Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Talking bollocks thread #2

    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3646
    Points : 3628
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:25 pm

    Karl Haushofer wrote:
    par far wrote: Accidents like this happen to every country.
    When was the last time the US lost 30 high ranking military officers in the same accident?

    They lose people often. This year an air refuler crashed, killed all 7 on board. Lot less old of a plane that the An-32 as well. Last year, plenty of us choppers crashed too.
    onwiththewar
    onwiththewar

    Posts : 54
    Points : 54
    Join date : 2014-07-18

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  onwiththewar on Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:01 pm

    Karl Haushofer wrote:
    par far wrote: Accidents like this happen to every country.
    When was the last time the US lost 30 high ranking military officers in the same accident?

    US lost 22 people in 2017 due to aircraft / helicopter crashes.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/24/us-troops-killed-in-plane-crashes-skyrockets-in-2017.html

    Most notably, the KC-130 crash in Mississippi July 2017, which killed 16 people.

    True they did better than Russia but not by much, consider Russian army had maybe less than 10% of fundings and in 2017 had conducted 10 times more combat operations (US army didn't really do much in 2017 apart from dropping a few bombs here and there + hiding behind come Kurds). I say Russia would have had far fewer accidents if all we had to do was sitting doing nothing in some bases, or we didn't have use 40 year old Soviet hardware (that An-26 was made in 1980).

    Still, it's undeniable that many of these accidents could be avoided. Russia would certainly take lessons from them, modernise our transportation fleet, improve pilot trainings and become better.





    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21084
    Points : 21632
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:11 pm

    When you have missile with unlimited range it doesn't matter where you launch it from so this would be redundant (especially with Status-6 in play)

    If NATO is spending money on SOSUS systems around the globe they are spending less on actually useful things...

    Putting unlimited range cruise missiles in a converted Delta IV would be relatively cheap and easy thing to do with the backup of being able to be used for all sorts of other shit like spying, or simply monitoring naval traffic in specific areas... you could put a naval spetsnaz team on board for all sorts of sneaky stuff and of course against third world countries a torpedo from a Delta is just as effective as one from a Yassen.

    If the US wants to be paranoid then you have to take steps to make them even more so... Smile

    Replacing SLBMs with Kalibrs would turn them into excellent arsenal ships, having them tag along with couple of corvettes would turn those corvettes from light patrol into a force capable of flattening a decent sized country at discount price, perfect for Middle East

    Well I would say a corvette would not offer the range and endurance needed, nor the sensors or sensor range needed to make effective use of those long range missiles, but it does suggest the potential for a larger ship that is the opposite of an arsenal ship... make it a long endurance long range ship with basic self defence and good air defence assets, but no attack capability on its own. Fit it with 3-4 helos and perhaps a couple of VSTOL AWACS drones...

    It can operate with one or two converted Deltas with 150 missile tubes each and they can be long range land attack cruise missiles as well as the various anti sub and anti ship missiles...

    On the surface is a relatively large ship with lots of helos and good sensors and air defence but lacking in anti ship and anti sub weapons... hidden underneath is the rest of the iceberg...
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3482
    Points : 3566
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:08 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    gaurav wrote:........
    I think Russia does not need any Kinzhal or Avangard .. even AN-26 , AN 32 filled with hundreds of Russian suicide troopers willl be enough
    to "overwhelm" US missile defense in Romania and poland ..
    In this case AN-26 will make a subsonic dive from high altitude say 5 kms , on to the us missile defense and along with all the crew and military officers everybody will be killed..

    Putin will be happy because US missile defense got overwhelmed ..

    Retard confirmed.

    I found Guarav's post hillarious actually.

    But of course why fight with the Americans in Romania and Poland at all.. with such an army as ours we don't need enemies, really. Never mind all those super-duper missiles Putin showed off.

    And while those officers get my condolences of course - we deserve the losses that we get. Poor pilots, a light-hearted attitude towards aircraft maintance, officers more worried about their careers than making sure their units are functioning properly. I don't know what it is but it's indicative of a problem even a blind man can see that.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8091
    Points : 8177
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:27 am

    flamming_python wrote:.... Poor pilots, a light-hearted attitude towards aircraft maintance, officers more worried about their careers than making sure their units are functioning properly. I don't know what it is but it's indicative of a problem even a blind man can see that.

    Nobody said there are no problems.

    Still, it's the pilots who do the flying (and risking), maintenance attitude also involves pilots and ultimately pilots are officers themselves so keeping units functional is also part of their job. So if they are fine with it then no sweat.

    Far be it for me to tell them how to do their job. I just noticed age and manufacturer of aircraft in question that is all, I ain't flying it.

    Heck, you can always buy more airplanes, easiest thing in the world. It's just product.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4381
    Points : 4496
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:35 am

    par far wrote:
    Karl Haushofer wrote:
    par far wrote: Accidents like this happen to every country.
    When was the last time the US lost 30 high ranking military officers in the same accident?


    Aviation industry in Russia is behind the US(no nothing like this has happened in the US), there is no secret about that and that is why it happened(this will need to be addressed.) But trolls like yourself have made this worse than it needs to be.

    Americans don't put all their eggs in one basket. Clearly Russian command and control is afflicted by rot that they can fail at such an obvious thing.
    There is no excuse in 2018 to save money as if it was 1998.
    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 4381
    Points : 4496
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  kvs on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:36 am

    It is quite probable that Russia pilots are a source of risk. The idiot who crashed the Sukhoi SJ-100 flight in Indonesia is an example.
    Utterly reckless jock-strap cowboy wannabe who thought his skillz could better atmospheric dynamics.
    avatar
    Vann7

    Posts : 4084
    Points : 4188
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Vann7 on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:53 am

    onwiththewar wrote: I say Russia would have had far fewer accidents if all we had to do was sitting doing nothing in some bases, or we didn't have use 40 year old Soviet hardware (that An-26 was made in 1980).

    Still, it's undeniable that many of these accidents could be avoided. Russia would certainly take lessons from them, modernise our transportation fleet, improve pilot trainings and become better.



    Just because is old ,does not means it needs to crash.. being old is not the problem.. poor quality controls ,
    poor Maintenance ,Poor Supervision ,IS the problem. The design of the plane is old ,just like Soyus rocket ,but the parts can be done brand new ,whenever they have fatigue.


     I have been complaining already for 2 years of Russia
    abysmal safety and accidents.. Russia is the only nation of the wold ,that hundreds of its soldiers die sleeping in their
    barracks ,after 2 story building collapse. and it was a new building. Simply the contractors had no supervision from
    the military ,there was ZERO quality controls. PROTON accidents.. according to Russia Government own investigations.
    what was vast majority of their problems?  Poor quality controls.. Poor supervision.  Manuals were replaced for incorrect ones. etc..  WHen you have Poor supervision and Poor quality controls ,what you have in reality is a Mediocre Leadership.   Russia have a very serious Leadership problem... and all this emanates ,from the king itself ,from Putin.

    If Putin was a good leader ,he will identify good talent and put them in managing positions .Being soft and calm and
    boring ,This is not going to inspire anyone General or soldier to do the extra mile ,and be better at their jobs in the army. Perhaps Russia should look at Russia space industry ,the Soyuz rocket management to Run the country ,because they have better record in quality controls than the military.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8091
    Points : 8177
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:13 am

    GarryB wrote:...Well I would say a corvette would not offer the range and endurance needed, nor the sensors or sensor range needed to make effective use of those long range missiles, but it does suggest the potential for a larger ship that is the opposite of an arsenal ship... make it a long endurance long range ship with basic self defence and good air defence assets, but no attack capability on its own. Fit it with 3-4 helos and perhaps a couple of VSTOL AWACS drones...

    Nobody says this Deltas would have to follow just one ship, they can rotate while Delta sticks around.

    As for that larger ship that could do it long term, I'd say that a good helicopter carrier would fit that role perfectly. Big, long range and endurance, plenty of room for sensors and aircraft.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1603
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Mar 08, 2018 1:20 am

    kvs wrote:It is quite probable that Russia pilots are a source of risk.   The idiot who crashed the Sukhoi SJ-100 flight in Indonesia is an example.
    Utterly reckless jock-strap cowboy wannabe who thought his skillz could better atmospheric dynamics.

    Exactly. What I wonder is how do these retards get into such high responsibility positions. Its almost like Russia is recruiting the resident alcoholics in khruschovkas and giving them pilot licenses.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21084
    Points : 21632
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Mar 08, 2018 2:38 am

    So I started reading a thread about Russian military support for the Syrian war on terrorism and instead found a lot of bollocks... so it is moved here... where bullshit belongs.

    We have threads on aviation accidents but as the thread wandered from why Russia is a third world country with nukes, it is all Putins fault, and where do I apply to become a pilot because russia seems to have really low standards for pilots I decided it belongs here and any of you pissy western faggots who think paved roads make people civilised or not can continue the discussion here.

    BTW I would add that just after Desert Storm two F-15s with AWACS support shot down two US Army Black Hawk helicopters with lots of officials on board because they thought they might be Hinds...

    Of course what can you expect from a country so civilised as the US... when a navy captain entered Iranian waters and shot down an airliner full of civilians he didn't get fired... they gave him a medal and told him how brave he was.

    The US pilot that broke the rules and flew low in the mountains in the mountains and killed 20 people when he flew into the support cables holding the cable car up didn't get a medal, but he didn't get prosecuted either after he destroyed the evidence from his video camera of the fun they had...

    But then when US Navy sub captains sink Japanese training fishing boats and murder 9 of the crew... four of which are teenagers in training he didn't get a medal... he just got to retire with full honours.

    What do these stories have in common?

    Where possible the US covers its own arse and does not care about anyone else.

    US military personal care about their careers first and nothing else...

    How fucking civilised they are... lets all be more like them.

    As to all the shit... the pilot made a mistake... brand new aircraft, a different culture of being boring safety first cunts, or replacing Putin with anyone you fucking like will not change that.

    Why are you such pussies... people died and that is sad and they are to be respected for what they were trying to do, which was get rid of some ragheads in a foriegn country who are making life in Syria rather bad... whining that the An-26 needs to be replaced right now, and Putin should take responsibility and shoot himself, and why aren't all Russians as nice and cuddly and civilised like Finnish people...

    Finnish people can be cunts too.

    We have seen civilised Americans who kept their kids chained up and we have seen civilised Europeans do the same... and we have also seen civilised Europeans rape the known planet of resources where ever and when ever they could... Adolph Hitler wasn't some African tribesman... he was very fucking civilised.

    The US basically wants to treat resource rich Russia exactly the way Hitler wanted to treat the Soviet Union... I hope it ends the same way, but with a more balanced score sheet in terms of megadeaths... with these new weapons they should at least manage parity and possibly do even better in a shooting war, and in peace time the cost to the US economy to cover the whole planet will bankrupt those fuckers soon enough.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:53 am

    GarryB wrote:So I started reading a thread about Russian military support for the Syrian war on terrorism and instead found a lot of bollocks... so it is moved here... where bullshit belongs.

    We have threads on aviation accidents but as the thread wandered from why Russia is a third world country with nukes, it is all Putins fault, and where do I apply to become a pilot because russia seems to have really low standards for pilots I decided it belongs here and any of you pissy western faggots who think paved roads make people civilised or not can continue the discussion here.

    +1
    Kimppis
    Kimppis

    Posts : 603
    Points : 603
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Kimppis on Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:12 am

    onwiththewar wrote:True they did better than Russia but not by much,  consider Russian army had maybe less than 10% of fundings and in 2017

    Sorry, but this triggers me every time. Russia's budget is not more than 10 times smaller. Shouldn't that be... like extremely obvious at this point? The Russian military doesn't spend dollars + the devaluation had no effect (in 2013 roubles the Russian military budget would be more than $80 billion today, which in itself is misleading). Russia's PPP GDP is almost 3 times bigger than its nominal GDP. So the difference is closer to something like 3-5x, not more than 10x or something even more ridiculous.
    TheArmenian
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1812
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  TheArmenian on Thu Mar 08, 2018 12:58 pm

    Hey Garry, you forgot so many other examples such as:

    -US Destroyers that tend to crash themselves with tragic loss of life.
    -Submarine (USS Miami) that had to be decommissioned because they allowed to have on board a sailor (with problems in his gray matter) who started a fire on board.
    -Airplanes and helicopters who tend to loose parts when flying over Japanese cities.
    -etc.
    -etc.

    By the way, thanks for bringing these garbage discussions to the Bollocks thread. In my opinion, it should be done quicker.

    Personally, I would also like to see some warnings and bans applied to trolls, haters, provocateurs and drama queens. They are very much succeeding in degrading the quality of this forum. We lost many quality posters because of that.
    Perhaps you should discuss the matter with the forum Administrator.


    avatar
    Peŕrier

    Posts : 281
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:19 pm

    So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.

    Let's say the area is located at 1000 NM from a reference russian Navy's base.

    A corvette will have to sail those 1000 NM just to reach its area of operations, at a typical cruise speed of 15 Knots it would account for almost three days to get there, in a ship having 15 days endurance. After 10 days at most, a replacement will have to relieve the first corvette, and so on.

    You will have three corvettes that in a month sailed a whooping 6000 NM only to get to the area of operations and to come back from there.

    And you will have let's say around 270 men deployed, all of these to perform the job of a single destroyer.

    Obviously, a corvette is plain shit under any conceivable parameter when compared to a destroyer.

    Corvettes exist for a reason and a reason only: to relieve big ships from domestic duties.

    They are not, never intended to be deployed far from home waters.

    To put things in the right prospective, 1000 NM are nothing when speaking of naval deployments.

    It means sending ships from Sebastopol to Tripoli.

    Reaching from Sebastopol the Gulf of Aden would already mean over 2000 NM one way.

    Russia needs ocean going warships, and nothing short of a 7000 tons destroyer, with 30 to 40 days endurance would do the job.

    And it would be even cheaper to operate when performing long range missions, in addition to being 10 X more effective.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8091
    Points : 8177
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:07 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.......

    Fine, send one Udaloi destroyer

    Same thing one way or another, someone in the Middle East is getting triple digit number of LACMs up their asses courtesy of one ship
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21084
    Points : 21632
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:24 am

    Just because is old ,does not means it needs to crash.. being old is not the problem.. poor quality controls ,
    poor Maintenance ,Poor Supervision ,IS the problem.

    If it is such a fundamental issue how could an aircraft last long enough to be old?

    I mean if they don't know how to fly the damn things safely, and don't spend any money keeping them operational, they don't maintain them properly, have poor quality control making them... how could they even fly in the first place let alone remain in service for years and get old?

    Or are you just a little whiny bitch...

    Russia's PPP GDP is almost 3 times bigger than its nominal GDP. So the difference is closer to something like 3-5x, not more than 10x or something even more ridiculous.

    The last figures I saw were 700 billion for the US and 46 billion for Russia... both in US dollars, so we are actually talking about 15 times more.

    By the way, thanks for bringing these garbage discussions to the Bollocks thread. In my opinion, it should be done quicker.

    Sorry, I live on the other side of the planet to most of you guys, so often things happen while I am asleep or unable to spend time on the internet.

    Personally, I would also like to see some warnings and bans applied to trolls, haters, provocateurs and drama queens.

    Not to mention Finns and Poles... and I would say Brits, but their media and upper classes seem so much more Russiaphobic than the average Brit.

    The problem is that a forum without haters and trolls and provocateurs and especially drama queens does not exist... we don't have a rule against being an asshole and even if we did it would be too subjective to actually ban someone for it... I can occasionally be a bit of an asshole myself...

    We lost many quality posters because of that.

    I would say there are 10 different reasons for each quality poster leaving for every 10 quality posters leaving... but if they left because they couldn't take some russophobic BS then they have probably stopped looking at the internet completely and given up print and tv based media.

    It is annoying, but it is not the root of all evil either.

    This forum is like Russia itself... lots of problems and selfish pricks only thinking of their own interests, and lots of positive things and people too... what I like most about Putin is that he is serving Russias interests rather than his own... he could easily boot lick the west and sign off everything they want and be a good bitch, but he knows the west will just use and then discard Russia just like it does with other countries. Russia has to find its own way and become strong enough to keep making its own choices... in the next 20 odd years that will mean building up their navy to support global trade and good international relations that don't go through the west to other countries... the west is not Russias friend and Russia needs to be able to bypass the west and its structures and with the help of other nonwestern countries build up international structures that the west does not dominate and control...

    It does not hurt to hear the stupid stereotypes about Russians occasionally, but it is also important to move them to the talking bollocks thread where they belong too.

    BTW I was surfing Youtube looking for videos on the Mosin 3 line rifle and found a 40+ minute video on which Mosins are the most valuable and the guy spent most of his time talking about Finnish ripoffs... it was so disappointing.


    Rant off.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21084
    Points : 21632
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 09, 2018 5:13 am


    Nobody says this Deltas would have to follow just one ship, they can rotate while Delta sticks around.

    Of course the Delta would not really need a specifically allocated support ship as the Russian Navy has global communications and could use a range of platforms to detect targets for attack, but a useful pairing would be beneficial in the sense that they compliment each other in terms of sensors and weapons.

    Having said that the pairing could be construed that the presence of the ship implies the presence of a sub... which might or might not be useful.

    Certainly the presence of the ship in the med or persian gulf might suggest to ISIS a threat but there would be very little they could actually do about it... and the satellite communications means the sub could be operating thousands of kms away anyway...

    You could use that to your advantage and send a ship to an area of interest and let your enemies assume there is a sub there... a sub they don't seem to be able to find... how frustrating...

    As for that larger ship that could do it long term, I'd say that a good helicopter carrier would fit that role perfectly. Big, long range and endurance, plenty of room for sensors and aircraft.

    Indeed... another good idea... a nuclear powered Russian Mistral with better self defence weapons from air threats... perhaps even an air defence sub as well as a land attack/antiship/antisub sub... ie one with UKSK launchers and one with Redut and S-500 launch tubes...

    So you deploy in one month three or more corvettes to do the job of a single destroyer, spending far more to accomplish far less.......

    Don't throw the good idea out just because it was not properly thrashed out...

    Fine, send one Udaloi destroyer

    Same thing one way or another, someone in the Middle East is getting triple digit number of LACMs up their asses courtesy of one ship

    Actually I like the idea of a helicopter carrier... especially if it is a nuclear propelled vessel... vastly more flexible... it can act as a landing vessel, an anti piracy patrol vessel, it can do humanitarian work in the third world with its 200 bed hospital and state of the art equipment, it can be used for disaster relief, it is a command centre.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1391
    Points : 1383
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:23 am

    Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

    That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.


    A destroyer can also remain at sea much longer than a couple corvettes, corvettes no matter how good aren't designed to far range sea patrol.




    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4919
    Points : 4951
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Mar 09, 2018 10:40 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

    That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work.



    Soviet Union did Smile
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1391
    Points : 1383
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Mar 09, 2018 11:21 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

    That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work.



    Soviet Union did Smile

    What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21084
    Points : 21632
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:56 am

    Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

    That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.

    Actually it is more likely now, but even in Soviet times they tried to make their carriers multirole.

    Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

    The Mistral carrier the Russians bought but never received is fitted out to carry troop transport helos (Ka-29) and attack helos (KA-52), and one would expect anti sub and general transport types could also be operated from the vessel, and of course it was fitted out as a landing ship... that is what they wanted.

    The new systems like UKSK launchers make multirole easier, not harder.

    They already used the Kievs as command vessels for carrier groups.

    Because they are now building them themselves I would expect they will likely add Poliment redut air defence systems and of course Pantsir...


    What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class

    All soviet carriers were multirole.

    They weren't actually landing vessels, but they pretty much covered everything else for self defence purposes...

    Their new landing ships will likely also have decent air defence and land attack and anti ship and anti sub capability.

    Their new CVNs will likely even have S-500 launchers too.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1391
    Points : 1383
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:07 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Making a Helio carrier with anti sub, anti air, anti ship and land attack plus the choppers and transport it carries, plus all the other facilities.

    That is an idiotic idea, ships like that aren't made for a reason because they do not work. Because you cannot strap all of that shit onto a ship and expect it to be half decent.

    Actually it is more likely now, but even in Soviet times they tried to make their carriers multirole.

    Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

    The Mistral carrier the Russians bought but never received is fitted out to carry troop transport helos (Ka-29) and attack helos (KA-52), and one would expect anti sub and general transport types could also be operated from the vessel, and of course it was fitted out as a landing ship... that is what they wanted.

    The new systems like UKSK launchers make multirole easier, not harder.

    They already used the Kievs as command vessels for carrier groups.

    Because they are now building them themselves I would expect they will likely add Poliment redut air defence systems and of course Pantsir...


    What class are you talking about? because he is talking about an amphibious assault ship with all of that which the USSR never did create the closest thing would have been the Ivan Rogov-class

    All soviet carriers were multirole.

    They weren't actually landing vessels, but they pretty much covered everything else for self defence purposes...

    Their new landing ships will likely also have decent air defence and land attack and anti ship and anti sub capability.

    Their new CVNs will likely even have S-500 launchers too.

    The Kiev class also could not land troops, it did not have a very big internal to allow for troops and support facilities like medical etc.

    You are using a piss poor example to justify what is a stupid idea. The kiev on paper sounded good but it had so little anti-ship ability it was virtually pointless.

    Russia isn't going to make a ship like that and you have no sense of naval warfare if you think they would and that is a "good idea".


    No they weren't they were designed to protect submarines, they had to few weapons and aircraft to be offensive, they are not multi-role. You do not know what you are talking about.  all Soviet aircraft carrying cruisers where built to fulfill these objectives

    anti-aircraft defense of a ship and (or) a group of ships accompanied by it;
    ensuring the security of strategic submarine cruisers in combat patrol areas;
    search and destruction of enemy submarines as part of an anti-submarine group;
    detection, guidance and destruction of the enemy's surface forces;
    assurance of amphibious landing.


    When they get around to making them we will see what they put on them because looking at the specs for their current landing ships they don't have any of the shit you claim they will, so yeah.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3560
    Points : 3552
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Isos on Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:58 am


    Kiev class had anti ship missiles and anti aircraft missiles for self defence, and it also had anti sub missiles... the only thing it lacked was land attack capability and during a landing its Yaks would likely have provided air support.

    Air support with 2 bombs ... ka-52 with 16 atgm is far more usefull.

    Kiev class style ships are useless.

    Better go with 2 vessels, one moskva class heli carrier for ASW and one kuznetsov style carrier for air defence and air support that will assist landing ships. It's more expensive but much more usefull.

    Kiev class style ships will be needed in big numbers to compete that so the price should be the same but the capabilities would be worse than if you yave real carriers.

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:12 pm

    Isos wrote:Kiev class style ships are useless.

    It depends what your mission is.... For the Soviet-era missions of defense of the SSBN bastions from interdiction by US surface vessels and SSNs they would have worked well. They would have operated under the envelope of heavy land-based aviation strike forces to target US CVNs and neutralise their carrier based strike aircraft, so Kievs could concentrate on ASW operations with her helo assets, and use her anti-surface and AA for defending her self and her escorts.

    Don't channel US/NATO propaganda BS. The Kiev class were designed with a purpose in mind. They weren't some mindless hare-brained collection of whatever odd systems the cave-men Russian peasants could beg, borrow or steal in a failed attempt to emulate the Exceptional Ones from the Shining City across the sea.....

    Sponsored content

    Talking bollocks thread #2 - Page 4 Empty Re: Talking bollocks thread #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:38 pm