Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17877
    Points : 18439
    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...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17877
    Points : 18439
    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.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 631
    Points : 631
    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 : 17877
    Points : 18439
    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.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 631
    Points : 631
    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 : 385
    Points : 381
    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 : 2696
    Points : 2736
    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 : 2696
    Points : 2736
    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 : 631
    Points : 631
    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 : 2696
    Points : 2736
    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 : 631
    Points : 631
    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 : 2696
    Points : 2736
    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 : 631
    Points : 631
    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)
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2696
    Points : 2736
    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 9:39 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    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.

    That's the idea. That's why aggressors form HATO (including Poland) feel threatened. I still beleive TAKR is best option for Russia but I am aware it is not gonna be implemented.



    BTW neither Kinzhal nor Kg-32 are not cruise missiles. They are aeroballistic missiles ot ALBM if anybody prefers Smile

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-launched_ballistic_missile
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 631
    Points : 631
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jun 12, 2018 8:53 pm

    As I was saying:
    The President of Russia set the task: by 2024 the country should enter the top five of the world's largest economies. Similar orders by Vladimir Putin over the past ten years have sounded repeatedly, but Russia, with a GDP of $ 1.72 trillion ( IMF data ) in 2017, not only failed to enter the top five economies, but also to approach world leaders - USA, China, Japan, Germany and Great Britain. What can you not say about California - for the same ten years, the American state, which occupies only 2.4 percent of Russia's area, was ableto achieve great success and by the size of GDP (2.7 trillion dollars in 2017) to surpass not only Russia, but also larger economies. ..Russian authorities have been trying to introduce Russia into the world's top five economies for many years, but we have not succeeded in replicating the success of California, and Russia's nominal GDP lags behind the US state's gross domestic product by one trillion dollars. Despite this, the Kremlin does not lose its spirit: Vladimir Putin on May 7, 2018, on the day of his inauguration, signed a decree that Russia should enter the top 5 economies by 2024. Such statements the president made before: in 2007 the head of state said that Russia should enter the top five by 2017, in 2008 the border was pushed aside by the year 2020. In 2011, Putin made similar statements twice: according to the first (in June), the upper limit of Russia's entry into the top 5 economies of the world was postponed until 2021, according to the second (in September) - the head of state considered this task absolutely feasible by 2016 year. In 2012, Putin shortened this term: speaking to the State Duma , he said that "in the next two to three years, Russia will be among the five largest economies in the world" - that is, it should happen no later than 2015. However, against the backdrop of the global economic crisis of 2007-2008, sanctions against Russia, which followed in 2014 because of Ukraine and Crimea, the fall in oil prices and the weakening of the ruble, the task proved difficult to achieve. At the end of 2017, Russia's GDP grew by 1.5 percent, and inflation was the lowest in modern history (2.5 percent). .. However, despite these achievements, in the ten years that have passed since Vladimir Putin's first statement about Russia's entry into the top 5 economies, the country, according to the IMF, has not been raised in the list above the eighth position (in 2008, 2012, 2013), although it did not fall below the 12th (2009, 2015, 2016 and 2017). ..
    However, according to the Russian Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin , the speech in the presidential decree is it's not about joining the list of the five largest economies in the world in terms of nominal or real GDP, but about the top 5 countries with the largest gross product at purchasing power parity. This indicator is considered very conditional: it is calculated in US dollars and establishes the purchasing power of the countries' currency in relation to one set of goods (for example, bigaku), eliminating the difference in prices and leveling the jumps in the exchange rates. This indicator is published annually by the IMF and the World Bank only for states. According to the IMF data for 2017 and World Bank data for 2016, Russia ranks sixth in the PPP GDP rank, the United States was in second place. Thus, according to the GDP of PPPs, Russia really was on the threshold of the top five leaders of the rating, and only one position separates it from entering the top 5.
    However, the PPP GDP indicator, despite its widespread use, does not really give an idea of ​​the welfare of people living in the territory of a country, but shows how much in US dollars all goods and services produced by Russia or any other country for the year. In order to assess the welfare of the population, economists usually use GDP per capita at purchasing power parity - an indicator that is calculated in US dollars and allows you to see how much a country produces goods and services per person per year. ..
    Russia in this ranking does not fall even in the top 50 countries and takes, according to the IMF, 52nd place from 27.83 thousand dollars per person. The United States does not enter the top ten countries and takes 12th place from 59.5 thousand dollars per capita. https://lenta.ru/articles/2018/05/29/californication/
    59.5/27.83= Russia's per capita GDP is 2.13x < than USA's.
    IMO, capital (pun intended) ships, incl. new CVNs, will be very hard to justify building any time soon!
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1613
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:50 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:As I was saying:
    59.5/27.83= Russia's per capita GDP is 2.13x < than USA's.
    IMO, capital (pun intended) ships, incl. new CVNs, will be very hard to justify building any time soon!

    If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6957
    Points : 7055
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jun 12, 2018 9:58 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

    If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 2195
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:01 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

    You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6957
    Points : 7055
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:10 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

    You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.

    One thats says that they have 100k supercarrier already under construction?

    Sure, that's some quality material right there... lol1

    But even morons need to read something so enjoy I guess Razz
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1613
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:17 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

    If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

    Well the Kuz will need to be replaced, it really hasn't aged well, and the future looks bleak, so better to have 'em then not.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2172
    Points : 2195
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:32 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.

    One thats says that they have 100k supercarrier already under construction?

    Sure, that's some quality material right there... lol1

    But even morons need to read something so enjoy I guess Razz

    The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the "given Russia's defense doctrine" in the refered to the Navy. It was your reference.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:36 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

    If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

    And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

    Well the Kuz will need to be replaced, it really hasn't aged well, and the future looks bleak, so better to have 'em then not.

    The kuz wasn't used for anything worth its price. I join PD' view. They should figure what they carrier concept they need first and why they need it and then build it.

    All they have said till now is Shtorm is as capable as Nimitz if not more and it will be a supercarier. Reminds me soviet union building everything western countries build only because they build it with no need at all for soviets.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1613
    Points : 1608
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:02 pm

    Isos wrote:The kuz wasn't used for anything worth its price. I join PD' view. They should figure what they carrier concept they need first and why they need it and then build it.

    All they have said till now is Shtorm is as capable as Nimitz if not more and it will be a supercarier. Reminds me soviet union building everything western countries build only because they build it with no need at all for soviets.

    The reason it didn't do anything was because of Russia's decline.
    Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?

    Granted, not sure what the hell Naval Command was smoking, when they simply pushed for the Shtorm, without any back-up plans.

    It's not always that bad, making some SLCMs out of the Boreis like the U.S did with the Ohio, would be a great move.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:18 pm

    Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?

    Idk if they need it or not. They should know what they need carrier for, not me.

    But if the reason to have it is because US has them ... then Putin should change its admirals.

    And if the new missiles like tzirkon are so good at destroying carriers they shouldn't build them because more and more countries even the poorest can have antiship missiles, even armed groups like Houtis or hezbollah have some.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 631
    Points : 631
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Jun 12, 2018 11:27 pm

    If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
    So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
    (10 currently deployed U.S carriers)
    There's no direct correlation as many other factors r involved & they must be included in that equation, incl., but not limited to:
    available/suitable shipyards; other shipbuilding plans & priorities; manpower (incl. pilots) & workforce; avail. port/base infrastructure or its absence; new aircraft production, escort/supply ships & subs needed; demographics; fluctuating oil prices; domestic political in/stability; international relations/sanctions; possible future costly interventions/relief on RF perimeter & in the M/FE/S.Asia/Africa/L. America; & new counter CVN weapons already being developed, to name a few. a case in point: they r building new base on the Caspian after completing 1 on the Black Sea, & they won't be used by CVNs:
    Why Russia needs a new military base on the "inner" sea
    https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42867?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2599&utm_content=1687732&utm_campaign=1291

    Doable isn't = beneficial after all the above things r considered. The doctrines may & will be changed as needed, they r not written in stone.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:37 pm