any industrial base.And at the end of the day that counts.
    Isos wrote:
    If US starts a war against Iran they will send 3 battlegroup and destroy from the air all the iranian military equipement, bases, industrial area in a couple days. Iran can't do anything, just lunch some scud on Israel. That's the same with north Korea.
    then why they don't do that ?
    Isos wrote:
    You have 0 argument. You pretend to know things but you don't know basic physics laws. That's pathetic.

    Maybe you miss the point.

    The US is not making this weapons because they are proven stuff in the modern warfare , but because the momentum of the military/industry.

    Maybe they are useful, but you can't forget that prior of the 2nd world war everyone thought that the cavaliers are very good idea, and it took only five real minutes to wake up from that dream.


    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1314
    Points : 1321
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon May 08, 2017 10:14 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:If Russian and US ships ever get into a shooting match it would be instantly forgotten due to events that would transpire 20-40 minutes later.

    As for insults, given the recent track record of that member, I'd say I was being gentle.

    Perhaps, but there ships would be at the bottom of the ocean as well.

    Update: Russian ships.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 4803
    Points : 4909
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon May 08, 2017 10:37 pm

    eehnie wrote:................

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5587p650-syrian-civil-war-news-12#193297

    PapaDragon wrote:This is Iranian back yard and they are the ones who should be doing heavy lifting here. Instead they sit with their thumbs up their asses and expect to just swoop in once everything is over and assert influence.

    Those assholes even want to setup naval base between Tartus and Latakia. They think it will keep them safe from Israel. Hopefully Russia will give IAF [Israel Air Force] all clear signal to level those dicks at first available opportunity.

    Honestly I can't wait for USA to storm into Iran and turn that rat's nest into another Somalia/Iraq/Yemen.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t5587p675-syrian-civil-war-news-12#193372

    PapaDragon wrote:So when those "forces of sanity" get roasted by Uncle Sam I will crack open another soda and enjoy the show.

    I enjoyed Afghan war, I enjoyed Iraq war, I enjoyed Libyan war, I enjoy Syria quite a lot and in will definitely enjoy when Iran gets bled like a big juicy pig.

    And so much more to come. But I thought that I will have to wait several decades before karma kicks in. Instead it was instant. Good times.

    .

    Quoted for the truth
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Mon May 08, 2017 10:48 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    I said that your maths are stupid and proved it. If you have no more arguments don't talk bullshit and don't make me say what I didn't say.


    C1mon , you agree about that the Russian shipbuilding industry can simply pump out nimitz class carriers as fast as yassens.

    That is it, from that point the capability of russia to make carriers is not questioned, all that prevent them to make them is the military doctrine / priority.

    Thanks for your support, the issues settled.
    Isos wrote:


    They have industrial base build for this kind of stuff because they use them because they think it's the best stuff. Are you stupid ? do you think they invest 600 million every year on Something outdated ?
    it is somewhere between 50-100 billion
    Isos wrote:

    What would be usable against Iran if 10 super carriers are not ??? 1 Yassen ? 10 mini boat armed with 2 chinese missiles each one ??
    maybe 3 million soldier.But I don't  know , and you don't know as well. Actually the US military doesn't know it as well.
    Isos wrote:
    What simiar ennemy does US have ? 0 they have more carrier than russia has big ships. They have more destroyers and cruisers than russia has corvettes.
    and they has one thousand more area and interest to protect on the sea than russia . So?
    Isos wrote:
    Iran uses disymetric warefare. They have 20 fighters from cold war era, mini subs that have 70 km range and local made torpedos, small corvettes (these corvette were succesfully destroyed by US in Lybia and during iran iraq war), speed boat armed with small guns. The only thing that can be a threat to US is the 3 kilo they have.
    Iran is the only country in middle east (and maybe in Africa) with any industrial base.And at the end of the day that counts.
    Isos wrote:
    If US starts a war against Iran they will send 3 battlegroup and destroy from the air all the iranian military equipement, bases, industrial area in a couple days. Iran can't do anything, just lunch some scud on Israel. That's the same with north Korea.
    then why they don't do that ?
    Isos wrote:
    You have 0 argument. You pretend to know things but you don't know basic physics laws. That's pathetic.

    Maybe you miss the point.

    The US is not making this weapons because they are proven stuff in the modern warfare , but because the momentum of the military/industry.

    Maybe they are useful, but you can't forget that prior of the 2nd world war everyone thought that the cavaliers are very good idea, and it took only five real  minutes to wake up from that dream.



    I'm done. You are weird. I don't know how to answer to you, you just invent stupid things that I didn't say. The point I wanted to make clear is that you calculs of 1 carrier = 1 SSN are totaly stupid. So I hope you get it. I can't help you more, try with Militarov or some mods, or a psy. Maybe they can teach you Something. bye
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon May 08, 2017 11:32 pm

    Isos wrote:

    I'm done. You are weird. I don't know how to answer to you, you just invent stupid things that I didn't say. The point I wanted to make clear is that you calculs of 1 carrier = 1 SSN are totaly stupid. So I hope you get it. I can't help you more, try with Militarov or some mods, or a psy. Maybe they can teach you Something. bye

    I reprhrase:

    You need only 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine.


    Simple,isn't it?

    If you accept the above then all it needs is a reason why to make a carrier ,and capacity to make aircrafts for it.

    Russia now has the first , and allways had the second.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Mon May 08, 2017 11:38 pm

    I think many person has false idea about that how a submarine fight against a ship.

    The CCCP military never considered the torpedoes as a weapon against surface ships, they allways considered the rockets as main weapons against them.

    The torpedo is good against enemy submarines only.

    The surface ship can be spoted by towed sonar from hundreds of kilometers, and can be killed by supersonic anti ship missiles.

    And it is extremly hard to spot this kind of submarines with any sensor that the US (or russian) navy posses.

    Supporting data>

    lack of topredo developent in the CCCP
    extremly high resources spent for asm development
    design of the oscar submarines
    physical characteristic of the sofar chanel
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Thu May 11, 2017 8:07 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:I think many person has false idea about that how a submarine fight against a ship.

    The CCCP military never considered the torpedoes as a weapon against surface ships, they allways considered the rockets as main weapons against them.

    The torpedo is good against enemy submarines only.

    The surface ship can be spoted by towed sonar from hundreds of kilometers, and can be killed by supersonic anti ship missiles.

    And it is extremly hard to spot this kind of submarines with any sensor that the US (or russian) navy posses.

    Supporting data>

    lack of topredo developent in the CCCP
    extremly high resources spent for asm development
    design of the oscar submarines
    physical  characteristic of the sofar chanel

    Lack of torpedo development? I have to disagree there, and alot. VA-111 "Shkval" was early 80s child, UGST was to enter service in early 90s and was developed during 80s, USET-80 was introduced in 80s... APR-3 was also late USSR development, APR-3 was also supposed to enter service in early 90s. All of those are projects that started in 80s.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 10:35 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:I think many person has false idea about that how a submarine fight against a ship.

    The CCCP military never considered the torpedoes as a weapon against surface ships, they allways considered the rockets as main weapons against them.

    The torpedo is good against enemy submarines only.

    The surface ship can be spoted by towed sonar from hundreds of kilometers, and can be killed by supersonic anti ship missiles.

    And it is extremly hard to spot this kind of submarines with any sensor that the US (or russian) navy posses.

    Supporting data>

    lack of topredo developent in the CCCP
    extremly high resources spent for asm development
    design of the oscar submarines
    physical  characteristic of the sofar chanel

    Lack of torpedo development? I have to disagree there, and alot. VA-111 "Shkval" was early 80s child, UGST was to enter service in early 90s and was developed during 80s, USET-80 was introduced in 80s... APR-3 was also late USSR development, APR-3 was also supposed to enter service in early 90s. All of those are projects that started in 80s.

    The production today is very low according to some sources.

    @Singular_transform Again you are talking BS. With the salvo of missiles, the subs had to fire their 650mm long range torpedos against carrier group during cold war. Torpedos are more dangerous than missile in case of a hit as one even small one can destroy the ship, while a missile hit against a big ship doesn't mean it will destroy it.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 11, 2017 10:37 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Lack of torpedo development? I have to disagree there, and alot. VA-111 "Shkval" was early 80s child, UGST was to enter service in early 90s and was developed during 80s, USET-80 was introduced in 80s... APR-3 was also late USSR development, APR-3 was also supposed to enter service in early 90s. All of those are projects that started in 80s.


    Compared to the ASM these stuff these torpedoes best at par on the US counterparts.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 10:42 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    I'm done. You are weird. I don't know how to answer to you, you just invent stupid things that I didn't say. The point I wanted to make clear is that you calculs of 1 carrier = 1 SSN are totaly stupid. So I hope you get it. I can't help you more, try with Militarov or some mods, or a psy. Maybe they can teach you Something. bye

    I reprhrase:

    You need only 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine.


    Simple,isn't it?

    If you accept the above then all it needs is a reason why to make a carrier ,and capacity to make aircrafts for it.

    Russia now has the first , and allways had the second.

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?

    edit: it's not "industrial resources" but "money". With 50% more industrial resources you can build a ship of 15K not 100k.


    Last edited by Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 11, 2017 10:42 pm

    Isos wrote:

    The production today is very low according to some sources.

    @Singular_transform Again you are talking BS. With the salvo of missiles, the subs had to fire their 650mm long range torpedos against carrier group during cold war. Torpedos are more dangerous than missile in case of a hit as one even small one can destroy the ship, while a missile hit against a big ship doesn't mean it will destroy it.


    They have to attack with every weapons in the shortest period of time, before they have chance to limp back to the base with the damaged ships.



    So the Oscars attack from 100 kms with the ASMs, after they go get closer and sink the survivor ships with 2-6 torpedoes detonated underneath the ship.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 11, 2017 10:45 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 11:04 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 429
    Points : 429
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu May 11, 2017 11:12 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5487
    Points : 5532
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Thu May 11, 2017 11:18 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Russia atm lacks even full fighter wing for Kuz.. fyi...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 727
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu May 11, 2017 11:35 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

    I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

    But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 964
    Points : 964
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:12 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

    Why don't you accept that ?


    the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

    Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

    However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.

    Russia atm lacks even full fighter wing for Kuz.. fyi...

    kuz can only fit something like 40 odd fighters and currently 23 MiG-29K models and about 17+ Su-33. So it does.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 964
    Points : 964
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:16 am

    Isos wrote:
    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:

    Su-33 are outdated they need a big modernization to be operational against F-35 and f-18 with aesa and LO.

    Fighters are not universal. Even the mullti role rafale has a naval version. You can't ust put a air force fighter on a carrier. At the first landing it would be destroyed.

    T-50 will be at least 100 million $ ... They are ordering more Su-30SM instead of Su-35 because it's cheaper. Money is a big issue when it comes to buy new fighters or military equipement in general.


    So, you saying that :
    Russia can't  make fighter aircrafts, due to that doesn't  make aircraft carriers.

    What I try to say is either they have capacity to make aircraft, or they had option in the past to manufacture naval vereions of the aircrafts.

    Again, the question is "Can Russia make aircraft carrier?"

    Now you changed the question "Can Russia make naval fighters?"

    I never said they can't. I said it's expensive and your statement that 1 carrier is just 50% costly than a nuclear sub is wrong. I never asked if they can build naval fighters, I'm just answering to what you say. The one who is escaping these questions is you by making me say Something I didn't. Again you have 0 argument to defend your ideas.

    But at this moment they can't build a carrier, they have 0 experience, 0 work on it. The shtorm is just a design for the public, they made 0 work on it. They couldn't even build heli carriers but bought it in france.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya

    0 experience eh? Don't equate your IQ to a number towards someone's experience.

    As well, your comment about the fighters is laughable. Modern MiG-29K share same tech as MiG-29M2 and that of MiG-35 for most basics. Upgrades can be applied. If you think AESA radar is a magical tech, then your knowledge on it is sad. Learn more.


    Last edited by miketheterrible on Fri May 12, 2017 12:18 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Jul 22, 2017 2:39 pm