Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue May 22, 2018 8:06 pm

    Giving the Russian passports does not give Russia any say in the laws or behaviour of any of the Baltic states
    Times have changed: Russia won't tolerate their oppression as she used to. https://politexpert.net/106841-tragediya-pribaltiki-estoniya-eto-novyi-krym-dlya-rossii?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=lentainform&utm_campaign=politexpert.net&utm_term=1270375&utm_content=6342178
    Ukraine has no chance: https://rueconomics.ru/vse-novosti
    If they got 12 FFGs right now... no questions asked... what would they do with them?
    The same things they do now with their FFGs & corvettes, only more- i.e. longer times at sea & farther away, like permanent presence in the Med. Sea just announced: https://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/russias-navy-establishes-permanent-presence-in-mediterranean-sea/
    So stop building all ships and subs.... all they need is email... much cheaper. ..Who cares what the US navy does... it covers up child molestation cases in Japan when US sailors rape children... should Russia do that too?
    Pl. stop being silly & exaggerating everything to prove ur point! CVNs r not "all ships"! Besides email, official radio/tv announcement can also be used to communicate warnings. They could demonstrate a threat by sinking an old moving ship from 500km away with Granits/Calibres just before going to the exclusion area being blockaded.
    none of them can use torpedoes and only the Tu-95 and Tu-160 would have the range to get anywhere near Venezuela or Africa, but their ALCMs have no use against ships... they hit fixed targets on the ground that are not moving...
    Tu-22M3Ms can be mid-air refueled & escorted by MiG-31s, & they do carry AShMs. There's also a SL version of Caliber, 91RE1 with a torpedo, similar to the American ASROC/SUBROC, & it could be adopted for AL if needed:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr#Club-S
    Piss off... that is just bullshit...But they are not getting them so they don't need escorts for Mistrals. the Kuznetsov is in overhaul and by the time it is out there will be a Kirov class ship that can escort it, so what does it need these Chinese ships for again? ..why take an enormous step back with this crap... amazing Type 054A... it looks bloody ordinary to be honest... it is not worth the time or effort... they have corvettes better armed than that. yeah... they will buy some chinese ships... when they start buying Chinese fighter planes... they make them fast too don't they? ..the Americans turned the chinese against the Soviets... They don't have a CVN... why would they have a full escort for a carrier they don't have...Why do you think if they had a CVN and wanted to sail it somewhere that all their ships would be in training or in reserve?
    - just because u say so? They'll have other class(es) of LHA/Ds to escort. But after he said they already have "enough escorts for carriers", i.e. more than 1, I replied to that. A CGN may or may not be ready, & it's only 1 instead of 3-4 CGs/FFGs/DDGs that can surround a CVN with protective bubble. Type 054A can be up-armed if it's current weapons r not enough. The US just used PRC-USSR split to its advantage, playing the "China card" against them- don't put a cart before the horse! They didn't try to order Rafale fighters after the Mistral deal, did they? No shame if "u scratch my back, I scratch urs!"- these kinds of deals happen all the time. The US uses Russian rocket engines for space launches, should they order their Su-35s too? If it's cost effective why not? ~2/3 r in training/reserve, not all of them- don't put words in my mouth!
    Would be cheaper and easier to build new ones that dig up the dead that would be useless... you are already complaining they don't have escorts for the CV they have WTF do they need any more now for?
    That's in ur judgement! They do have escorts for Adm.K, & TAKRs don't need as many escorts as CV/Ns.
    ..what they need is pretty much an air defence force ship that carries AWACS aircraft plus fighters and tankers etc... it will also have SAMs and UKSK launch tubes and will be perfectly capable of defending itself.
    Right, when deployed & in a real war, their best/main de-facto role will be to act as decoys to draw the enemy swarms to themselves! Failing that, 1 tactical nuke/EMP burst & they r history!    
    Russia will have by the end of the 2020s 2 aircraft carriers.
    Not 3.
    That may be true, but what will they do with just 2 of them when there is an emergency in the Med. Sea, Indian/Pacific/Southern Ocean while 1 is in repair/refit/refueling & the other hasn't completed training & 100% ready or too far away in the wrong ocean? For example, France is also a continental power & has 1 CVN & may or may not get a 2nd CV, not CVN. But they r allied with the UK which has 2 QE CVs & the USA which has 11 CVNs, 1 of which is forward deployed in Japan, next to the RFE, & it's worth 2-3 CVNs based on US West coast ("911 carrier": it's the emergency ph# in USA). Russia doesn't have that luxury, as the PRC won't be such a close military ally to help Russia with her CV/Ns & therefore can't be relied on. That's why the VMF admirals (like their PLAN counterparts), want 6 CVNs, 3 in the NF & 3 in PacF, to have at least 2 ready in both oceans 24/7. earlier I calculated that LHA/Ds/BDK + CVNs will need ~50 surface escorts, & besides they may & will be tasked with non-escort missions too.
    https://iz.ru/746557/2018-05-22/samyi-bolshoi-desantnyi-korabl-vmf-rf-petr-morgunov-spustiat-na-vodu-25-maia

    Russia is a huge continental power, but it's also riverways & canal power, connecting the 5 Seas around its European part; maintaining them & building the new Eurasian Canal is more important for her economy & defense than getting new CVNs.   https://larouchepub.com/pr/2018/180517_nazarbayev_proposes.html
    https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/05/14/kazakhstan-suggests-connecting-black-and-caspian-seas-by-a-ship-canal
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Canal

    https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201603301037229773-iran-russia-caspian-persian-gulf-canal/
    If/when it's built, ships of the Black & Caspian Sea fleets will be able to bypass the Bosphorus, the Suez & the Red Sea to get to/from the Indian Ocean. All these projects will cost $Bs.
    https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/05/22/76-of-russian-businessmen-call-condition-of-russian-economy-disastrous
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 971
    Points : 973
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue May 22, 2018 10:49 pm

    Russia isn't buying any type 54's ships they were only considering doing that because of the mistrals and they knew they could not be able to build escorts in time so the only rational solution for them was to have the Chinese build the hulls and then outfit the hulls with Russian equipment.

    When the Mistral deal fell apart, the russians lost any interest in buying type 54's, this is very common knowledge.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1779
    Points : 1775
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue May 22, 2018 11:06 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Russia isn't buying any type 54's ships they were only considering doing that because of the mistrals and they knew they could not be able to build escorts in time so the only rational solution for them was to have the Chinese build the hulls and then outfit the hulls with Russian equipment.

    When the Mistral deal fell apart, the russians lost any interest in buying type 54's, this is very common knowledge.

    Specially that now they have grigorovich class which is an analogue to type 54. But they don't seem to be interested by those small less capable classes for their main fleets (northern and pacific). They are waiting gorshkov or super-gorshkov.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2242
    Points : 2232
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Tue May 22, 2018 11:22 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Russia isn't buying any type 54's ships they were only considering doing that because of the mistrals and they knew they could not be able to build escorts in time so the only rational solution for them was to have the Chinese build the hulls and then outfit the hulls with Russian equipment.

    When the Mistral deal fell apart, the russians lost any interest in buying type 54's, this is very common knowledge.

    Gee, for being common, I haven't read a single Russian article about that. Care to share it please?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue May 22, 2018 11:42 pm

    Pl. see my earlier post with 2 article quotes, in English. They may get 2 Mistrals from Egypt later or build their own UDKs; in any case, instead of 8-12 they may still want 2-4-6 Chinese DDGs that were designed with some RF help & use Russian sonars.
    Also, the future bridge to Sakhalin will cost 3.5 times more than to Crimea:
    https://www.gazeta.ru/auto/news/2018/05/16/n_11539993.shtml?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2007&utm_content=1654401&utm_campaign=11036

    They need to connect their 11 time zones better before wasting $Bs on another Adm. Gorshkov style naval buildup. Kamchatka with its Pac. Fleet SSBN & AF bases has no road connecting it the mainland.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_Peninsula

    Of course, having 2 TAKR/CVNs is better than just 1 or none, but with these low #s they'll have to hope that they'll not be needed while none of them is ready!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed May 23, 2018 12:12 am

    miketheterrible wrote:

    Gee, for being common, I haven't read a single Russian article about that.  Care to share it please?

    There was in 2015 one time idea form a columnist similar to those you can find in many blogs nothing official though Razz Razz Razz  . TsavoLion already provided earlier link check my answer pls in this thread




    GarryB wrote:
    LHDs need air support so the correlation of deploying a carrier and a LHD is relatively high.

    But the L in LHD is landing, so it needs to get close to the landing beach, while the CVN has no business near any beach... just not safe...

    I think their roles and requirements are different enough to want both capabilities and have them from separate vessels.





    Consider it a ship which can carry an airwing both fighters and ASW and be used as CVN,  
    + depending on the role  air defense or sub defense roles airwing can change its proportions
    + can eventually have also troop transport / hospital
    +

    Taking into account Russian specifics - also prerry well armed.
    This might be fucking close to  Soviet TAVKR concept :-)





    Like they upgraded Su-33 ? I prefere the Super hornet level of upgrading than those outdated su-33.

    The Su-33 is fine... it was always only intended as a fighter, not a strike aircraft... and as a fighter it is still perfectly capable.



    We are talking about 2030s start time right? so not anymore. Unless you are going to fight with Thai or Brazilian CVNs






    True but countries have interests which are permanent not friends iam afraid. Mistrals was a great political move to break internally unity in west or made bad PR withing France for pro US forces. Financially was no really big deal for French economy.

    The mistral deal is gold... every time they talk about cooperating with Russia or show off about their wonderful military we can throw it in their faces...  Twisted Evil
    [/quote]

    they wont get it unless you translate to French  lol1  lol1  lol1






    TO me it looks like private opinion of a columnist in one of magazines and not any official MoD source.  No negotiations were ever carried out or even planned.
    Writer may have shares in Chinese shipyards...

    to me he is kind of "uber-patriot" for whom Putin is nto enough Putin and mediocre leader   Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil





    What scenario do you take into account when you design a carrier ? Fighting some poor huys in syria armed with ak-47 or fighting against a big navy like Japan, Uk, usa or others ... I think it's the second one. All those countries have lot of fighters/bombers better than yak-141.

    Russian carriers are about protecting Russian surface ships from enemy forces... sea, land and air... but not for invasion.
    [/quote]

    Then relatively small air wing is just fine like 20-30 fighters. And nothing better then F-35 will be met during first 10-15 years of application. Then perhaps FA-XX.
    So VSTO+L will be perfect option. Perhaps as LMFS will be created. Actually MiG-35 can be a testbed for avionics and weaponery - including lasers/masers.






    And myself Smile AC has many applications besides WWIII but none of them requires six mega ones.

    I totally disagree... a large carrier has no value to Russia in WWIII... they might be used to extend Russian airpower and defences but are ultimately expendible... defending from US carrier attacks on mainland Russia would be easier from Corvettes firing Zircon and Onyx missiles, and aircraft like Tu-22M3 with Kinzhal and Kh-32 and of course MiG-31s with Dagger...


    Actually should be all besides III WW. SO I agree with you on this. Exceptionally of course  lol1  lol1  lol1





    He is not always right

    No, I am not.

    ha ha
    gotcha

    Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 477
    Points : 513
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed May 23, 2018 8:37 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    to me he is kind of "uber-patriot" for whom Putin is nto enough Putin and mediocre leader   Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil

    Well how could he after Putin has managed to not be a corrupt traitor.

    In all seriousness Putin is no Stalin and under him progress is slow.




    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 23, 2018 2:05 pm

    Times have changed: Russia won't tolerate their oppression as she used to.

    Did you even read that?

    It was an article countering a british article that stated all the problems of Estonia come from its Russian population and directly from Russia.

    It countered the article by stating that Estonia was in worse condition than the British article suggested and that a future solution might be similar to what happened in the Crimea... but sorry that is just stupid.

    In the Crimea the Russians had a rather big military force legally based there, who were expanded to the number of soldiers they were allowed to have there by treaty agreement regarding Sevastopol... those legally present soldiers were able to disarm the local Ukrainian soldiers and government forces and keep the peace while the people of the Crimea could safely vote on their future.

    Russia has Zero troops in any baltic country and no legal way to introduce them without starting a conflict... the Russian populations in all of these states is too small to even have a chance of getting a referendum let alone winning one.

    The best option all round would be for Russia to offer land in Russia to any Russian speaking Russian leaning baltic citizens... on the condition they don't just work in Russia and send money to family in the Baltic states... Russia should not support those fucked up countries...

    In Russia they can get work and treated as real citizens and better themselves... in the baltic states they are non citizens...

    If they don't want to help themselves why should Russia help them?

    Ukraine has no chance

    Yes, Kiev is pathetic, but Russia still cannot dictate to them anything...

    The same things they do now with their FFGs & corvettes, only more- i.e. longer times at sea & farther away, like permanent presence in the Med. Sea just announced.

    So basically nothing important... without buying ships from China or anyone else they already are doing what they are doing.. they clearly have all the ships they need for now...

    Pl. stop being silly & exaggerating everything to prove ur point!

    If you start being sensible first I will consider it.

    I already said Calibr is a LAND ATTACK cruise missile... it is not designed to hit moving targets like ships.

    CVNs r not "all ships"!

    If they can email a country and get them to do as they are told the why would they need any ships at all?

    Besides email, official radio/tv announcement can also be used to communicate warnings.

    Yeah... because every country on the planet listens to warnings on Russian TV, or emails...

    Come on... are you joking?

    They could demonstrate a threat by sinking an old moving ship from 500km away with Granits/Calibres just before going to the exclusion area being blockaded.

    So you want them to sail one of their own old ships to the problem area and then sink it?

    Granits are enormous 12m long 7.5 ton mach 2 missiles that are not cheap and would obliterate most targets... but the fact that you took the time and money to send a ship down there to blow up suggests you don't have the balls to use one for real...

    Tu-22M3Ms can be mid-air refueled & escorted by MiG-31s, & they do carry AShMs.

    To Venezuela? It would need to take 100 refuelling aircraft to refuel the MiG-31s about 20 times each, the Backfires about 5 times each, and each refuelling tanker about twice each... and that is one way...

    There's also a SL version of Caliber, 91RE1 with a torpedo, similar to the American ASROC/SUBROC, & it could be adopted for AL if needed:

    Calibr is the land attack cruise missile, Klub includes a subsonic anti ship missile... there is talk of an air launched version but AFAIK it has never been used... the torpedo carrying Klub is for anti sub use and it is also not operational in an air launched version... UKSK launcher only.

    Type 054A can be up-armed if it's current weapons r not enough.

    The Type-054A is bullshit... they could make Talwars fast enough if they really wanted a cheap quick ship with OK armament... THEY DON'T.

    The US just used PRC-USSR split to its advantage, playing the "China card" against them- don't put a cart before the horse!

    The US did do that... just as today they try to drive a wedge between Russia and China and Russia and India and India and China... the fact that they could be successful again means Russia needs to be sensible.

    They didn't try to order Rafale fighters after the Mistral deal, did they?

    What are you talking about?

    The US uses Russian rocket engines for space launches, should they order their Su-35s too? If it's cost effective why not?

    The US uses Russian rocket engines because it would take the US ten years to develop new engines as good as the ones they are buying from Russia... they admitted that themselves... They would never buy Su-35s because Boeing will claim the planes they make are already superior to anything the Russians make... they are wrong, but they can't claim the same with rocket motors.

    ~2/3 r in training/reserve, not all of them- don't put words in my mouth!

    I have never been in the military but even I know if you are going to do something... anything that is in reserve or in training is available for active duty...

    Do you think it is an accident that the Kirov class cruiser is in refit at the same time as their only carrier?

    Do you think they might synchronise such things so that when both are available they are both available for use TOGETHER?

    That's in ur judgement! They do have escorts for Adm.K, & TAKRs don't need as many escorts as CV/Ns.

    Again you are applying stupid AMERICAN VIEWS to this... a Russian CVN will have redut Poliment SAMs... it will have CIWS, but it will also have major SAM defences and it will also have S-500 SAMs too. In addition it will have UKSK launchers as well... it wont need as many escorts as a US carrier with maybe a CIWS on the front and on the back...

    Right, when deployed & in a real war, their best/main de-facto role will be to act as decoys to draw the enemy swarms to themselves! Failing that, 1 tactical nuke/EMP burst & they r history!

    See that is why I swear at you... a tactical nuke and which western ship continues operations normally?

    The purpose of a Russian CVN is not to invade the US or to take on 13 bloody carrier groups single handedly... it is to support a group of Russian surface ships doing whatever they are doing a long way away from Russian waters.

    That may be true, but what will they do with just 2 of them when there is an emergency in the Med. Sea, Indian/Pacific/Southern Ocean while 1 is in repair/refit/refueling & the other hasn't completed training & 100% ready or too far away in the wrong ocean?

    What do they do right now if there is an emergency in the Med, and three other oceans... send a nuclear armed sub and nuke it obviously... or just use an ICBM.

    For example, France is also a continental power & has 1 CVN & may or may not get a 2nd CV, not CVN. But they r allied with the UK which has 2 QE CVs & the USA which has 11 CVNs, 1 of which is forward deployed in Japan, next to the RFE, & it's worth 2-3 CVNs based on US West coast ("911 carrier": it's the emergency ph# in USA).

    First of all, France is a global colonial power, and being allied to other countries means squat. The UK had a special relationship with the US in 1982... maggie and ronny were a thing, but I don't remember any US carriers supporting British operations in the Falklands... do you?

    If Russia gifts them 32 Su-24s from old stocks because they are being replaced by Su-34s in Russian service and improves those Fencers with a few upgrades and some sweet new air to ground missiles, but those British carriers are in overhaul... do you really think France would send one of their carriers to support a British occupation of an island France doesn't give a fuck about?

    Dream on.

    BTW when the Argies did invade the falklands it took months for the British to put together a task force so it really does not matter if they happen to be on the other side of the planet when it happens...

    Russia is a huge continental power, but it's also riverways & canal power, connecting the 5 Seas around its European part; maintaining them & building the new Eurasian Canal is more important for her economy & defense than getting new CVNs.

    Adding a canal so ships can move from the Caspian to the black sea would be useful, but hardly ground breaking... pun intended... the Caspian sea is a lake of no real consequence... being able to move ships in and out of their is largely irrelevant... there is little need for very big ships there anyway...

    Right now CVNs would be of little value to Russia, but in 10 years time when Russia is expanding its exports and trade to the rest of the world instead of its ungrateful washington led neighbours. It wont be until Russia shows it has alternatives that those ungrateful bastards will realise they don't have Russia between a rock and a hard place and they they will have to give in and return to trading with them on better terms for them.

    The west thinks there is no one else to deal with and so to trade with them they should get a better deal than those they deal with... they are after all offering them western civilisation and morals etc... but in actual fact what they really want is cheap access to resources... Russia would be an enormous prize in that regard.

    CVN and an independent foreign policy is what scares them... and why they fear Putin so much.

    BTW look at a map buddy... there are a few rivers and waterways that could be used across the top of the land mass between the Caspian and the Black sea, but you would be totally pushing shit up hill to continue down the bottom of the Caspian to the Persian Gulf... literally... there are mountain ranges in the way...

    Russia isn't buying any type 54's ships they were only considering doing that because of the mistrals and they knew they could not be able to build escorts in time so the only rational solution for them was to have the Chinese build the hulls and then outfit the hulls with Russian equipment.

    When the Mistral deal fell apart, the russians lost any interest in buying type 54's, this is very common knowledge.

    That makes sense, but also means as there are no Mistrals likely to be built any time soon that the need for buying Type 054As is gone too.

    Also, the future bridge to Sakhalin will cost 3.5 times more than to Crimea:

    That does not matter.... money for that does not come from the Russian Navy budget...

    They may get 2 Mistrals from Egypt later or build their own UDKs; in any case, instead of 8-12 they may still want 2-4-6 Chinese DDGs that were designed with some RF help & use Russian sonars.

    Why would they touch the Mistrals now for? They have all the plans and now they can take the time do revise the design to better meet their own needs... I rather suspect they will get rather more powerful armament...

    And if they are planning to build new helicopter carriers then there will be plenty of time to work on the issues with larger vessels...

    They need to connect their 11 time zones better before wasting $Bs on another Adm. Gorshkov style naval buildup. Kamchatka with its Pac. Fleet SSBN & AF bases has no road connecting it the mainland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_Peninsula

    Would get there faster by train anyway...

    And what connection to the rest of Russia does it need?

    Is the US building a bridge to Hawaii?

    Of course, having 2 TAKR/CVNs is better than just 1 or none, but with these low #s they'll have to hope that they'll not be needed while none of them is ready!

    When you have two hammers you can deal with two nail problems at one time... only one hammer then one problem...

    BTW not all problems will need a CVN... in many cases just a cruiser could do the job on its own... it is just that in case of a real problem having aircraft there makes things much easier and safer.

    Consider it a ship which can carry an airwing both fighters and ASW and be used as CVN,
    + depending on the role air defense or sub defense roles airwing can change its proportions

    A helicopter carrier cannot operate decent air defence fighters, and would do a shit half arsed job... just like the British Harriers did in the Falklands... and before you claim the Harriers cleaned up, they did because they had advanced WVR missiles that were superior to their enemies missiles... if both sides had had decent WVR missiles it would have been very very different.

    In fact a late model MiG-23 with R-23 and R-60, would have been a serious threat to those Sea Harriers... particularly those R-23T IR guided missiles would have been devastating to the Harrier whose entire side is thrust heated engine nozzles that even the most primitive IR seekers could have locked on to at large distances. The Argies had old tail chasing old model Sidewinders and the British had pinched from NATO stocks late model all aspect Lima and Mike model Sidewinders.

    With MiG-23s the Argentinians could have sat back and launched R-23s with good chances of hits out of the range of the Harriers and they would have had the speed and flight range to leave and come back rearmed...

    The british would have been in serious trouble...

    We are talking about 2030s start time right? so not anymore. Unless you are going to fight with Thai or Brazilian CVNs

    It wont be fighting CVNs... that is the Zircon and Kinzhal that will be blowing up enemy carriers and ship of any types, and land bases will be getting Calibrs and various land attack converted anti ship missiles like Granit... all the Flankers have to do is shoot down enemy aircraft and incoming anti ship missiles... and in 2030 with a new AESA radar and the new AAMs developed for the PAK FA which enemy aircraft will be better for that? F-35 with 6 internal stealthy weapons points vs 12 on the Flanker?

    they wont get it unless you translate to French

    Oh, the body language and sign language used... they wont need a translation... Twisted Evil

    to me he is kind of "uber-patriot" for whom Putin is nto enough Putin and mediocre leader

    So many seem to want super hard man Stalin type... well Putin has made just as miraculous a transformation without the Gulags or death squads... of course if you listen to the west he has done it making a fortune and all his enemies disappear... but in actual fact he has beaten his opponents by letting them speak...

    Then relatively small air wing is just fine like 20-30 fighters. And nothing better then F-35 will be met during first 10-15 years of application. Then perhaps FA-XX.
    So VSTO+L will be perfect option. Perhaps as LMFS will be created. Actually MiG-35 can be a testbed for avionics and weaponery - including lasers/masers.

    But if you are only going to make two of them then it makes sense to make them a little bigger than you need so you can add features and capabilities... you might only ever carry 30-40 aircraft on it... the rest of the space could be used for UAVs or other exotic things... hell you could put a few ICBM trucks on it and launch from the southern oceans... it could be their replacement for Sea Launch... Smile

    Plus it means they can put a decent AWACS platform on there... fixed wing or lighter than air...

    SO I agree with you on this. Exceptionally of course

    Wont let it go to my head... thumbsup

    ha ha
    gotcha

    I know people who are not always right but are never wrong... don't want to be that sort of person. angel

    In all seriousness Putin is no Stalin and under him progress is slow.

    I would say progress has been spectacular... Russian people are not ashamed of their military... a military I would not have thought was capable of such quality in the Crimea and in Syria... neither were easy for troops... I have heard terrible stories about how American soldiers treat locals in the places they invade and I suspect even the American military could learn a few things from the Russians...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed May 23, 2018 2:14 pm

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    to me he is kind of "uber-patriot" for whom Putin is nto enough Putin and mediocre leader   Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil

    Well how could he after Putin has managed to not be a corrupt traitor.

    In all seriousness Putin is no Stalin and under him progress is slow.





    They lived in different conditions, used different ways ti progress. It is IMHO impossible to compare. That Putin doesnt shoot people who are traitors or working with enemy? would it change anything if after him came next Khrushchev and dismantle almost on everything? Russian population also changed and same methods wont work anymore. Methds are different and IMHO more efficient.

    Could it get better? alwasy but more thsi applies to more risk. I guess Putin doesnt want to call army to shoot civilians even though progress is slower.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed May 23, 2018 3:04 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    If they don't want to help themselves why should Russia help them?

    Russia is helping them as much as possible without military intervention. It is gonna come time though  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil


    Ukraine has no chance
    Yes, Kiev is pathetic, but Russia still cannot dictate to them anything...


    Junta in Kiev is dictatorship made by US. Not all Ukrainians are against Russia although  24/7 media are brain washing.




    Calibr is the land attack cruise missile, Klub includes a subsonic anti ship missile...


    Nope  Razz  Razz  Razz The complex official name is Kalibr eng Caliber.  There are  4types of missiles within Caliber
    Anti ship missiles are:
    3M-54 subsonic, 3M-541 subsonic with supersonic last part of trajectory

    3М-14 Landattack subsonic



    Consider it a ship which can carry an airwing both fighters and ASW and be used as CVN,  
    + depending on the role  air defense or sub defense roles airwing can change its proportions

    A helicopter carrier cannot operate decent air defence fighters, and would do a shit half arsed job... just like the British Harriers did in the Falklands... and before you claim the Harriers cleaned up, they did because they had advanced WVR missiles that were superior to their enemies missiles... if both sides had had decent WVR missiles it would have been very very different.


    you are not understanding idea: a division between a ship/hulk and the role.  And please stop talking about Harriers in 2030s you want to see Phantoms and MiGs-21 or what?

    BTW Yak 141 has R-77 and HUD 30 years ago.


    The british would have been in serious trouble...

    You see that's the point -they didsnt as in all colonial wars. Aborigines have weaker or no air force.




    We are talking about 2030s start time right? so not anymore. Unless you are going to fight with Thai or Brazilian CVNs

    It wont be fighting CVNs... that is the Zircon and Kinzhal that will be blowing up enemy carriers and ship of any types, and land bases will be getting Calibrs and various land attack converted anti ship missiles like Granit... all the Flankers have to do is shoot down enemy aircraft and incoming anti ship missiles... and in 2030 with a new AESA radar and the new AAMs developed for the PAK FA which enemy aircraft will be better for that? F-35 with 6 internal stealthy weapons points vs 12 on the Flanker?


    Kinzhal unilikely will be based on CVN - simply size snd weight. GZUR is supposed to have 1500 kmh and be airborne and is shorter lighter.  Of course you can pack as many Su-57 as you wish but wait Su-57 takes 2x space of F-35 on deck. So if 70ktons QE takes 40max 50 fighters you have 24 max 30 Su-57.

    For missions with short radius  light fighters are just better. Take less place and are as effective.




    they wont get it unless you translate to French

    Oh, the body language and sign language used... they wont need a translation...  Twisted Evil

    but you still have to add ohlalala  and bottle of wine and baguette or stinky cheese  Razz  Razz  Razz




    to me he is kind of "uber-patriot" for whom Putin is nto enough Putin and mediocre leader

    So many seem to want super hard man Stalin type... well Putin has made just as miraculous a transformation without the Gulags or death squads... of course if you listen to the west he has done it making a fortune and all his enemies disappear... but in actual fact he has beaten his opponents by letting them speak...



    Then relatively small air wing is just fine like 20-30 fighters. And nothing better then F-35 will be met during first 10-15 years of application. Then perhaps FA-XX.
    So VSTO+L will be perfect option. Perhaps as LMFS will be created. Actually MiG-35 can be a testbed for avionics and weaponery - including lasers/masers.

    But if you are only going to make two of them then it makes sense to make them a little bigger than you need so you can add features and capabilities... you might only ever carry 30-40 aircraf


    as long as it will be something in size of F-35 yes you can.




    Plus it means they can put a decent AWACS platform on there... fixed wing or lighter than air...

    not anymore in 2030s. Drones will be collecting radar signals and feeding to netcentirc command . it is cheaper and safer way to collect data.  And yes plenty of drones should be there. Perhaps also tankers.


    ha ha
    gotcha

    I know people who are not always right but are never wrong... don't want to be that sort of person.    angel


    gotcha  x2   Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil  Twisted Evil




    In all seriousness Putin is no Stalin and under him progress is slow.

    I would say progress has been spectacular... Russian people are not ashamed of their military... a military I would not have thought was capable of such quality in the Crimea and in Syria... neither were easy for troops... I have heard terrible stories about how American soldiers treat locals in the places they invade and I suspect even the American military could learn a few things from the Russians...

    It looks that he might achieve Stalin failed to. Stable course of Russia when his successor comes. He doesnt want to force Russians to live in Russia. He wants Russians to be proud of it and make a living standard high enough people actually want to immigrate there.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Wed May 23, 2018 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 516
    Points : 516
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Hole on Wed May 23, 2018 5:06 pm

    Klub is the export name of Calibr.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Wed May 23, 2018 9:57 pm

    To Venezuela? It would need to take 100 refuelling aircraft to refuel the MiG-31s about 20 times each, the Backfires about 5 times each, and each refuelling tanker about twice each... and that is one way...
    well, they can use bases in Cuba, if they really give a damn about Maduro or other ally there!
    The US did do that... just as today they try to drive a wedge between Russia and China..
    That split wasn't initiated/caused by the US, & in fact wasn't expected at all by them! Very smart Mr. H. Kissinger advised Nixon to use it against Brezhnev regime as he knew it was too good an opportunity to pass- in 1 stroke improve US relations with the PRC & upset the balance in its favor to help contain the USSR, esp. in E. Asia.
     
    I have never been in the military but even I know if you are going to do something... anything that is in reserve or in training is available for active duty...
    I have, & can tell u that ships in reserve still need some time to be reactivated for active duty even in the best of circumstances. In Russia, unlike in the West, "in reserve" means it theoretically may/can be reactivated, even if it takes years. They r kept in that status due to lack of $ & in case they may be needed by the VMF again.
       
    ..a Russian CVN will have redut Poliment SAMs... it will have CIWS, but it will also have major SAM defences and it will also have S-500 SAMs too. In addition it will have UKSK launchers as well... it won't need as many escorts as a US carrier with maybe a CIWS on the front and on the back...
    It's not 100% certain what exactly it will have; even then we r talking about 1-2 ship difference. FYI, the US CVNs, besides 4 CIWS mounts, also have SAMs + 50 cal. machine guns against small boats & boarders.
    What do they do right now if there is an emergency in the Med, and three other oceans... send a nuclear armed sub and nuke it obviously... or just use an ICBM.
    They want to use non-nuclear deterrence means. If nukes r going to be used in every crisis, the Earth will become too contaminated & unlivable. And they have to deal with "tyranny of geography", just like any1 else on the world stage!
    First of all, France is a global colonial power, and being allied to other countries means squat.
    If she needs to participate in interventions & show the flag with other allies than that burden is shared with them.
    BTW when the Argies did invade the falklands it took months for the British to put together a task force so it really does not matter if they happen to be on the other side of the planet when it happens...
    It will matter to Russia: by the time their CBG arrives it may be too late! The Brits were lucky that Brazil & others didn't help Argentina & to get help from Chile & the USA.

    ..the Caspian sea is a lake of no real consequence... being able to move ships in and out of their is largely irrelevant... there is little need for very big ships there anyway...
    It will become true sea once it's better connected with Azov, Black & Arabian Seas; it will help Russian & C. Asia economies even with smaller ships, as the water transport is the most economical, & this will reduce the time/$ave in transit between those waters:
    https://topwar.ru/141888-stroyka-veka-proekt-kotoryy-zatmit-krymskiy-most.html?utm_source=smi2

    ..there are a few rivers and waterways that could be used across the top of the land mass between the Caspian and the Black sea, but you would be totally pushing shit up hill to continue down the bottom of the Caspian to the Persian Gulf... literally... there are mountain ranges in the way...
    The Manich Depression North of the Caucasus Mts. is where the Eurasian Canal would be, & there's already fresh water ~1/2 the way. Across Iran, the shortest route will use rivers & the longest has dry lakes & desert; mountains there r not any bigger/worse than those in Panama Canal Zone.
    ..money for that does not come from the Russian Navy budget..
    Both budgets will need to get $ from the state budget!
    Would get there faster by train anyway...
    And what connection to the rest of Russia does it need?
    There's no railroad to/in Kamchatka nor much in Yakutia nor Chukotka next to the Bering Strait. In the E. Siberia, there r only 2 railroads: Transsib & BAM, both parallel & close to the Chinese border. The Far North along the Arctic coast has no railroad either. Huge areas now reachable only by frozen roads (not everywhere), air, rivers & sea:
    https://1870to1918.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/building-the-trans-siberian-railway/  http://www.irkutsk.org/fed/transsib.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakha_Republic#Transportation
    ..the Russian government plans to create a “super agency” to develop the Far East, with Vladimir Putin vowing “to spend $17 billion a year for new and improved railroads.” One of the agency’s first projects will supposedly be the construction of an 800-kilometer rail line to Yakutsk.
    http://www.geocurrents.info/place/russia-ukraine-and-caucasus/siberia/introduction-to-yakutia-sakha-and-russias-grandiose-plans-for-the-region
    I've visited Mongolia, which is 2x the size of Texas, just South of Siberia; it has sub-Arctic climate, deserts, mountains, steppes & taiga (conifer forest) but no good roads. After rains they all turn into mud. In Siberia, RFE & the Far North it's even worse.
    BTW not all problems will need a CVN... in many cases just a cruiser could do the job on its own... it is just that in case of a real problem having aircraft there makes things much easier and safer.
    And a lot more expensive; the cost-benefit analysis isn't in favor of having more than 2, but with less than 3 CVNs, it mostly defeats the purpose! I doubt their economy will be able to afford & require to have them even in 20-30 years.
    I know people who are not always right but are never wrong... don't want to be that sort of person
    Good! "There'll always be an eskimo ready to lecture Amazonian tribesmen how to behave in hot & humid weather"!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2018 2:12 am

    Junta in Kiev is dictatorship made by US. Not all Ukrainians are against Russia although 24/7 media are brain washing.

    Whether they are brainwashed or doing this with their eyes open... in practical terms it makes no difference.. hope they are enjoying the bed that was made for them... the brochure says you can see the sea from the window... see... look... there it is... you see it too don't you?:



    3M-54 subsonic, 3M-541 subsonic with supersonic last part of trajectory

    And which one of those is carried by the Tu-160, Tu-95, or Tu-22m3?

    BTW Yak 141 has R-77 and HUD 30 years ago.

    No it did not.

    It was no different from the Mi-28A shown in Paris in 1992... it was a shell... a mockup of what could be... it had not been actually developed into a functioning service aircraft... its engines worked and it could be flown, but it was in no condition to fight... and then it was cancelled... and it was cancelled because a heavy landing ruptured the fuel tanks and started a big fire, and they realised it was a technological dead end.

    You see that's the point -they didsnt as in all colonial wars. Aborigines have weaker or no air force.

    For the British, yes, you are correct... as Blackadder so accurately pointed out... before WWI the biggest threat to a British soldier was a that a pygmy of the Umgawa tribe might attack him with some sharpened fruit... then millions of heavily armed Germans marched into view... it was shock... and it took the marching slowly towards German machine guns lots and lots of times before the British realised they might have to change tactics...

    The fact is that any potential future situation the Russian Navy will face has to anticipate potential super power support for the little tiny country they have a disagreement with... which means real carriers and real carrier based fighters.

    It would be much cheaper to scrap big expensive planes like Su-35 and Su-57 and instead focus on smaller cheaper aircraft that could operate from smaller airfields and small stretches of motor way... but the reality is a variety is best, but if you are only going to have one CV and two CVNs then you put on the best planes you can get.

    Of course you can pack as many Su-57 as you wish but wait Su-57 takes 2x space of F-35 on deck. So if 70ktons QE takes 40max 50 fighters you have 24 max 30 Su-57.

    Based on what?

    Numbers from out of you ass?

    Even if that were true I would take 24 Su-57s over 48 F-35s any day of the week, but the Su-33 is also a rather large aircraft... but it folds up into a rather small space because its main wing folds and its horizontal tail surface folds too, so in actual fact it does not take up more width than a MiG-29KR.

    For missions with short radius light fighters are just better. Take less place and are as effective.

    And for missions to intercept pixies it is important to have plenty of unicorns, but most carrier captains want planes that can fly out 1,500km to operate well away from the carrier as that makes it safer.

    If missions with short radius fighters are better why don't I see you on the MiG-29 threads bitching about all those Flankers when they should have more MiGs?

    but you still have to add ohlalala and bottle of wine and baguette or stinky cheese

    Careful... with that sort of display they might move in with you to live rent free... clown

    not anymore in 2030s. Drones will be collecting radar signals and feeding to netcentirc command . it is cheaper and safer way to collect data. And yes plenty of drones should be there. Perhaps also tankers.

    You seem so sure of the 2030s... I am sure in the 1960s people thought that by now we would have moon base colonies and be on our way to Mars.., and of course all have flying cars...

    well, they can use bases in Cuba, if they really give a damn about Maduro or other ally there!

    Moving such forces to Cuba would not be easy...quick.... or cheap... and what happens if it happens somewhere else... CVNs are flexible and powerful and are very good for soft power displays as well as protecting your investments.

    That split wasn't initiated/caused by the US, & in fact wasn't expected at all by them!

    Of course not.. America is innocent and do nothing bad... ever...

    I have, & can tell u that ships in reserve still need some time to be reactivated for active duty even in the best of circumstances.

    So you think a naval blockade happens suddenly and without any warning?

    Does a blockade require all Russian ships to suddenly make full speed to break the blockade... they each arrive when they arrive, or do you think their might be some preparation and planning involved there?

    Funny, the Russian military seemed to react quickly enough with Georgia invaded South Ossetia...

    , the US CVNs, besides 4 CIWS mounts, also have SAMs + 50 cal. machine guns against small boats & boarders.

    So less well defended than a Russian Frigate.... I know...

    If nukes r going to be used in every crisis, the Earth will become too contaminated & unlivable.

    You keep saying their are geographically isolated and should stay there... WTF would they care if the south pacific or south atlantic is glowing?

    If she needs to participate in interventions & show the flag with other allies than that burden is shared with them.

    Yes, Russia has found in the past that international law and the support of the other countries of the world have solved many problems for them in the past... Oops... no... international law has been pissed all over by the west... the burden of proof and innocent until proven guilty meant nothing when Britain was accusing Russia of attempted assassinations or the west accused Russia of supporting a chem attack in Syria by Assad... exactly what support should Russia rely on in the future?

    It will matter to Russia: by the time their CBG arrives it may be too late!

    What do you mean too late?

    The Falklands war was an Argentine invasion of a British colony.... the British didn't arrive in time to stop the invasion... by the time they got there the invasion was well over... they had to invade the islands themselves and push the Argentines out.

    If the US initiates a blockade of Venezuela, the Russians will likely send the nearest friendly ship to the area to assess the situation... if they have a carrier available it will be prepared to sail as soon as possible... that could take a week or three weeks, and while that is happening other vessels will be prepared so they can go too.

    The likely hood of the carrier being intercepted on the way and attacked is Zero... when it gets to Venezuela then the question comes up who blinks first... I rather doubt the US wants to start WWIII over people it really could not give a shit about, but having Russian subs 500km away and an email stating missiles will be fired would be laughed off.

    Across Iran, the shortest route will use rivers & the longest has dry lakes & desert; mountains there r not any bigger/worse than those in Panama Canal Zone.

    There was a greater need to transfer ships from the atlantic to the pacific and back than from the caspian to the persian gulf.

    (if you are going to build a canal through their country you should at least respect their name for their beach front...)

    I've visited Mongolia, which is 2x the size of Texas, just South of Siberia; it has sub-Arctic climate, deserts, mountains, steppes & taiga (conifer forest) but no good roads. After rains they all turn into mud. In Siberia, RFE & the Far North it's even worse.

    Yeah, there aren't that many roads in Fiordland here in New Zealand, but then there is nothing to drive to there either...

    If there is something worth moving between two places it will make it worth while to build a rail link... if not then keep doing what you are already doing.

    Plus who cares about distance of rail lines from China?

    Do you know ports can be as close as 12 miles to international space?

    That isn't even outside artillery range... from anyone who wants to park a ship there...

    And a lot more expensive; the cost-benefit analysis isn't in favor of having more than 2, but with less than 3 CVNs, it mostly defeats the purpose! I doubt their economy will be able to afford & require to have them even in 20-30 years.

    They already have a CV, they don't need more than two CVNs.

    Good! "There'll always be an eskimo ready to lecture Amazonian tribesmen how to behave in hot & humid weather"!

    Amazonian tribesmen are not stupid... if the eskimo has good advice to give should they ignore it because of who he is?

    Amusing that the west will tell those same Amazonian tribesmen all sorts of things that they need to do or don't do... Brazil should save the rainforests... like the west kept all those forests in Europe so they could sell or use the wood and build farms to make money and generate food, but Brazil can't do the same... because trees in Brazil are more precious than those bits of crap the west disposed of for the benefit of the world...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2018 2:17 am

    Note Calibr is indeed a family of cruise missiles.... based on the SS-N-21 Granat and is currently sea surface and sub surface launched and indeed includes anti ship and land attack and an anti sub model, but the Russian Air Force does not operate it and the only air launched cruise missiles are the Kh-55SM nuclear armed LACM, the Kh-555 conventionally armed LACM, and the new Kh-101 and Kh-102 LACMs.

    No Russian aircraft is known to operate anti ship cruise missiles... except for the Kh-35, or the Kh-32... which are not carried by the Bear of Blackjack, which are the only aircraft approaching the flight range to be worth discussing.

    The Tu-22M3M is not in service yet.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu May 24, 2018 3:57 am

    Of course not.. America is innocent and do nothing bad... ever...
    I didn't imply that, just being chronologically accurate.
    Funny, the Russian military seemed to react quickly enough with Georgia invaded South Ossetia...
    It's not the same to deploy missile boats,etc within the Black Sea & a CBG across an ocean!
    What do you mean too late?
    The regime change process may be complete by then.
    WTF would they care if the south pacific or south atlantic is glowing?
    Because they go to fish &/relax there & everything on the planet is interconnected. Ur NZ & "Australia,.. Japan, other Pacific countries, and many of France's European allies" were  pissed when France tested nukes in Polynesia, (distance from Auckland  9,869 miles): https://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/307804/the-battle-continues,-50-years-after-first-test-at-mururoa
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/8872214/Mururoa-fallout-worse-than-first-thought
    http://navymuseum.co.nz/1945-1975-french-nuclear-testing-at-mururoa/
    http://www.howmanyhours.com/flight_time/auckland/mururoa.php

    More recently, after Chernobyl meltdown, all of Europe got a dose of radiation. The same with Fukushima, N. Pac. & sailors on the CVN-76:  http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/apr/08/uss-reagan-sailors-sue-japan-radiation-earthquake/
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/23/us-sailors-fell-sick-fukushima-radiation-allowed-sue-japan-nuclear/
    Yes, Russia has found in the past that international law and the support of the other countries of the world have solved many problems for them in the past.
    I was talking about France, not Russia.
    There was a greater need to transfer ships from the atlantic to the pacific and back than from the caspian to the persian gulf. (if you are going to build a canal through their country you should at least respect their name for their beach front...)
    The Eastern, non-Arctic, route from Atlantic to Pac. is via Med. Sea to Suez or Black Sea, Caspian, Arabian Sea, & then to the Indian ocean. I won't be building a canal there, those who will build it will respect it themselves; all except Iran call it "the Arabian Gulf", not "Persian Gulf" AFAIK. Btw, The Caspian Sea has both lake & sea features, & in ancient times was connected to Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea#Formation
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI4BijZtCoo
    If there is something worth moving between two places it will make it worth while to build a rail link... if not then keep doing what you are already doing. ..Do you know ports can be as close as 12 miles to international space?
    Remote military bases, esp. & those on big peninsulas must be connected to the mainland by roads. Hence the new Crimean Bridge, future Sakhalin bridge (instead of just railroad ferry), & the need to have roads to Kamchatka from Chukotka & from there SW to Yakutia to connect it to main roads leading West. There r many ports on bays & inlets that extend territorial waters beyond 12 miles with navies, CG, AF & coastal artillery to defend those zones.
    They already have a CV, they don't need more than two CVNs.
    But some of them think they don't need them at all, or at least more than 1 to replace Adm. K when its time is up!
    Amazonian tribesmen are not stupid... if the eskimo has good advice to give should they ignore it because of who he is?
    No, not at all; but if he never lived in the tropics for a while, his advice is worth 0 to them. If I go to Africa & try to tell bushmen how to be safe with snakes, crocs, elephants, hippos, rhinos, buffalos, zebras, leopards, lions & hyenas, based on my experience with snakes, horses, bulls, cats & dogs in E. Europe, Asia & N. America, I'll get the same treatment. I hope u recognize the difference!
    Though TU-22M3Ms r not ready yet, but older TU-22M3s r along with SU-24Ms/30s armed with Kh-31s & SU-34s with all could be based in Syria, Egypt, & Libya.
    While the TASS article mentions that the upgraded Tu-22M3M will be able to carry newer Kh-32 missiles with ranges of up to 600km, it has also been circulated that the new Kh-SD missile will also arm the Tu-22M3M. This missile is said to have ranges of up to 2000km, which would qualify it as a long range ALCM. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-tu-22m3-the-russian-bomber-the-world-truly-fears-23575
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_(Tu-22M3)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-15#Variants
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-24#Specifications_(Su-24MK)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-31
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30#Specifications_(Su-27PU/Su-30)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-34#Specifications_(Su-34)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit#Variants
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks#Specifications

    With Kinzhals, MiG-31s can now hit ships in the Baltic, North, C. & E. Med., N. Red Seas from bases in C./N. Russia, Crimea or N. Caucasus:

    From bases them in the RFE, the Sea of Japan & large swaths of N. Pac. will also become a no go zone in a real crisis. Imagine if they deploy to Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, S. Africa, Sudan, Somalia, Venezuela, or Cuba (btw, from its westernmost end, the USN base in San Diego may also be reached.) Then large swaths of S. Atlantic, S./W. Indian Oceans, Caribbean, Mexican Gulf & W. Atlantic up to the US E. & W. Coasts incl. CSGs leaving Norfolk & San Diego r put in their ALBMs' crosshairs!
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17793
    Points : 18359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 25, 2018 7:26 am

    It's not the same to deploy missile boats,etc within the Black Sea & a CBG across an ocean!

    No it is not, but why do you think Britain thinks having two carriers are OK, if one CV and two CVN are not enough for Russia?

    The regime change process may be complete by then.

    If it is over that quick and has the support of the people there would be no point in going at all... if however, like previous US attempts to overthrow leaders in Venezuela for example, they might appreciate some naval support to assure them that the next carrier in their main port is not American....

    A CVN isn't some sort of magic fix everything deal... Russia having ICBMs didn't stop the US and EU supporting the overthrow of the legal government in the Ukraine... which shares a border with Russia.

    Having carriers however will allow longer visits to the rest of the world, building ties and trade partner confidence...

    Because they go to fish &/relax there & everything on the planet is interconnected.

    No, actually they don't...

    And if everything on the planet is interconnected then why would they not need to come down here... and if they do then carriers will make what they send down here more capable and much safer...

    Ur NZ & "Australia,.. Japan, other Pacific countries, and many of France's European allies" were pissed when France tested nukes in Polynesia, (distance from Auckland 9,869 miles)

    That is perfectly true... if testing nukes is so fucking safe why didn't they do it in France?

    But why should Russia care about any of this... simply they don't care... why should they?

    More recently, after Chernobyl meltdown, all of Europe got a dose of radiation. The same with Fukushima, N. Pac. & sailors on the CVN-76:

    Chernobyl is in the Ukraine and not Russias problem... Fukushima is in Japan and not Russias problem... notice the radiation from Chernobyl went west away from Russia, and from fukushima to the east to the US... apart from Kaliningrad, it did not effect Russia at all...

    I was talking about France, not Russia.

    I understand that, what I am saying is that Russia cannot rely on the carriers of others to do their bidding like France wants to.
    They simply cannot rely on international law or what is right or wrong... and can pretty much assume the US Navy and the UK navy will be against them every time... (not that they will need to fight the USN or RN, but that they wont help in any way and most likely will be happy to actively get in the way.)

    The Eastern, non-Arctic, route from Atlantic to Pac. is via Med. Sea to Suez or Black Sea, Caspian, Arabian Sea, & then to the Indian ocean.

    The fact that it will go through Iranian territory and Russian territory I really don't see this as an international alternative to the Suez canal... the Russians might use it but for the vast majority of their shipping trade it would be much faster and quicker to go the northern route... the whole reason they are making ice breakers to make it viable.

    For the Russian Navy it might be a useful way of avoiding the Bosphorus straight and the Suez canal to get to the east african coast, or India, but really their major fleets will always be the Pacific and Northern Fleets... who wont really use it much anyway.

    BTW using that bypass would be a great way for the CIA to covertly supply terrorists in Iran and the Caucasus... just drop supplies over the side as you sail through....

    all except Iran call it "the Arabian Gulf", not "Persian Gulf" AFAIK.

    Maps I have, that are western maps call it the Persian Gulf... the US might have decided to call it something else of course, but then who listens to those censored .

    Hence the new Crimean Bridge, future Sakhalin bridge (instead of just railroad ferry), & the need to have roads to Kamchatka from Chukotka & from there SW to Yakutia to connect it to main roads leading West. There r many ports on bays & inlets that extend territorial waters beyond 12 miles with navies, CG, AF & coastal artillery to defend those zones.

    There are bases and there are bases.... for instance the new Crimean bridge is justified when you have a base the size of Sevastopol, but such a base can be supplied just as easily by sea from Novosbirsk.

    Rail connections are vastly more valuable than roads...

    But some of them think they don't need them at all, or at least more than 1 to replace Adm. K when its time is up!

    Hang on... I thought you were arguing they need ten of the damn things based all over the place so at the first hint of a coup they can get them there within 24 hours to put down that insurrection....

    No, not at all; but if he never lived in the tropics for a while, his advice is worth 0 to them.

    Hahahahahaha... I can tell you right now what advice he could give them and they would be very stupid not to listen...

    His advice would be to not trust the white man... Twisted Evil Razz

    If I go to Africa & try to tell bushmen how to be safe with snakes, crocs, elephants, hippos, rhinos, buffalos, zebras, leopards, lions & hyenas, based on my experience with snakes, horses, bulls, cats & dogs in E. Europe, Asia & N. America, I'll get the same treatment. I hope u recognize the difference!

    My point is that anyone can give good advice and anyone can give bad advice... thinking that someone is going to give bad advice just because they are an Eskimo, or a white person from Chicago, is just ignorant.

    If that bushman tells you the best way he has found to deal with Hipppos is to pray to god every morning and wear some white paint on your face... are you going to feel confident around hippos in the bush?

    Hippos kill more people in Africa than Lions do... partly because they are much faster than they look like they should be, they are also bad tempered bastards, and also probably a lot of people underestimate them when clearly they should not.

    You might have read a book or seen a documentary and learned something they didn't know, because their friends and family didn't know and didn't survive the encounter to pass on the experience...

    While the TASS article mentions that the upgraded Tu-22M3M will be able to carry newer Kh-32 missiles with ranges of up to 600km, it has also been circulated that the new Kh-SD missile will also arm the Tu-22M3M. This missile is said to have ranges of up to 2000km, which would qualify it as a long range ALCM.

    The Backfire is a theatre bomber and struggles to reach Syria from Russia... they want to use bases in Iran so it can carry more and use less fuel.

    And the new Kh-SD is the new reduced size cruise missile with a reported range of 1,500km... but it is a land attack cruise missile... not an anti ship one.

    From bases them in the RFE, the Sea of Japan & large swaths of N. Pac. will also become a no go zone in a real crisis. Imagine if they deploy to Angola, Mozambique, Madagascar, S. Africa, Sudan, Somalia, Venezuela, or Cuba (btw, from its westernmost end, the USN base in San Diego may also be reached.) Then large swaths of S. Atlantic, S./W. Indian Oceans, Caribbean, Mexican Gulf & W. Atlantic up to the US E. & W. Coasts incl. CSGs leaving Norfolk & San Diego r put in their ALBMs' crosshairs!

    I have already said the best defence against a carrier based attack on Russia is missiles and land based aircraft... the problem is that you also need to operate away from the Russian land mass, and if you do, you can do it poorly without a carrier and be weak and vulnerable, or you can take a carrier with you and have a much more powerful, much more capable force.

    A good example is the murder of 280 or so Iranians by a US AEGIS class cruiser... at the time a state of the art vessel with enormous fire power was sailing in the Persian gulf when it received word another vessel was under attack why what they called bog hammers... basically relatively small speed boats with rockets or HMGs or light cannon on board used to upset local traffic. This AEGIS class cruiser went blasting in there to save the day and opened fire on the speed boats and chased them into Iranian waters.

    It then detected the IFF signal of an Iranian F-14 on the ground at an Iranian airport (it was a dual military/civilian airfield). The plane took off and was flying directly at them. They warned them repeatedly and then when it seemed like the plane was diving to attack them they opened fire and shot it down.

    There were a lot of factors that created the situation... the captain of the cruiser was an asshole and he was looking for a fight, the software for the systems had an enormous bug in it, the first time they tried to launch a SAM it failed so there was a 90 second delay before they could actually fire the missile that shot the plane down, and the airliner was slightly delayed, so while it was on a legitimate civilian flight path it wasn't exactly where it was supposed to be.

    The biggest factor however was that despite being the most state of the art ship in the US Navy a radar blip looks like a radar blip, and so you have to make guesses... and this ass guessed wrong.

    Note the disrespect in my tone regarding the ship captain... he murdered more people than Manson, but he got a commendation medal and early retirement...

    The fact is that there was a carrier nearby and the carrier commander sent out some aircraft to inspect the target, but he called them back because he thought the AEGIS commander was acting irrationally... he had already sent out a helicopter to engage the speed boats... and the carrier commander didn't want his aircraft fired upon...

    So of course some times having a carrier is no help anyway, or it does not get there in time... Ask the crew of the USS Liberty... attacked by Israeli forces... the attack only stopped when a radio message from a nearby US carrier stated friendly aircraft were coming to assist and were inbound.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri May 25, 2018 10:11 am

    Estonia could become Crimea #2: https://politexpert.net/106841-tragediya-pribaltiki-estoniya-eto-novyi-krym-dlya-rossii?utm_source=24smi.info&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=1662887&utm_term=2007
    ..why do you think Britain thinks having two carriers are OK, if one CV and two CVN are not enough for Russia?
    In our time, Britain mostly acts together with her NATO allies, esp. USN CSGs & subs.
    A CVN isn't some sort of magic fix everything deal... Russia having ICBMs didn't stop the US and EU supporting the overthrow of the legal government in the Ukraine... which shares a border with Russia.
    True; the resurgent nationalism, hybrid war methods + 2 color revolutions is how the regime changes were done there. But, do u think if the USSR had better & more carriers in 1973, could it save S. Alliende in Chile in the long run? I don't think so; the US would have found a way to remove him eventually. But they did save Fidel Castro in Cuba from the same fate w/o any CBGs, only by putting BMs & personnel there. Like Alliende, B. Assad is a medical doctor by training but he's a son of a dictator & got guts to fight for preservation of his power; Russia has a lot more interests in Syria & the ME in general than in L. America. 
    But why should Russia care about any of this... simply they don't care... why should they? Chernobyl is in the Ukraine and not Russia's problem... Fukushima is in Japan and not Russia's problem... notice the radiation from Chernobyl went west away from Russia, and from fukushima to the east to the US... apart from Kaliningrad, it did not effect Russia at all..
    Care or not, they don't want to use nukes if they can avoid it. In 3 days, radiation reached areas South of the plant (it's not far S. from the RF border) after the wind changed. A few months later, I went by a train that passed near the area & across a corner of Belorussia that was contaminated; upon arriving to Leningrad, all passengers had to go through a radiation detector. Fisheries may also be affected in the RFE & NW Pacific, not only close to Japan.
    ..Russia cannot rely on the carriers of others to do their bidding
    I never implied that, only the fact that France is in a better position, having several allies with more CV/Ns. She mostly jumps on the bandwagon when deploying its CVN to demonstrate solidarity.  
    For the Russian Navy it might be a useful way of avoiding the Bosphorus strait and the Suez canal to get to the east african coast, or India, but really their major fleets will always be the Pacific and Northern Fleets... who won't really use it much anyway. BTW using that bypass would be a great way for the CIA to covertly supply terrorists in Iran and the Caucasus..
    But it will add flexibility & speed transferring ships & maybe subs between fleets with these shortcuts. They could send small ships from the Baltic, N. Fleet & BSF faster down their internal waterways to the Caspian & using Eurasian Canal to the Indian Ocean, bypassing Med. & Red Seas & 3 choke points to help fight pirates, etc. Also if 2 choke points in the Red Sea r blocked, the returning Baltic, Nortern, & BSF ships could get back &, if needed, the small Pac. Fleet ships could deploy into the Med. Sea via Iran & the Caspian Sea. http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-05-25/2_997_red.html?print=Y

    Ships that r allowed to use the waterway in Iran will be be searched & given pilots & security details to prevent that.
    Maps I have, that are western maps call it the Persian Gulf...
    As I recall, they started using "Arabian"
    during the Desert Shield to placate the Saudis. The word "Persian" isn't accurate either as the country is now called Iran, not Persia, from the "Parthi"a in Roman times. That empire stood up & didn't lose to Rome; emperor Valerian was taken POW & killed there.
    ..the new Crimean bridge is justified when you have a base the size of Sevastopol, but such a base can be supplied just as easily by sea from Novosibirsk. Rail connections are vastly more valuable than roads...
    U mean Novorossiysk; Novosibirsk is in W. Siberia. FYI, the Crimean bridge supposed to have railroad over it next year.
    I thought you were arguing they need ten of the damn things based all over the place so at the first hint of a coup they can get them there within 24 hours to put down that insurrection..
    If they have 6 total, 2 will be ready 24/7 to deploy (not in 24hrs, that's unrealistic!) & do what u suggest, or to at least perform halfway decent compared to the USN- its stated mission is "to conduct prompt & sustained operations at sea in support of the national policy", whatever that means nowadays.
    His advice would be to not trust the white man..
    I meant advice on surviving the elements & other natural dangers.
    The uncontacted tribes there surely communicate with those who been contacted & know about us already. They also have medicine man/shamans who get visions + ESP abilities to guide them.
    The Backfire is a theatre bomber and struggles to reach Syria from Russia..
    I expect them to be equipped with IRPs since the US already accused them of vilationg Strat. Arms Limitation Treaty anyway.
    ..the problem is that you also need to operate away from the Russian land mass, and if you do, you can do it poorly without a carrier and be weak and vulnerable, or you can take a carrier with you and have a much more powerful, much more capable force.
    I doubt that in 20-30 years, the Russian economy will require the VMF to be even 1/2 of a global policeman like the RN was in XIX & the USN was in the late XX century. That's why some folks there think that CVNs r not needed now or later. Between the 2 extremes, IMO they better have what they can afford, no more, no less, & adjust their maritime doctrine accordingly. Otherwise, they'll bite more than they can chew. At this stage, it's a lot more urgent to build new & bigger nuclear icebreakers to stay competitive in the Arctic  & replace the old Delta boomers with Boreys then wasting $ & time on CVNs, & their MOD knows it!
    https://russian.rt.com/russia/article/515993-bulava-pusk-minoborony


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat May 26, 2018 3:00 am; edited 3 times in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 218
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Fri May 25, 2018 2:26 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The subs are totally independent and will be built or not built whether there is a CVN or not.
    The money is finite but the perceived needs are not. So, the money spent in nuclear subs is automatically not available for CVN, so they are not independent...

    GarryB wrote:
    As the Russians themselves have proposed something between the Kuznetsov and the super carriers... 70-80K ton.
    Ok I see. Could agree on that, but what about the Charles de Gaulle? Only 42.500 ton full displacement, 40 aircraft, catapults and AWACS... what is the problem in your opinion with a solution like this?

    GarryB wrote:
    Hydrogen is less dangerous than petrol... the flashpoint of petrol means a fire burning away can lead to a very big explosion when it reaches flashpoint... AFAIK hydrogen doesn't have a flashpoint...

    For hydrogen to actually explode it needs the perfect mix of hydrogen and oxygen and it needs to be compressed... fill the gaps between the hydrogen filled bags with pure nitrogen and there is zero risk of fire let alone explosion... especially when the structure is made of carbon fibre and fire resistant materials in the bags and other things.
    AFAIK the hydrogen can burn in any concentration between 4 and 74% of air volume. It is a tricky gas. In your case you would need double failure to explode but the nitrogen would reduce the buoyancy of the airship.

    GarryB wrote:
    The thing is that powered through the tether the fuel cell is not there to power anything... just change the weight of the airship.

    You could put a compressor on there too to compress the hydrogen to make it come down faster... and if it comes down too fast let the compressed hydrogen gas out into a hydrogen bag, or just dump some water... and the lift will increase and the descent will slow...
    OK. But if a tethered airship is practical even at those heights then the powering problem is gone. I wonder what the problem here is that precludes this solution from being implemented in ships.

    GarryB wrote:
    But the L in LHD is landing, so it needs to get close to the landing beach, while the CVN has no business near any beach... just not safe...
    Yes, the vessel would have well decks. But it does not need coming very close to the landing beach, there are a lot of types of landing craft, hovercrafts etc. that can cover big distances, some of them at high speed, to the landing point while protected protected by AD and ground attack missiles, aircraft and helicopter from the hybrid carrier.

    GarryB wrote:
    I think their roles and requirements are different enough to want both capabilities and have them from separate vessels.
    Modern weapons are so complex and expensive that you need to reduce their numbers and increase their flexibility to allow yourself building them, this is a established trend.

    GarryB wrote:
    If you had an AWACS platform it would be detected at enormous range too, but if it is processing the information itself it will transmit its information to the Kirov and all the other ships in the group and also command the aircraft in the air but as they don't need to respond they don't need to give away their presence... or existence.
    A carrier group is constantly monitored, even openly on the internet. Satellite and OTH radars exists, as well as human intelligence. The command of the fleet is on board communicating orders and getting information... I see no way you can keep those groups and that activity undetected.

    GarryB wrote:
    Note the only AEW system that works is the tethered airship... next to the power cable can be a fibreoptic data cable... the ship towing the airship could be huge or tiny... even a fishing boat has enough internal space for electrical power plants and computer power to process the data collected by the airship.... and 20km of cable and carbon fibre cable for the airship... you could put small electric motors so it can control its orientation and it ascent and descent... and its ability to operate at different altitudes with different airspeeds... their might be an altitude where there is less wind or the wind is blowing a more useful direction for the airship to operate in... as I said.. it can be fibreglass and carbon fibre and really quite strong and totally fire proof.
    You need the electrical cable for the power!

    GarryB wrote:
    they don't have ski jumps and they don't have aircraft except the Harrier and the F-35C that could use a skijump... why copy them?
    AFAIK every plane robust enough to land on a carrier can use a sky jump, what would be the problem in your opinion?

    GarryB wrote:
    Helicopters operating in ground effect on the deck of a carrier drop if they leave the ground effect area of the deck... and large planes taking off often do drop a little when they leave the deck surface... the only reason they don't hit the water is because they are going fast enough to get left from their wings...
    What I mean is this idea would not be totally based in ground effect like an hovercraft. Would be affected by it as it is unavoidable but of course the lift due to wings, speed at the end of deck and lifting fans would need to be enough to keep the aircraft in the air out of ground effect.

    GarryB wrote:
    the Ski jump gives a vertical push to the aircraft and as you mention also help orient the aircraft so it is angled up for max lift... not so good for heavy planes... if they are not moving fast enough such a lift and pitch can make them stall and drop like a rock... Also for bigger heavier aircraft a steep ramp upwards actually slows them down... like a truck trying to go up a hill... so not really a time to go slower for an aircraft...
    But the advantage of the catapult is it has enormous power to push the plane up the ramp... no need for the plane to slow down.
    Every plane needs the rotation to take off on its own, so in fact it would only an advantage to use catapult + sky jump, if they were compatible.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 26, 2018 2:05 am

    [quote="Tsavo Lion"]
    te]While the TASS article mentions that the upgraded Tu-22M3M will be able to carry newer Kh-32 missiles with ranges of up to 600km

    Kh-32 range is actually 1000 according to Russian sources, Kh-22 was 600km




    It has also been circulated that the new Kh-SD missile will also arm the Tu-22M3M. This missile is said to have ranges of up to 2000km, which would qualify it as a long range ALCM.

    No it is not ALCM . Of course depending how you   define cruise missile. If flying aerobalistic trajectory on 50-70km is a CM then Kh-32 and Kinzhal are CM same Iskander ...





    Love this pic description: in Polish: threat to Europe bwahahahha . Typical Polish regime's propaganda.
    BTW I have no idea why they stated range 1500-2000km since Putin explicitly said 2000+ ? and how did they knew mass of warhead?! like cp-paste from Iskander?

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 26, 2018 2:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    It's not the same to deploy missile boats,etc within the Black Sea & a CBG across an ocean!

    No it is not, but why do you think Britain thinks having two carriers are OK, if one CV and two CVN are not enough for Russia?

    just because lol1 lol1 lol1


    I love you Neutral
    A CVN isn't some sort of magic fix everything deal... Russia having ICBMs didn't stop the US and EU supporting the overthrow of the legal government in the Ukraine... which shares a border with Russia.
    welcome Razz Razz
    Having carriers however will allow longer visits to the rest of the world, building ties and trade partner confidence...

    Oooo sometimes you seem to think the rght way but then you're gonna spoil this by saying something stupid like big carriers with Su-57 are needed Razz Razz Razz







    They simply cannot rely on international law or what is right or wrong...

    wait wait wait a law? international law? you know if you believe in this concept then elves,trolls and fairies do exist! otherwise is only a rhetoric figure in political Pr to justify owns actions.





    The fact that it will go through Iranian territory and Russian territory I really don't see this as an international alternative to the Suez canal... the Russians might use it but for the vast majority of their shipping trade it would be much faster and quicker to go the northern route... the whole reason they are making ice breakers to make it viable.

    Not necessarily. Iranian canal is actually an extension route from Yamal till Persian Gulf . Indian Ocean - India, Arab countries, Africa... this again not close to US bases (beside s PErsian Gulf but you can use Iranian waters then..



    BTW using that bypass would be a great way for the CIA to covertly supply terrorists in Iran and the Caucasus... just drop supplies over the side as you sail through....

    They have already Georgia for this.




    There are bases and there are bases.... for instance the new Crimean bridge is justified when you have a base the size of Sevastopol, but such a base can be supplied just as easily by sea from Novosbirsk.

    Rail connections are vastly more valuable than roads...

    In Crimea lives 2,5 mlns people so connecting them with "mainland Russia" is economically justified. Otherwise English channel/ Danish strait's bridges also are only for military reasons...



    I have already said the best defence against a carrier based attack on Russia is missiles and land based aircraft... the problem is that you also need to operate away from the Russian land mass, and if you do, you can do it poorly without a carrier and be weak and vulnerable, or you can take a carrier with you and have a much more powerful, much more capable force.

    A good example is the murder of 280 or so Iranians by a US AEGIS class cruiser... at the time a state of the art vessel with enormous fire power was sailing in the Persian gulf when it received word another vessel was under attack why what they called bog hammers... basically relatively small speed boats with rockets or HMGs or light cannon on board used to upset local traffic. This AEGIS class cruiser went blasting in there to save the day and opened fire on the speed boats and chased them into Iranian waters.


    +1000that's why all you need is medium sized VSTOL CVN thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat May 26, 2018 3:23 am

    Iranian canal is actually an extension route from Yamal till Persian Gulf , Indian Ocean - India, Arab countries, Africa...
    Right, the idea was known since Brezhnev era to enable bypassing of the Turkish straits.
    BTW I have no idea why they stated range 1500-2000 km since Putin explicitly said 2000+ ? and how did they knew mass of warhead?! like cp-paste from Iskander?
    Well, "+" isn't exact figure & could be bravado &/depending on its warhead size. They're afraid of Germany even more should it too start arming itself again & demand lost lands back.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat May 26, 2018 4:03 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 26, 2018 3:42 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Iranian canal is actually an extension route from Yamal till Persian Gulf , Indian Ocean - India, Arab countries, Africa...
    Right, the idea was known since Brezhnev, to enable bypassing the Turkish straits.



    Unlikely during Brezhnev times  Soviet-Iranian relations were far from good.




    BTW I have no idea why they stated range 1500-2000 km since Putin explicitly said 2000+ ? and how did they knew mass of warhead?! like cp-paste from Iskander?
    Well, "+" isn't exact figure & could be bravado &/depending on its warhead size; even with those, the BMD in Poland is now next to useless against them as threat vectors changed. They're afraid of Germany even more should it too start arming itself again & demand lost lands back.

    Putin's original quote is:
    «Это позволяет ракете гарантированно преодолевать все существующие и перспективные системы ПВО и ПРО, доставляя к цели на дальность более 2 тысяч километров ядерные и обычные боевые заряды»,



    This ensures that the missile will overcome all existing and prospective air  and missile defense systems, delivering nuclear and conventional warheads to the target for a range of more than 2,000 kilometers


    I have no reason to believe that Polish journos and bloggers know better about Russian missile's range then Russian president    Suspect  Suspect  Suspect




    he BMD in Poland is now next to useless against them as threat vectors changed. They're afraid of Germany even more should it too start arming itself again & demand lost lands back.


    as for BMD true but Iskander is already there for this. My understanding is Kinzhal is mostly anti ship weapon. Wait wait,  did I get correctly that Poland is afraid of Germany?!   affraid  affraid  affraid
    Where did you hear this?!
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat May 26, 2018 4:09 am

    Unlikely during Brezhnev times Soviet-Iranian relations were far from good.
    During World War II, Turkey’s control of the straits and the Soviet occupation of northern Iran led Moscow to renew discussions on a trans-Iran canal. These also went nowhere. But “in the 1960s, a Soviet-Iranian commission on a possible canal was established” and noted during visits to Tehran by Leonid Brezhnev and Aleksey Kosygin.
    Despite American, Turkish, and Saudi opposition, Soviet-Iranian conversations about such a canal continued albeit very quietly and slowly, Chirkin says.  But the project took on new life in the mid-1990s, when Russian and Iranian officials resumed regular meetings on the possible construction of such a canal.
    http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/04/russia-iran-again-discussing.html
    Update from 2016: https://vz.ru/economy/2016/4/8/804331.print.html
    https://vz.ru/economy/2018/5/31/925524.print.html

    Where did you hear this?!
    I watched a Russian talk show with Polish journalist saying this. That could well be another perceived threat by nationalists in power there.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu May 31, 2018 8:59 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add links)
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2651
    Points : 2691
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 26, 2018 11:26 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    I watched a Russian talk show with Polish journalist saying this. That could well be another perceived threat by nationalists in power there.

    Apologies I forgot how many Rusophobic idiots were breed in Poland since US occupation Laughing Laughing Laughing
    Russia is threat to Europe. Its biggest economical partner?

    Not ot mention that Kinzhal is not cause but response of HATO actions. This one is pure example of ministry of truth.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 482
    Points : 482
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat May 26, 2018 7:55 pm

    Russia's air and space forces will receive in October a new air strike complex, including a modernized long-range Tu-22M3M bomber with a new supersonic cruise missile Kh-32 of long range, Tass reported on Tuesday. The cruise missile Kh-32 is designed to destroy ground and sea targets, radar stations. It has a range of up to thousand kilometers, its speed is five times the speed of sound. Kh-32 were created on the basis of the Kh-22, which until the early 2000s were carried by Tu-22M3s. https://www.pnp.ru/politics/na-vooruzhenie-vks-rossii-postupit-neuyazvimyy-ubiyca-avianoscev.html

    According to expert Dmitry Kornev, the advanced cruise missile is designed, in the first place, to deal with enemy ships, radars and so-called radio-contrast targets, e.g. bridges, military bases, electric power plants, etc. After the launch by the Tu-22M3, the missile climbs to 40 km, transitions to level flight, approaches the target and dives toward it. Since the Kh-32 has an inertial navigation system and a radar homing head, its accuracy is independent of GPS/GLONASS navigation satellite updates. Presumably, the weapon has a range of 1,000 km and a speed of 5,000 km/h at the least. The combination of speed and flight path makes it virtually invulnerable to enemy surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets.
    The new cruise missile is a derivative of the Kh-22 family that has been until recently the mainstay of the weapons suites of both the Tu-22M3 supersonic bombers and the older, now-decommissioned Tu-22M2s. Designed to break the enemy's air defense and attack carrier battle groups, Russian media reported that the missiles are able to exchange information after launch via datalink and able to withstand 20mm gun fire as well as small surface to air missiles.
    http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2016/august-2016-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/4306-next-gen-kh-32-ant-ship-cruise-missile-tests-drawing-to-a-close-in-russia.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_(Tu-22M3): unrefueled range: 6,800 km+1,000km AshM=7,800km,
    pretty impressive combination! Just with these & Kinzhals on MiG-31s, no-go zones can be created for enemy ships w/o having any TAKRs/CVNs going there.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Thu May 31, 2018 9:07 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link, text)

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:09 pm