Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:52 pm

    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 26, 2018 9:13 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

    I think they proposed a very simple carrierthat is probably empty and not armoured. In this way 44kT is possible but it is hard to imagine how it could be effective.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2340
    Points : 2357
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Sun Aug 26, 2018 10:35 pm

    Isos wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Tsavo Lion wrote:They don't even mention the SU-57! To me, it means that the SU-57 isn't being considered for navalization or they don't believe it's possible.
    Also, the 2 forward launch positions indicated by raised JBDs looks too short from the edge of the bow.

    The new small Shtorm does not include the Su-57, but neither reachs 70000 tons. Half of aircrafts for half cost, but with aircrafts of lower quality.

    The Su-57 was present even in the Presentation of the export variant of the Project 23000 Shtorm in 2015. This is enough to see the close relation between both projects since many years. And to assume strong technical feedback between them.


    Shipyards don't decide if su-57 is navalized or not.

    The small shtorm is meant for export. Su-57 is still not proposed for export. Maybe that's why they didn't put it on the maket.


    Only the amount and range of permissions needed by a Russian design bureau in order to be able to present a project of aircraft carrier in a exhibition, make not possible that the presence of the Su-57 in the presentation of the Project 23000 Shtorm in 2015 be casual.

    Neither the absence of the Su-57 in the light Shtorm presented now is casual. Obviously this aircraft carrier does not fit the requirement of 70000+ tons stabished recently by the Russian Navy, and is unlikely to be approbed and ordered by Russia.

    The big Shtorm with the Su-57 only will be offered to China, India and maybe Pakistan, it depends of the regional ballance. Russia will have not problem exporting Su-57 to them, at the time.

    If countries like Iran, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Venezuela or others like them want some aircraft carrier, they can have access to the small Shtorm.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 27, 2018 7:41 am

    Using new propulsion technology they can reduce a lot of weight.... for instance with a nuclear propulsion system with electric pods at the front and rear means no bit centralised propulsion system with enormous heavy shafts to deliver power to the propellers.

    The pods can be placed front and rear so it should be able to manouver itself into and out of port or in narrow confines.

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Mon Aug 27, 2018 9:12 am

    GarryB wrote:Using new propulsion technology they can reduce a lot of weight.... for instance with a nuclear propulsion system with electric pods at the front and rear means no bit centralised propulsion system with enormous heavy shafts to deliver power to the propellers.

    The pods can be placed front and rear so it should be able to manouver itself into and out of port or in narrow confines.

    Please, do not mistake azipods and bow/stern thrusters. Retractable/fixed thrusters are mechanisms to help manoeuvrability in narrows, or "get me home" propulsion in case of damage. Azipods are impossible to put anywhere except in stern position. Only icebreakers or maybe some other highly specialised vessels can have complicated and strange propulsion arrangements with bow propellers/waterjets or azipods, but no major warship.

    Please, if you know something specific and more precise about main propulsors placed in bow in modern major warship, tell me! I am curious and waiting to know about revolutionary inventions!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:46 pm

    kumbor wrote:

    Please, do not mistake azipods and bow/stern thrusters. Retractable/fixed thrusters are mechanisms to help manoeuvrability in narrows, or "get me home" propulsion in case of damage. Azipods are impossible to put anywhere except in stern position. Only icebreakers or maybe some other highly specialised vessels can have complicated and strange propulsion arrangements with bow propellers/waterjets or azipods, but no major warship.

    Please, if you know something specific and more precise about main propulsors placed in bow in modern major warship, tell me! I am curious and waiting to know about revolutionary inventions!

    Im not shipbuilding expert but making reactor with electric generation and electrical engines make sense to me.

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Mon Aug 27, 2018 1:57 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    kumbor wrote:

    Please, do not mistake azipods and bow/stern thrusters. Retractable/fixed thrusters are mechanisms to help manoeuvrability in narrows, or "get me home" propulsion in case of damage. Azipods are impossible to put anywhere except in stern position. Only icebreakers or maybe some other highly specialised vessels can have complicated and strange propulsion arrangements with bow propellers/waterjets or azipods, but no major warship.

    Please, if you know something specific and more precise about main propulsors placed in bow in modern major warship, tell me! I am curious and waiting to know about revolutionary inventions!

    Im not shipbuilding expert but making  reactor with electric generation and electrical engines make sense to me.

    I am engineer neither, but have in mind that the Americans have tried to integrate nuclear reactor with steam turbine electric generation and electric motors in submarines.The same is with French. Such powerplants are bulkier, heavier, less efficient and more expensive. The Americans gave up!
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:32 pm

    kumbor wrote:

    I am engineer neither, but have in mind that the Americans have tried to integrate nuclear reactor with steam turbine electric generation and electric motors in submarines.The same  is with French. Such powerplants are bulkier, heavier, less efficient and more expensive. The Americans gave up!

    so far Smile Russians applied this in 33ktons ship so far, lets wait as tech progresses. It is simply - you got one huge power plant and easiness to transferrign power to propulsion, radars, lasers , EW EMALS and so  on...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_(2016_icebreaker)

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Mon Aug 27, 2018 6:07 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    kumbor wrote:

    I am engineer neither, but have in mind that the Americans have tried to integrate nuclear reactor with steam turbine electric generation and electric motors in submarines.The same  is with French. Such powerplants are bulkier, heavier, less efficient and more expensive. The Americans gave up!

    so far Smile Russians applied this in 33ktons ship so far, lets wait as tech progresses. It is simply - you got one huge power plant and easiness to transferrign power to propulsion, radars, lasers , EW EMALS and so  on...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arktika_(2016_icebreaker)

    Turboelectric drive in big surface ships is not so new. It was used in some WWI US BBs, as well as Lexington and Saratoga battlecruisers, later finished as carriers. It has some virtues, as well as minuses. E motors can be placed in optimal place within hull, shortening shafts, offers possibility of fine subdivision, essential for a battleship, there is no need for bulky reduction gear, and it saves fuel. But turboelectric drive is heavier, somewhat less energy efficient and needs very fine watertightness, as seawater and electricity are incompatible. Nevertheless, it was never adopted as standard powerplant, and was discarded from early 20s on in new ships.

    Icebreakers, as a kind of very important, if not capital ships for Russia`s Sevmorput (Northern sea route) are special vessels, where turboelectric drive has its preferencies. If russian shipbuilders can overcome deficiencies inherent to turboelectric drive it can be the solution even for a carrier, but we can only wait and see the outcome sometime in the future.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:44 pm

    kumbor wrote:



    Icebreakers, as a kind of very important, if not capital ships for Russia`s Sevmorput (Northern sea route) are special vessels, where turboelectric drive has its preferencies. If russian shipbuilders can overcome deficiencies inherent to turboelectric drive it can be the solution even for a carrier, but we can only wait and see the outcome sometime in the future.


    Very true. I just hope that when they master 33ktons ship "hybrid" propulsion - nuclear- turbine - electric schema then also CVNs or destroyers (ekhm cruisers) can use it as well. With obvious benefit: all electric power distribution to weapons/electronics is much easier.

    mnztr

    Posts : 119
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  mnztr on Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:18 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

    It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:48 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

    It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

    Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

    mnztr

    Posts : 119
    Points : 129
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  mnztr on Tue Aug 28, 2018 4:55 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

    It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

    Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

    I think the caveat to those is "it depends" where is the hit, Perhaps they can stay afloat with some torpedo hits but I doubt they can carry out air ops, especially if the props are targeted. They will be dead in the water and shortly after dead. As for a hit by hypersonics.. I doubt they were tested for that and I doubt they will be anything but a liability after one Kinzhal hit
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 28, 2018 5:29 pm

    kumbor wrote:

    Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

    we are talking about conventionally not tactical-nuke tipped Kinzal?

    kumbor

    Posts : 162
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  kumbor on Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:15 pm

    mnztr wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    mnztr wrote:
    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:It looks like the guys working only their arms at the gym but forget the legs lol1

    Anyway, is there an engineer who could analyse the design. Will it be able to sail good enough with such a small body and big "airport" on it. The gravity center should be high? No ? If they build one and figure out it has the same issue as german frigates, it will launch the fighters into the water.

    By my opinion, it is clearly impossible to build useful carrier with main dimensions identical to Kuz and 37/44.000 tons ship displacement! Such a carrier with such a displacement can be built only of marine grade aluminium and composites, and it isn`t serious!. Carrier needs extensive constructive protection, especially underwater. I am deeply convinced that it is impossible to build such a huge ship within such limited displacement! Obviously we are dealing with Krylow institute joke to riddle the West that Russians are capable of defying laws of physics, mechanics and shipbuilding! Krylow NII guys are serious scientists and naval engineers. 110.000SHP on two shafts can give this ship 25 knots at best!

    It could be a recognition or re-evaluation that carriers are only a peactime weapons in moderate threat environments. Can an armoured Nimitz class take a torpedo hit or a Kinzal hit or even an x32 hit and still be operational? I doubt it. Any of those scenarios would be several years in drydock if they manage to save the ship.

    Nimitz class CVNs are huge ships with very strong and advanced constructive protection, including armour steel belt, armoured decks, liquid and void spaces and, in newer ships - kevlar lining. They can survive 5-6 Mk.48 torpedoes or 1-2 kinzhal hits, but not both torpedoes and missiles combined.

    I think the caveat to those is "it depends" where is the hit, Perhaps they can stay afloat with some torpedo hits but I doubt they can carry out air ops, especially if the props are targeted. They will be dead in the water and shortly after dead. As for a hit by hypersonics.. I doubt they were tested for that and I doubt they will be anything but a liability after one Kinzhal hit
    Of course it depends on where is the hit. One lucky hit with explosion in hangar full of aircraft can be fatal. Calculating the vitality of major warships Americans usually use their own weapons. Mk.48 torpedo is one of the deadliest existing, so calculation is based on withstanding such hits. Bismarck and Scharnhorst absorbed numerous heavy shelling as well as 9-12 torpedo hits of 21in surfrace ship torpedoes, apart from 18in aerial torpedoes, and both went down with their props still revving. CVN is not a battleship, but experience of combat damages in USN carriers proved their excellent construction especially later Essex class CVs, as well as superb damage control and servicing teams. Nimitz class CVNs have multi-layered underwater defence, at least 4 special bulkheads on either beam, of which one is made of 3 in. armour steel. This UDS is at least 6m wide on either beam. Waterline has at least 3 in.steel belt and there are two armoured decks. Numerous watetight compartments are throughout the hull and she is huge sonofabitch of 100.000t displacement. This protection is nothing to compare with battleships of the past, but it is efficient and very elastic in order to absorb heavy battle damage.
    Hypersonic Kinzhal is still in an experimental phase. Due to high speed and long range HE warhead cannot be heavy. It can pin through the ship, and if reactor, powerplant, jet fuel and loaded aircraft are missed, Nimitz can survive even a few HE Kinzhals.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:32 pm

    kumbor wrote:100.000t displacement. This protection is nothing to compare with battleships of the past, but it is efficient and very elastic in order to absorb heavy battle damage.
    Hypersonic Kinzhal is still in an experimental phase. Due to high speed and long range HE warhead cannot be heavy. It can pin through the ship, and if reactor, powerplant, jet fuel and loaded aircraft are missed, Nimitz can survive even a few HE Kinzhals.

    Iskander has 500kg one. So 2x average ASh but 10Ma (~3kms if measured above 11km of 3,4kms on sea level) is speed where mass has kinetic energy more less equal its weight.
    So if Kinzhal is ~4 tons still CV reaches 2 tons. It is like 2 tons bomb hits a ship. if not nuclear tipped.


    Of course depending of energy transfer pattern, more small parts flying around the better.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1151
    Points : 1151
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Hole on Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:32 pm

    A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

    A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:55 pm

    Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

    A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

    If the sub can go attack a carrier protected by destroyer and its own ASW aviation, then it can attack easily a less protected task group with only destroyers and no carrier.

    If you have noticed russian K has more ka-27 ASW helicopters than jets on board. A carrier that is well protected can be a very hard targets to hit. Russian have since the cold war put more trust in long range missiles and torpedos against them than going with ssk and small torpedos.

    Anyway a carrier should be kept far from coasts, in open ocean and it should have its own weapons against any threat be it ASW or air defence or anti ship.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1132
    Points : 1130
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:31 pm

    Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

    A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

    It would take more then one direct torpedo hit to sink a carrier, you realize the keels and layout are designed to stay afloat even if part of it destroy or underwater.

    Not saying you cannot sink a carrier with torps but one torp isn't going to do it alone will take a good amount of em.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2452
    Points : 2446
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Aug 28, 2018 11:54 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

    A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

    It would take more then one direct torpedo hit to sink a carrier, you realize the keels and layout are designed to stay afloat even if part of it destroy or underwater.

    Not saying you cannot sink a carrier with torps but one torp isn't going to do it alone will take a good amount of em.

    Depend. It is all random and no one can really know what will happen when the torpedo explodes. It can start a fire that can make the steel very week and destroy the ship, it can make other equipment inside the carrier explode and blow up everything inside, just like it can miss and make a very small hole that would be repaired in 20 minutes ...

    Anyway, a captain of a sub that fires at a carrier will fire all its torpedo at once on it to have multiple hits. Not just one torpedo.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:53 am

    Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:09 am

    LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

    and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 822
    Points : 816
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 29, 2018 3:10 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

    and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Correction: I meant, nearly as useless as the half-arsed LHD STOVL carrier lol1 lol1 lol1
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1151
    Points : 1151
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Hole on Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:31 am

    The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3716
    Points : 3754
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:31 pm


    Hole wrote:The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

    Soviet "Kit" 650mm had a warhead with equivalent of 750 kg TNT just because 533 didnt guarantee one-hit-one-kill.





    LMFS wrote:

    and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil
    Correction: I meant, nearly as useless as the half-arsed LHD STOVL carrier lol1 lol1 lol1[/quote]


    LHA is bad true for Midway for anything else many times better Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Nov 18, 2018 10:42 pm