Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1922
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on 09/05/17, 12:36 am

    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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 09/05/17, 12:48 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 09/05/17, 01:04 am

    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 : 1469
    Points : 1468
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  AlfaT8 on 09/05/17, 01:14 am

    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 : 6083
    Points : 6187
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on 09/05/17, 01:37 am

    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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 09/05/17, 01:48 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 09/05/17, 02:32 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 09/05/17, 02:38 am

    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 : 5695
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Militarov on 11/05/17, 11:07 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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 12/05/17, 01:35 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 12/05/17, 01:37 am

    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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 12/05/17, 01:42 am

    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 12/05/17, 01:45 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 12/05/17, 01:42 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 12/05/17, 01:45 am

    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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 12/05/17, 02:04 am

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on 12/05/17, 02:12 am

    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 : 5695
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Militarov on 12/05/17, 02:18 am

    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 : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 12/05/17, 02:35 am

    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 : 1822
    Points : 1820
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  miketheterrible on 12/05/17, 03:12 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 : 1822
    Points : 1820
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  miketheterrible on 12/05/17, 03:16 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 12/05/17, 03:18 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6083
    Points : 6187
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on 12/05/17, 03:18 am

    Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

    The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5695
    Points : 5736
    Join date : 2015-09-03
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Militarov on 12/05/17, 03:43 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    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.

    Building carrier and overhauling existing hull for over a decade with more time being delays than original plan... does not really qualify to compare tbh.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1195
    Points : 1193
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on 12/05/17, 03:48 am

    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.

    Upgrading a carrier won't help that much to build a new one. I admit I've forgotten for this one and that they have some experience but it's not enough. China finished to build 1 Kuz while Russia managed to upgrade a Kiev class ...

    They also build a part of the Mistral but yet didn't start a replacement while they have the money of the mistral and the operation in syria proved they need one or two.

    I was just saying that the price of fighters is in the price of the carrier. He said that they have naval fighters in stock. So it's the su-33. These fighters are old and outdated. The radar has Something like 130 km range against 3m². F-18/35/rafale are let's say 1m² while they have ASEA that will detect the huge rcs of the Su-33 at 300 km easily and they have more of them ... Even Mig-29k can't compete against them with its dopler radar.

    If aesa is so bad why Russia is dev it for Pak Fa ?? Why india wanted it for it's new fighters and for Su-30 upgrade ??? Why every new fighter is designed with it ?? Not magical but far better than PESA and Doppler.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1822
    Points : 1820
    Join date : 2016-11-07

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  miketheterrible on 12/05/17, 05:52 am

    First you need to learn the difference between marketing and capabilities. PESA radar is a concentration of energy into one spot while AESA is multiple elements operating separately. In the end, energy input is what matters and you will end up with same performance. Issue with AESA and all those elements is that they end up having an average failure rate at around 10% or greater during operation so you are not getting full potential at all times. There are AESA advantages but not worth it.

    You are also reading up on old N001 radar. Medo would correct you. If operating n001 vep it would have a detection range of roughly 300km for fighter aircraft. As well, F-18 sh isn't 1m^2
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3405
    Points : 3530
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  kvs on 12/05/17, 07:05 am

    PapaDragon wrote:Any new carrier will be using naval version of 5th gen fighter that will be produced for UAE

    The moment thy announced that project all other platforms for future carrier took a back seat

    Sounds like PAK FA was produce for India. Russia will not be making anything for a collection of Wahhabis.
    It might sell them some variant of something it makes for itself, though.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is 19/02/18, 08:34 am