Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:25 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:

    You did... and then bet the bank on Ukrainian loyalty.

    Lord Darwin has no favorites.

    No we didn't.  The BFS and Caspian commanders were whining about the state of their fleet so in order to reequip them money was diverted to corvette projects.  The biggest drain on resources was on the nuclear deterrence but that had to be paid for, corvettes did not.  


    There is no more ideology to enforce, no more clients (ungrateful ones I might add) to protect, no trade lanes you use that need controlling and no resources you don't have at home already.

    All your enemies are are right next door in Europe and maybe (big maybe) across Sea of Japan. And none of them require blue water navy to deal with.

    And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.  Corvettes will not do.

    Attack is the secret of defence; defence is the planning of an attack. - Sun Tzu


    USSR at the apex of it's might could not come close to having even a single nuclear carrier even with that insane suicidal military budget.

    They could barely build and operate helicopter carriers.

    How on Earth do you expect Russia to have one especially on a budget not compiled by by geriatric commies with 8 years of elementary school? And I mean that as a compliment. Remember what killed USSR?

    The only thing preventing us is lack of shipyards to build it.  We have the nuclear propulsion to run it and the fighters to fill it.  Developing a steam catapult is child's play.  If the funding had been devoted to it we would already have one with the second on the way.  The Soviet naval doctrine was having a fleet of nuclear subs and surface ships were only there to protect them.  It was a complete defence doctrine that is still being applied today but now it is centered on corvettes and very few submarines.  With the addition of cruise missiles we finally have a capability to project force from the sea but we don't have a naval doctrine that takes advantage of that.    


    Russia is not USA, you are not flanked by two oceans and not bordered by two glorified provinces.

    Having Coast Guard (FSB) patrol EEZ is a luxury that USA has but you don't, never had and never will.

    Russia is closer to France, they have a blue water navy and a huge EEZ, bigger than ours actually.  We should have what they have times two.  


    Corvettes is what you can build and more importantly what you need.

    And even that is a stretch.

    All this hassle with building corvettes and people want carriers?

    It's like wanting to have a Lamborghini when you can barely pay for and build a tricycle. All the while living next to dirt road...

    What is a corvette to a NATO carrier strike group?  Target practice...



    No you couldn't.

    Navy was swimming in cash until recently and all they managed to build were those hated corvettes.

    No matter how much money you dump on carriers you will always be 3rd rate in that department, that is if you don't bankrupt yourselves (again) first.

    And even if you build one (fat chance) what will you use it for? Fly airplanes around potential hostiles which are all within range of land based aviation?

    More money down the latrine...

    The capital expenditure maintaining the legacy fleet that should have been replaced with the state armaments plan is the cost of everything I stated, including the two carriers.  If the industrial policy had focused on one design per class, and spent the money perfecting that design with commonality, the shipyards would have been cranking out ships left and right.  The money down the latrine was keeping that old junk in service and not having commonality for new ships that should have had Russian designed engines from the start.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3902
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:45 pm


    And yet we are in Venezuela, Syria, Vietnam... ect.  We must be able to keep the sea lanes open if war breaks out.

    Why ? What are you selling to them apart some few sukhois and corvettes ?

    For rebuilding Syria, Assad will go for Chinese companies.

    Vietnam is totally forgeting Vietnam war and because of the fear of China, opening his arms to US. Just like indians.

    Venezuela won't have a decent economy before 20 or 30 years. Just like Cuba is destroyed because of western sanctions since 50 years. Will be the same for Venezuela. China is doing nothing to stop that neither is russia.

    US destroyed Ukraine and insted of taking the country back quickly and with no causualties like in Crimea, you keep the war in dombass and destroy this brother country even more and cry in Merkels arms for Minsk agreements.

    You want carriers to play US game with no cards in hands.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:06 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Well this totally depends on what Russia plans to do in the next century. Having such navy means you want to invade countries.

    Military speaking Russia doesn't even need a navy since they have 5000 nuks, neither an army. No one will dare to attack them (specially if the only weapons you have are your nuks).

    Russia send 4 su-35 and 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes in Syria before NATO send anything and the world knew Assad was the winner the next day.

    The thing is that with the 4 su-35, 12 su-24 and 2 corvettes they can still destroy the world. As long as this is true Russia won't need a huge navy.

    But if you want to control Africa and some south american countries, then you need carriers and 24 Gorshkovs. But USA will always have more money and more military tools to make that almost impossible. Like in Venezuela for exemple.

    What is the point of having a Navy if not to project your power whenever and wherever it is needed?  If we just want a littoral deterrence for US carriers we can do that with land based aviation.  It makes all of these overpriced corvettes redundant.  A quality MALE UAV fleet can provide maritime observation 24/7 and a much cheaper FSB fleet to enforce the EEZ.  If there is a heavily armed maritime threat you just bomb them out of existence.

    Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

    The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3902
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 28, 2019 11:48 pm


    The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?

    If you wait that they destroy all your "allies" before waking up then yes you should.

    Did Syria paid anything for the war ? No
    Did Vietnam paid anything for support during Vietnam war ? No
    Did China paid for the copies of sukhois and everything else ? No
    Does Iran pays anything for supporting them at UN ? Nope
    Did Egypt pay for all Soviet support during wars with Israel ? No they even went to US. And now they buy 24 rafales for 5 billion and 50 migs for not even half the price.

    US are not a bigger threat to you than China and the parasites that pretend to be your allies.

    US is 1st because it controls its own parasites very well with their "military alliances". You should try that too. That's why smaller carrier with corvettes are enough, it keeps US away and you can destroy you allies if they try to fuck you. And most important make them pay for the carrier and the blue water navy. That's how it works. Even your LHD could have been paid by France and Egypt if you asked penalities from Paris and asked for a couple of billions more for the ka-52 by saying like the americans it is the best helicopter in the world. But you don't. Russians are passive.

    Did those corvettes do anything to help Assad win?  No... it was a Slava cruiser that provided air cover to keep NATO at bay.  Now the Moskva is no longer serviceable.  

    No it was Hmeimim air base. Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1482
    Points : 1474
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:41 am

    Isos wrote:By you I mean Russia. Don't take it personnaly Very Happy

    That's why I say it is good. It will just oblige your MIC to produce everything from now by themselve at good standards. If they don't ships will die at port so MOD will pressure them to finish.

    First engines won't meet requirements but second generation will and then you will be totally independant.

    It's a big investement thanks to US sanctions. If you were not sanctioned and not obliged to design your own engines, you will be still buying german and your domestic projects would be done slowly and probably be stoped before completetion.


    Yes if you want a Big Navy you have to be able to produce it yourself not rely on others to do so, this goes for all the parts.

    Otherwise, you are just asking for well a situation like that happened with Ukraine.


    That said funding carriers right now would be a waste, no docks large enough for them, they are being built but not completed.

    No Escorts, no anything Russia has a long way to do go before it can sit there and go "Okay NOW we can start to build the CV".

    Trying to lay one down right now not that they can, would be a huge waste of money.


    Also to say Corvettes are all Russia needs for a surface fleet, just no those corvettes will do jack shit in a naval fight, fighters alone will destroy every single one without much hassle and unless you concentrate a huge sum of them in one area they do not have enough weapons to really threaten anything like a destroyer.

    If you cannot power project deep into the sea your foe will use that against you, why do you think Russia is having a hard time unless its right next to them they cannot provide the naval power they need for their interests, Russia wants carriers, it wants Missile Cruisers, it wants frigates but it's having a hard getting all of it. They want these things because they know they NEED them.

    Does Russia need a blue water navy like frigates and a few carriers, yes they do. But they cannot afford that right now so they are just getting by with what they can get.


    Last edited by SeigSoloyvov on Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 29, 2019 12:49 am


    The USA will always have more, does that mean we should hide from them?


    You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

    Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

    And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

    USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

    And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

    If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

    France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:09 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You spent last several decades trying to develop technology that makes carriers redundant and now that you finally cracked it you want to go back and build your own redundant carriers?

    Just because you got there first doesn't mean USA won't catch up and make yours redundant as well (remember space race?)

    And keep in mind that just one carrier with aircraft complement costs more than your entire surface and submarine Navy.

    USA spends 2/3 of it's defense budget on Navy. There is a reason for that, Navy is crazy expensive.

    And what trade lanes would you be protecting? Almost your entire trade goes via land.

    If you really want to have Navy like France (seriously, you have some irrational infatuation with that place) all you have to do is to drop current warship design dogma and buld ships according to commercial standards just like French. Much simpler, cheaper and faster (just look at Bykov class)

    France does have exactly same kind of Navy you are advocating: one carrier, several commercial grade frigates as escorts and some cheap chaff for padding. I doubt it would be enough to cover even Ohotsk.

    60% of Russian international trade is carried by cargo ships. Over the past 10 years the amount of goods shipped by sea has doubled. If we can't ensure our trading lanes then the entire economy will come to a halt.

    The US Navy gets 1/3rd of their budget and that includes the Marines. It isn't about matching the US that has carriers all over the world, it is about having a carrier that can defeat them at the place and time when it is needed before the nuclear watchdogs are called in to calm things down. That is the worst case, the regular case would be having a carrier that can conduct strikes to support our allies when needed and deterring the US from getting involved.

    We need something like the French Navy times two. 2 CVNs, 8 AAW DDGs, 24 Gorshkovs, 6 LPH, 12 SSNs, 10 SSBNs. That is a solid first tier navy with plenty of projection power. We have already spent enough money to buy these things, but thanks to poor planning and wasted capital allocation on 40 year old rust buckets we have squat.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:43 am

    Isos wrote:

    US are not a bigger threat to you than China and the parasites that pretend to be your allies.

    If China is the biggest threat, which they are, how are we going to stop them without carrier strike groups? Have you looked at the PLAN lately?

    US is 1st because it controls its own parasites very well with their "military alliances". You should try that too. That's why smaller carrier with corvettes are enough, it keeps US away and you can destroy you allies if they try to fuck you. And most important make them pay for the carrier and the blue water navy. That's how it works. Even your LHD could have been paid by France and Egypt if you asked penalities from Paris and asked for a couple of billions more for the ka-52 by saying like the americans it is the best helicopter in the world. But you don't. Russians are passive.

    A smaller carrier and corvettes... how are the corvettes going to protect the carrier? If the carrier doesn't have CATOBAR what good is it anyway?

    We got our money back from the Mistral deal, what it was spent on... more corvettes that don't have engines.

    No it was Hmeimim air base. Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets.

    Hmeimim air base doesn't move, we needed a mobile air coverage that was provided by Moskva. And what missile do modern jets fire greater than 100km that can hit a moving target?

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1482
    Points : 1474
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:49 am

    You need more than two carriers you need enough carrier you can rotate them for repair, upgrades and keeping some active 3 at the bare MIN is what russia in CV's
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:49 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:


    Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

    How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

    It's amazing you even got around developing corvettes and frigates back then and only reason you were able to slide it in the budget is because they are smaller and cheaper.

    This is like when people complain about not intervening in Syria back in 2011 while completely ignoring massive domestic backlash it would create.

    In order to justify defense expenditures of that size you need external threat and it didn't exist before 2014.

    USA only managed to get defense budget back to Cold War levels once 9/11 happened and they could tell voters and taxpayers that there is an actual reason for it.

    Starting with last week you finally see your navy doing intelligent things: continuing Gorshkov program, modifying Grens as proper LHDs and putting Derzkii and Arctic patrol ships back on track.

    This is stuff you can get now without breaking the bank and chasing pie in the sky like carriers and nuclear destroyers​.

    You can get those after you sort out the existing navy before it rots away.





    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:19 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:...
    If China is the biggest threat, which they are, how are we going to stop them without carrier strike groups? Have you looked at the PLAN lately?

    In what fictional universe is China bigger threat than USA and/or Europe?

    You have collection of clowns in Europe who are actively working on taking you all out even without USA in the mix and somehow China is the problem?

    If China wanted to do anything about Russia last thing they would be wasting money on would be Navy, ships don't matter in conflicts between two nuclear nations on the same continent.

    If you are so hell bent on going to war with China then you better invest in Army with loads of intermediate range missiles and not in some redundant ego boats because for both of you navy will not be doing squat in that situation.

    Chinese population is jam packed on the coast and infrastructure is insanely interdependent and sensitive. Several missiles in the power grid and traffic system and whole place will be back to stone age with a dash of Black Death once cholera sets in and societal collapse when food and water go tits up.




    Vladimir79 wrote:...A smaller carrier and corvettes... how are the corvettes going to protect the carrier?

    They won't. Their job it to go after submarines AKA main naval threat Russia is facing and which has to be monitored.




    Vladimir79 wrote:...Hmeimim air base doesn't move, we needed a mobile air coverage that was provided by Moskva. And what missile do modern jets fire greater than 100km that can hit a moving target?

    Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

    If Turks wanted to sink Moskva they would have. Nobody is afraid of some overbloathed obsolete rust bucket you keep around to remember the good old days, they are afraid of your airforce, land based missiles and nukes and what it would do to their population.

    We didn't tap out in 99 because we were afraid of American fleet or cruise missiles, we did it because we didn't want them to make good on the promise to carpet bomb our population centers with strategic aviation (promise delivered in no uncertain terms by Finnish emissary, look it up)

    They were already carpet bombing areas with suspected military targets, Vietnam style. Didn't hit anything but you can't hide cities.

    Fleet is a joke. Any fleet. That is if you aren't Afghan level cave man.

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:30 am

    PapaDragon wrote:Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

    How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

    How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?  They also use it to build cruise ships, LNG carriers and offshore oil platforms.  We could use it to build the last two and large cargo ships.

    Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

    Name one with 100km+ range.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8319
    Points : 8403
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:39 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:...Name one with 100km+ range.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)


    To say that Moskva would have been way out of her league on her own would be epic understatement

    And this is just one


    Vladimir79 wrote:...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

    Easy, they have you
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 4:19 am

    PapaDragon wrote:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_(missile)

    To say that Moskva would have been way out of her league on her own would be epic understatement

    And this is just one

    The air launched version has 90km range, the Exocet even less.

    ...How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?

    Easy, they have you

    Disrespect will not be tolerated.  Enjoy your time out.
    avatar
    Tingsay

    Posts : 131
    Points : 135
    Join date : 2016-12-09

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Tingsay on Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:03 am

    If your gonna temporarily ban somebody for trash talking, you better start banning more than half this forum. This is unprofessional.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:28 am

    Tingsay wrote:If your gonna temporarily ban somebody for trash talking, you better start banning more than half this forum. This is unprofessional.

    I have already had 3 perm bans and 5 temp bans this month.  Just because you don't always see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Read my announcement, I wasn't joking.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 216
    Points : 222
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:50 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Up until 2008 you were acting like there will never again be an armed conflict in your future and between 2008 and 2014 you were still expecting everything to be smooth and silky with couple of speed bumps at most.

    How would anyone be able to justify expenditures required for development, construction sites, infrastructure and building of carrier navy?

    How did the French justify the infrastructure for building carriers?  They also use it to build cruise ships, LNG carriers and offshore oil platforms.  We could use it to build the last two and large cargo ships.

    Plenty of missiles do, both​ aerial and land based. And calling Moskva moving target is bit generous in modern environment.

    Name one with 100km+ range.

    Easy, our standard service one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat

    Introduced in 1978 , had 180km range then, now exceed 250km.

    About your own tirade on Corvettes, what exactly you refer to?

    Steregushchy have an hely hangar, so they would be better considered light frigates than just plain corvettes, they are located most in Baltic and Pacific, for Northern fleet i.e. for blue sea roles they would acquire Derzky/Merkuriy instead, that with a 3400 announced tonnage would be at same level of Cold war era standard frigates.
    Buyan_M were for Caspian flottilla missile boats and were called corvettes only when they were enlarged with USKS installation, they ordered some for Baltic also but now they are ordering more sea Worthy Karakurt instead.

    All in all they are just the right size for Baltic/Black Sea/Caspian fleets, maybe just a little smaller for Pacific.

    No one is scheduled instead to operate with the Northern one, so IMHO no big fuss about them.


    Last edited by marcellogo on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 7:54 am

    marcellogo wrote:

    Easy, our standard service one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat


    Not so easy when the criteria is air-launched from a Western fighter.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 216
    Points : 222
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  marcellogo on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:20 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    marcellogo wrote:

    Easy, our standard service one.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otomat


    Not so easy when the criteria is air-launched from a Western fighter.

    Original quote was air and sea launched.
    So we have made half of the work, blame the rest to lack of support from our supposed partners.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3902
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Isos on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:22 am

    The air launched version has 90km range, the Exocet even less.

    Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

    Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

    Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.
    avatar
    marat

    Posts : 268
    Points : 264
    Join date : 2015-04-26

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  marat on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:26 am

    Nothing is more important for Russia if Russia want to be global power then ocean going navy. And only if you become global power countries will chose you for "protector" and then fruits of economic, politic, science etc cooperation will come to Russia.

    Being global power means that you have allies around the world like USA have. And why would any country chose Russia for its protector if Russia cannot protect them? To protect allies you need to be near them, and to have open sea lines.

    That's why Russia now have strong naval forces in Mediterranean see. Tomorrow you could enter Jemen or Libya, or some other conflict way you have entered in Syria and start to building your naval presence and bases around the globe.

    When you will become global naval power then countries will approach to you, and you will not need conflict to find new allies.

    You need ocean going navy and bases to be capable to protect new allies.

    At this moment Russia almost have no allies at all.

    When you will have allies then economic politic and science cooperation with that country will be increased.

    Take Serbia as example, what Russia could offer to us? Protection? No we know you will not protect us. Economy? Just oil and gas, but we could by it from others. But you are still main member of UN. And that is main reason why Serbia want to be near Russia, and voila, we have sell our oil industry to you, we have engaged your companies and banks to finance and repair our railroads, we didn't joined any sanctions against you. We are buying some weapons from you. We are piss poor country but jet you have some fruits from having us as ally.

    Just look China France GB and USA, do you really think that they are stupid but jet rich and powerful?

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:34 am

    marcellogo wrote:

    Original quote was air and sea launched.
    So we have made half of the work, blame the rest to lack of support from our supposed partners.

    The original quote I was responding to was "Slava is old and its S-300 are old ones with less than 100km range. Totally useless against stand off attacks from modern jets."

    ...nothing about sea launched.

    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:48 am

    Isos wrote:Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

    Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

    Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.

    In order for the fighter to lock her it would have to fly high enough that the Moskva would see it.  It goes both ways.  The Moskva is not defenceless against such attacks anyways.
    avatar
    marat

    Posts : 268
    Points : 264
    Join date : 2015-04-26

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  marat on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:53 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    Isos wrote:Have you heard of something called radar horizon ? Moskva won't see the fighter more than 50km away if it flies low.

    Aircraft will always be superior to ships. That's why ships should have air defence specially made for use against swarme missile attacks.

    Anyway the conversation was about engines. I stop here.

    In order for the fighter to lock her it would have to fly high enough that the Moskva would see it.  It goes both ways.  The Moskva is not defenceless against such attacks anyways.

    That could be done by another aircraft from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2924
    Points : 3800
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:59 am

    marat wrote:

    That could be done by another aircraft  from bigger distance far away from reach of S300, and in same time attacking aircrafts could be under radar horizont and safe.

    And another ship or aircraft could relay data to the Moskva, it goes both ways.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update - Page 19 Empty Re: Russian Naval Construction Plans and Statistics Update

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 22, 2019 4:11 am