Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3859
    Points : 3839
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sat Mar 23, 2019 1:31 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:

    Hmm but Interfax wrote same about scope of work. What was reduced then? (boilers, radars , battle mgmt systems, CIWS)?

    As for drydock well, Russian shipyards need to have large drydocks anyway.  Otherwise no large ships can be maintained in the future.

    According to the article nothing will be modernised, it will only be refurbished.  

    If the future deck fighter is a VTOL then it looks like the plan is to operate no ship larger than a Mistral LPH.

    I believe that is where they are heading. Reason for Mistral in first place was that I think. Putin made it clear a VTOL is in budget and in works. Very excited to see it. But in that regard, they will end up going with floating jump jet carriers be it cargo like ships to really reduce costs or something more military special like the Mistral. In either case, much cheaper.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:43 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:

    There are two priorities:

    1) Nuclear Deterrent

    2) Export

    ... in that order.  

    Not really. They just re-armed the black sea fleet with 3 frigates and 6 new subs and 3 more frigates are suppose to come.

    Kalibr plateforms are a priority too.

    They will export nothing if they don't produce the ships for their own navy. Their shipyards already suffer bad reputation, who would buy them ships that exist only in catalogues if their worker don't knkw how to produce them ?
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Mar 23, 2019 3:49 pm

    Isos wrote:

    Not really. They just re-armed the black sea fleet with 3 frigates and 6 new subs and 3 more frigates are suppose to come.

    Kalibr plateforms are a priority too.

    They will export nothing if they don't produce the ships for their own navy. Their shipyards already suffer bad reputation, who would buy them ships that exist only in catalogues if their worker don't knkw how to produce them ?

    That is part of the export strategy, no one will buy it unless they see it in action first. The unused Pacific fleet is rusting away while the BSF gets shiny new toys to launch missiles at Syria.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Mar 23, 2019 4:15 pm

    First they ordered Boreis for nuclear deterence for pacific and northern fleets and got them really fast.

    Then Baltic fleet received new Steregoushchys.

    Then Black sea fleet received new Grigorovitch and Kilos as nato is more active in ukraine, syria and baltics. They needed kalibr plateforms.

    They armed the smaller fleets with smaller ship.

    Now they ordered 6 new kilo for pacific. Even if pacific is not the priority for russia. US and Chinese are too much occupied countering each other to pose any threat to Russia.

    They got the first gorshkov with more being build. Yasen are also coming. Karakurts are also being produced in mass.

    They also got many coast guard ships. They bought new su-30SM for naval aviation, upgraded il-38

    All that in less than 15 years. It is not going as fast as the chinese but the procurment plan is going nicely and logicaly. The navy was always the third in russian armed force priority. At this rythm, heli carriers will start being laid down in 5 or 6 years.

    It's not only helping export ships. They are getting an all new navy.


    And the ships proved to be very effective as Grigorovitch posed problems to french navy and kilo chased away a british sub during the attack on Syria.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:02 pm

    Isos wrote:First they ordered Boreis for nuclear deterence for pacific and northern fleets and got them really fast.

    Then Baltic fleet received new Steregoushchys.

    Then Black sea fleet received new Grigorovitch and Kilos as nato is more active in ukraine, syria and baltics. They needed kalibr plateforms.

    They armed the smaller fleets with smaller ship.

    Now they ordered 6 new kilo for pacific. Even if pacific is not the priority for russia. US and Chinese are too much occupied countering each other to pose any threat to Russia.

    They got the first gorshkov with more being build. Yasen are also coming. Karakurts are also being produced in mass.

    They also got many coast guard ships. They bought new su-30SM for naval aviation, upgraded il-38

    All that in less than 15 years. It is not going as fast as the chinese but the procurment plan is going nicely and logicaly. The navy was always the third in russian armed force priority. At this rythm, heli carriers will start being laid down in 5 or 6 years.

    It's not only helping export ships. They are getting an all new navy.


    And the ships proved to be very effective as Grigorovitch posed problems to french navy and kilo chased away a british sub during the attack on Syria.

    Remember what I said of priorities, the first is nuclear deterence and Borei falls under that. The only new ships the Pacific Fleet has received that didn't have steel cut before the fall of the CCCP are two Steregushchiy corvettes. The Pacific Fleet is a blue water fleet and the only replacements they receive are corvettes for brown water. No new attacks subs or Kilos... nothing.

    Why did the BFS get so much more than the Pacific Fleet? It certainly isn't more important than the PF. If anyone shuts down the Bosphorus those ships are stranded.

    Getting a whole new navy of corvettes... unshaven That is the cost of export focus.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:45 pm

    Why did the BFS get so much more than the Pacific Fleet? It certainly isn't more important than the PF. If anyone shuts down the Bosphorus those ships are stranded.

    Because black sea is a safe zone for russian ships that will launch kalibr.

    Big ships for blue water capabilities are still not produced in russia. Gorshkov class is only geting introduced now.

    The priority was small ships capable of launching jalibr missiles from stand off positions.

    No new attacks subs or Kilos... nothing.

    They have ordered kilos. And they will have 5 or 6 yasen soon in service.

    Corvettes are more than good enough if you don't want to rule the sea with 10 carriers and 70 destroyers. They got quickly the ability to launch hundreds of kalibr with small cheap corvettes on NATO. If they did go forbdestroyers since 2010 they would have nothing today.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8313
    Points : 8397
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:21 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:...Getting a whole new navy of corvettes... unshaven That is the cost of export focus.


    Ain't nothing wrong with corvette Navy as long as corvettes are getting built in sufficient numbers

    Problem is that they aren't at the moment
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:02 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ain't nothing wrong with corvette Navy as long as corvettes are getting built in sufficient numbers

    Problem is that they aren't at the moment

    Corvettes are for brown water navies.  It is fine for the BFS because it is all brown water but the blue water fleets need bigger ships like frigates and destroyers.
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 6627
    Points : 6694
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  JohninMK on Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:14 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Ain't nothing wrong with corvette Navy as long as corvettes are getting built in sufficient numbers

    Problem is that they aren't at the moment

    Corvettes are for brown water navies.  It is fine for the BFS because it is all brown water but the blue water fleets need bigger ships like frigates and destroyers.  

    Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:18 am

    JohninMK wrote:

    Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.

    If the only purpose of the Navy was to sink US carriers then we wouldn't really need a Navy.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8313
    Points : 8397
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:24 am

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    JohninMK wrote:

    Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.

    If the only purpose of the Navy was to sink US carriers then we wouldn't really need a Navy.

    What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?

    I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.

    Am I missing something?
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22071
    Points : 22615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 24, 2019 9:50 am

    If the goal is to make a VTOL as the new deck fighter then they might as well let the Admiral K sink off Kola Bay.

    Yeah, but the problem there is that some people think it is just a case of wanting VTOL deck fighters and the problem is solved.

    The Soviets and the Russians have never made a fighter aircraft that is VSTOL that is anything as like as good as a simple conventional STOL jet fighter.

    The Yak-36 was a testbed with no military capability at all.

    The Yak-38 and Yak-38M would be vastly inferior to using an Su-25 as a fighter... at least it has a decent gun and some armour and the capacity to carry a lot of weapons.

    The Yak-41 well we really don't know... there was a lot of talk and bluster, but it never really got past test bed either to be honest... the main engine seemed OK, but there were issues with landing and taking off and its weapon system was never developed and it only ever had four available wing pylons AFAIK and no possibility for using belly mounted weapons or fuel because of the heat generated during landing and takeoff there...

    Some members here think it would be wonderful, but I really doubt it... just because of basic logic... to be able to hover and to manouver in the hover it needs balanced lift and when the main engine is super powerful to make it supersonic then it either needs to be near the centre of gravity of the aircraft or you need some serious lift power at the front to balance it.... you also need jet thrust nozzles in the tip of your nose, the tips of the tail and the wing tips to allow manouvering in the hover... which means piping high pressure air from the engines to the aircraft nose, aircraft wingtips, and aircraft tail... if any of those fail or are damaged you cannot land vertically and they take up internal volume that can't really be used to store fuel or electronics because of the risk of a burst pipe...

    Very simply when designing something you need proportions... a certain sized aircraft needs X amount of power in terms of engine thrust... if you put too much thrust in you generally end up with a fast but short ranged aircraft. Not enough and you end up with a sluggish aircraft not suited to being a fighter or an interceptor.
    By demanding VSTOL what you are doing is adding weight and greatly increasing the amount of thrust needed... the Yak-41 is an excellent case in point... it was not a big aircraft by any means, but an 15.5 ton thrust main engine... the MiG-29 was a similar size with an 18 ton MTOW with two 8.3 ton thrust engines, so 16.6 ton thrust in total engine thrust in normal flight... the Yak-41 was slightly longer by perhaps a metre and slightly narrower by a metre also, and its MTOW was about 19.5 tons so it needed a 15.5 ton thrust engine to propel it forward but it only manages 1,800km/h because 15.5 tons thrust is not enough to get it airborne... it needs two extra engines... each producing 4.2 tons of thrust to get the aircraft into the air... it is literally the same as taking the two engines from an Su-25 and sticking them directly behind the cockpit of the MiG-29 pointing downwards and modifying the RD-33 engines so they can vector downwards so that it can take off properly, but once in the air those Su-25 engines do nothing and are dead weight till it is time to land... the internal volume needed to allow two jet engines to be placed behind the cockpit increase the frontal area of the aircraft and make it a design that could never get past mach 1.6 or so... a bit like the F-35s problem... now there is a surprise.

    If the future deck fighter is a VTOL then it looks like the plan is to operate no ship larger than a Mistral LPH.

    And when it fails they will have neither...

    I believe that is where they are heading. Reason for Mistral in first place was that I think. Putin made it clear a VTOL is in budget and in works. Very excited to see it. But in that regard, they will end up going with floating jump jet carriers be it cargo like ships to really reduce costs or something more military special like the Mistral. In either case, much cheaper.

    If that is the case then I would suggest they drop the whole thing... that is even cheaper still, and will save a lot of embarrassment and technology dead ends.

    No new attacks subs or Kilos... nothing.

    They have ordered Kilos but have also mentioned a large order of Ladas too...

    Surely the Navy only needs a surface blue water fleet if it is intending to attack US carriers at sea. I thought the strike aircraft were for that task. As such, the submarines and frigates/corvettes are pretty much up to the task of nuclear deterrence and homeland defence. In many ways even the K is a brown water ship.

    If the only purpose for Russia is to fight the US then I would agree they could only use a blue water fleet for fighting US carriers.

    Russia has the weapons it needs to fight the US but unlike the US and the west it knows that will be its last fight, which makes it a fight to avoid rather than actively seek out and encourage.

    Having a blue sea navy opens the entire globe to trade for Russia, trade that the US or its black hearted allies cannot or will choose not to interfere with.

    A US carrier group could be best engaged with a Yasen SSN with 32 Zircon hypersonic anti ship missiles... or indeed upgrade Oscars with tube liners in their Granit tubes with 72 x Zircon missiles loaded or 72 x Onyx missiles loaded... or indeed 72 x 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles leading to US carrier groups all round the world being called back home to defend the motherland....

    What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?

    I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.

    Am I missing something?

    Russian home defence can be easily performed by MiG-31s with Kinzhals... you have said as much yourself. SSBNs can launch attacks on the US from within Russian waters under Russian air cover and air support.

    The future purpose of the Russian navy is to secure sea lines of communication and trade for Russia and her allies... it might include sending a corvette or frigate to deal with pirates, or it might involve sending PTG and the K to Venezuela on a good will visit... just after the US declares a naval blockade, which Russia denounces as illegal under international law. Who backs down becomes an interesting question, but who is going to trade with Russia if the US is just going to sanction them and then overthrow their democratically elected government... what if the US imposes more sanctions on North Korea and demands to inspect rail cars going into North Korea from Russia... at what point do you stand up to a bully?
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:45 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    What exactly is mission of Russian surface navy?

    I always assumed that it's purpose is to protect naval nuclear deterrent and keep tabs on economic zone.

    Am I missing something?

    The goal has always been projecting power far beyond your shores. We did that during the Soviet by having the largest fleet of nuclear attack subs that has ever existed. The Kremlin decided we could never afford to keep up with the carrier race with the US so the only way to operate safely was under the waves. We could go anywhere and destroy anything on or under the water.

    Today the ambitions have to be scaled back. The plan was to model a blue water navy like France, one that was affordable yet powerful when needed and having a fleet of smaller vessels to monitor a large EEZ. The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

    If the only goal was to protect our shores from American carriers that could be solved by a powerful Air Force with a large amount of tankers.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:01 pm

    French navy without US navy support is not powerfull, at least not against bigger countries with decent airforce, subs and anti ship missiles. Mostly build around the CdG which has no replacement if destroyed.

    Russia needs to start quickly husky class and build 20 SSN and 5 or 6 SSGN (if they keep the oscars, if not 10 ssgn)
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:11 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    And when it fails they will have neither...

    Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:20 pm

    Isos wrote:French navy without US navy support is not powerfull, at least not against bigger countries with decent airforce, subs and anti ship missiles. Mostly build around the CdG which has no replacement if destroyed.

    Russia needs to start quickly husky class and build 20 SSN and 5 or 6 SSGN (if they keep the oscars, if not 10 ssgn)

    The French don't have it to attack bigger countries, they have it to attack smaller countries or terrorist states. If they are attacking a bigger country it would be part of a coalition and it works well for that too.

    The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:43 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:The goal has always been projecting power far beyond your shores.  We did that during the Soviet by having the largest fleet of nuclear attack subs that has ever existed.  The Kremlin decided we could never afford to keep up with the carrier race with the US so the only way to operate safely was under the waves.  We could go anywhere and destroy anything on or under the water.  

    Today the ambitions have to be scaled back.  The plan was to model a blue water navy like France, one that was affordable yet powerful when needed and having a fleet of smaller vessels to monitor a large EEZ.  The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, 

    If the only goal was to protect our shores from American carriers that could be solved by a powerful Air Force with a large amount of tankers.    

    I agree on almost everything just Id add that flag waving is important for political motives/PR.  
    BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.
    But we need to live to see. This year CV project competition should be finalized . Well see what vision o f blue water navy won.



    V79 wrote: every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

    IMHO not "something" but deliberate attack from west. Once Russia gets too independent west finds reason to attack with sanctions/info war. This is correlated to me.






    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Mar 24, 2019 3:44 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:

    And when it fails they will have neither...

    Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.  

    Im look ng forward to hear Garry's response thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8313
    Points : 8397
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:08 pm

    Vladimir79 wrote:...The French have been able to maintain and upgrade this model, every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it...


    What was scuttling was having production chain strewn across former USSR with all problems that creates but due to recent events that part seems to be handled wether they like it or not

    Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

    If they finally commit to Gorshkov platform this will be sorted out

    As for nuke subs they should accept the fact that good subs aren't cheap and that fewer good ones are better than lots of not as good ones, basically order more Yasens while you can




    Vladimir79 wrote:...Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers...

    Not that they are needed anyway

    Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies lol1
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22071
    Points : 22615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 25, 2019 2:14 am

    Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

    The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

    As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

    There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

    The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

    A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

    A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

    BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

    Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

    The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

    every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

    The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

    It will just take a little longer.

    Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

    there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

    You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

    Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

    The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

    The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

    Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

    Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 286
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  kumbor on Mon Mar 25, 2019 9:59 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

    The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

    As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

    There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

    The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.

    A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.

    A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

    BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.

    Have repeatedly said 100K ton ships are not even in consideration, but you keep bringing them up as the only alternative.

    The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

    every time we try to get there something gets in the way to scuttle it.

    The west is afraid of a strong independent Russia... and a strong independent China... in fact a strong independent anything they don't control.

    It will just take a little longer.

    Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

    there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

    You can get away with small like Mistral, because it is not small it is a big helicopter carrier... operating with a real carrier for real air support it is very capable and fully multirole... but thinking you can get away with just more small ships and use some as helicopter landing craft and some as mini carriers like the Hermes and Invincible... well they made it work but it didn't really work well and if you add the cost of the ships lost because they didn't have proper air control then you would probably do what they did and get rid of those little carriers and make your next carrier a 70K ton ship.

    Other problem was lack of commitment to type of platform they want to build and constant change of plans and redesigns halfway through construction

    The problem is that the people are so certain of what they really need like many members on this board can't really prove why their choice is right or better than any other choice... some are obviously wrong... tried before and rejected... the mini carrier with STOVL fighters, and the obvious 100K ton carriers with all the bells and whistles...

    The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

    Also, get ready for five pages of angry replies

    Funny from the guy whose main complaint at my suggestion of slightly larger than the K (slightly larger than 55K ton) carriers is that they wont be able to take on all those thousands of US carrier based aircraft...

    Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Maybe it will, maybe it won't. There is certainly no budget to develop Super Carriers.

    The supercarrier is by definition more of a (1) US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

    As previously(@) mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

    (1) Shtorm is supercarrier

    (2)waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat ? a dinky pocket CV? affraid affraid affraid what did you do to our GarryB dude ?!
    But yes this precisely what makes sense for RuN IMHO



    There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

    but Krylov's 44ktons pocket one one IS a colonial wars carrier.





    GB wrote:
    The days of trying to maintain the largest nuclear sub fleet are over. There is not much money left for conventional weapons. We must do procurement in a scaled back and rational way.
    A smaller more modern fleet is necessary, but fixed wing fighters and AWACS platforms will allow them to be smaller in number but no less capable and vulnerable.
    A modern destroyer can have the firepower that in the 1980s only a Kirov cruiser could have and with balanced modern ships that are fully multirole you don't need 20 ship carrier groups.

    True same with downsizing CVNs. No need for 60-70 as 40 will do.



    GB wrote:
    BTW reasonable aircraft carrying ships are planned. Sine MoD started VSTOL fighter project, to me looks like this will be closer to TAKR concept then 100ktons monster.
    The huge irony is that the multihull proposal is in the 40-45K ton range with a bigger deck and slightly bigger capacity than Kuznetsov... and right in the ball park of what the French currently have... my suggestion is either this with real STOL fighters or a 70K ton like the UK are building two of, but you keep claiming I am suggesting a Ford clone if it makes you feel big.

    if you read my posts with understanding, not "forum rage" you'd see i am talking about 40-50ktons, 20-30 fighters class which was os far ...dinky to you lol1 lol1 lol1
    My only remark is - due to different set of tasks then US number of ASw helos could be increased sometime like Kuz originally. But drones could compensate of copurse.



    GB wrote:Which is not to suggest there are no internal problems either... their corvettes seem rather good, and their frigates seem to be pretty good too, but getting production up will always be an issue, but the standardisation should help even if the multirole capacity makes them rather more complicated than previous small vessels they used to make.

    there will be factions within the navy and the MIC wanting small carriers and VSTOL aircraft because if they work they might end up cheaper, and there will be others who think smaller is not always cheaper... especially if it is too small to get the job done.

    (1) there will be no helo carriers which was already long time officially stated
    (2) Cost effectiveness is measured according to Navy 2020-30 doctrine neither Falklands 80' scenarios nor on 1940's midway ones.


    GB wrote:The real question seems to be do they go for 40K tons or 70 K tons... they already have the 55 K tons in the middle and seem to think it is not ideal.

    Because she is no CVN but conventionally powered TAKR and old with aging deck fighters ?


    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Mar 25, 2019 4:51 pm

    kumbor wrote: Evidently, there was technological progress in the way of miniaturisation of weapons` and electronics from 80s on, but, nobody can tell that 15.000ton hull is nowadays less combat protected and as vulnerable as 5.000ton hull!. Remember KNM Helge Ingstad case a couple of months ago! State of the art, very expensive, almost new warship was ripped open like a can and sank beyond repair due to silly mistake in navigation and communication. Yes I am a fan of big, armoured battleships of the past, but there are shipbuilding principles that are not to be neglected, no matter wnen, no matter how!

    he he battleships in hypersonic missiles and tactical nukes... MAKE SENSE . BTW 1143  Kiev was built to sustain 30ktons explosion in 2 kms and...keep on fighting


    Согласно существовавшим в то время требованиям противоатомной защиты, боеспособность корабля должна была сохраняться при воздушном взрыве 30-килотонного ядерного заряда на удалении 2000 м. При этом непотопляемость обеспечивалась при затоплении любых четырёх смежных отсеков (без учета ангара, где границей непотопляемости являлась 5-я палуба, и указанный показатель составлял три отсека)
    +++
    According to the requirements of anti-nuclear protection at that time, the ship’s combat capability was to be maintained with an air explosion of a 30-kiloton nuclear charge at a distance of 2000 m. At the same time, unsinkability was ensured when any four adjacent compartments were flooded (without taking into account the hangar, where , and this figure was three compartments).

    .

    and armored too


    The presence on board the ASR "1143 Kiev" of completely numerous rocket, artillery and anti-submarine complexes, designed for solving various combat missions, is not typical for an aircraft carrier, predetermined a kind of "hybrid" type of ship architecture.

    The system set the body along the entire length was longitudinal, in the extremities - transverse. The body and the two lower tiers of the 9-tier superstructure were made of AK- 25 steel (up to 30 mm thick) and AK -27 (over 35 mm) steel. The superstructure, starting from the 3rd tier and above, was made from AMg. All vertical surfaces of the superstructure, chimney and the hull itself were made inclined from the vertical (up to 10 °) in order to minimize the size of the radar field and, as a result, the visibility of the ship as a whole. It must be said that the decisions made then by the specialists of Nevsky PKB in some cases anticipated the technology of "stealth", to which so much attention is paid today in the West.


    http://ship.bsu.by/ship/100000
    Vladimir79
    Vladimir79

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

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:24 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The supercarrier is by definition more of a US 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class... Russia would be better off with nothing than with those expensive white elephants.

    As previously mentioned the new multi hull hybrid being suggested is 45K tons or so with a capacity slightly better than the current Kuznetsov and a much larger deck area and internal volume... at worst I am suggesting a 70k ton vessel optimised for what the Russian Navy wants... AWACS and fighters to defend a surface group of ships.

    There is no value in a colonial carrier to overthrow countries and steal resources from the weak... the US simply would not put up with that sort of competition and would create direct confrontations leading to a war where everyone dies.

    What the state armaments programme had been pushing certainly qualified as a supercarrier. The problem was the designers forgot we didn't have a shipyard that could build it. With the sinking of PD 50 we don't even have a drydock to refit what we have.

    The current plans are to base a system on the facilities we have that can construct and maintain vessels of certain sizes. The largest that is right now is a Mistral size and what had been planned for. Just because the French sold off our ships to Egypt doesn't mean the infrastructure disappeared. The USC received much needed upgrades out of the deal and got it for almost nothing.

    The US would have no choice but to put up with it because if they start something... everyone dies.



    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3911
    Points : 3901
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos on Wed Mar 27, 2019 7:55 pm

    The largest that is right now is a Mistral size and what had been planned for.

    For VTOL fighter use, Mistral is small. Unless they just want the fighters as a second capability.

    If they want a naval aviation, they will need something that looks like a carrier. Light Shtorm being the minimum design with very small hangars, no UKSK, no anti-air VLS...

    They have a shipyard that can build 100kT ships. They only lack money for it.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 16 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:22 am