+55

Mir

ALAMO

Arrow

limb

walle83

lyle6

lancelot

thegopnik

11E

LMFS

owais.usmani

Firebird

Hole

Tsavo Lion

Rodion_Romanovic

Admin

Gazputin

VladimirSahin

eehnie

franco

Ned86

x_54_u43

miketheterrible

jhelb

Big_Gazza

Project Canada

miroslav

Tolstoy

RTN

PapaDragon

Isos

hoom

JohninMK

kvs

OminousSpudd

SeigSoloyvov

KiloGolf

Singular_Transform

runaway

AlfaT8

GJ Flanker

George1

etaepsilonk

Vann7

Department Of Defense

sepheronx

TR1

Viktor

collegeboy16

flamming_python

Mindstorm

As Sa'iqa

GarryB

Austin

ahmedfire

59 posters

Go to page :

1 ... 7 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 15 ... 19

VMF vs. USN scenarios

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-31

Post n°276

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

flamming_python 22/12/16, 12:38 am

OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat

Hahaha, you know out of all the stupid s**t I hear out of you young un's, this one one has to take the Pulitzer.

Jason Bourne? How is it possible to compare your Maaaaaaaaatt Daaaaaaaamon to such an iconic and legendary in the world of film series of movies - as James Bond?

This is the most ludicrous rubbish I heard all week.

OminousSpudd

OminousSpudd: Posts : 942
Points : 947
Join date : 2015-01-03
Location : New Zealand

Post n°277

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

OminousSpudd 22/12/16, 08:38 am

flamming_python wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat

Hahaha, you know out of all the stupid s**t I hear out of you young un's, this one one has to take the Pulitzer.

Jason Bourne? How is it possible to compare your Maaaaaaaaatt Daaaaaaaamon to such an iconic and legendary in the world of film series of movies - as James Bond?

This is the most ludicrous rubbish I heard all week.

What can I say, welcome to generation snowflake...
Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-31

Post n°278

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

flamming_python 22/12/16, 01:55 pm

OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.

I'm neither, matey clown

OminousSpudd

OminousSpudd: Posts : 942
Points : 947
Join date : 2015-01-03
Location : New Zealand

Post n°279

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

OminousSpudd 22/12/16, 04:36 pm

flamming_python wrote:

OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.

I'm neither, matey

Yes, well that's pretty clear. I was referring to the movie characters... I really couldn't care less.

You'll have to excuse me from this invigorating and worthwhile conversation.

flamming_python

flamming_python: Posts : 8988
Points : 9050
Join date : 2012-01-31

Post n°280

Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.

flamming_python 15/06/17, 07:04 am

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Isos wrote:Russia wanted Mistral and would be using them today if there wasn't sanctions.

But when I say Mistral I mean something of it class or little bit bigger. Not specially the Mistral class. I mean an amphibious ship.

They can carry " 16 NH90 or Tiger helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 AMX Leclerc tanks, or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion,[3] and 450 soldiers"

A mig is similar in size to a NH90 helicopter. So you can have 10 helicopters and 6 Mig on it. The capacity for troop won't be changed as they are not in the same hangars. If you want to use it in the open sea for naval battle and NOT for a landing you can fit easily at least 12 Mig 29 or more if you built a bigger "Mistral" of let's say 230m, that's modularity.

12 MiGs wont control a whole country... even a third world one.

That means 3 CAP of four aircraft, so you can control one piece of air space 24/7 assuming no losses with three rotating teams of 4 aircraft.

In other words you can fly over the landing area and that is about it.

And if those 12 MiGs are operating from your Mistral class ship that means no helicopters... transport or support so those MiGs are flying combat air patrol and CAS missions...

That's what I said. They can't control a country, they can just be used in some situations like retaking an Island or attacking some strategical targets or helping a landing by attacking deeper. Even K won't be enough to control a country ... Even US needs more than 1 to control Afghanistan ...

British carriers allowed them to take an Island, they would never allow them to control Argentina if they wanted to.

I hope you understood me. I'm not saying it's a magical ships that will replace carriers. I'm just saying that big amphibious ships have the place needed to give them more capabilities by adding some fighters on it (not replacing all its helicopters but a mix of them) and giving a second role for high sea deployment against other navy by having it's small number of fighter patroling and giving them better visibility. Japan navy is planning to do this with it's F-35 BTW. Even fiting one Mig is giving it a enormous advantage over a navy that is not or can't employ its aviation during a battle far from homeland.

Imagine you confront 2 navies: 5 destroyers against 5 destroyers. They will be affected by radar range and missile range. Now you send your amphibious ships with 2 Mig-29 on it

>> It becames 5 destroyers + 2 Mig-29 radars (300km against destroyers) + a better picture of the battlefield + fast moving vectors armed with anti ship missiles which can be carried in big numbers on the amphibious ship and rearmed AGAINST 5 destroyers.

Even if you are facing a US carrier having 12 Mig-29 can be usefull to intercept attack by giving the position of the Harpoons to the ships and destroying some Hornets AND lunching surprise air attacks from long range.

If you don't have the money for a big modern carrier, a cheap basic ship lunching modern fighters is really enough.

It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....

Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.

Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.

That also removes the Choppers which is the entire reason the ships are built.

Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.

WW2 escort carriers had on average 30 plus planes.

Pre WW2 Escort carriers were beyond useless in the war with their maybe eight planes at best.

Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.

Isos

Isos: Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-07

Post n°281

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Isos 15/06/17, 08:28 am

SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

That alone tells me all I need to know.

If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.

You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general, should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.

miketheterrible

miketheterrible: Posts : 7383
Points : 7341
Join date : 2016-11-07

Post n°282

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

miketheterrible 15/06/17, 09:33 am

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

That alone tells me all I need to know.

If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.

You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general, should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.

holy shit, that was awesome! Love your post.

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4640
Points : 4632
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°283

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Big_Gazza 15/06/17, 12:37 pm

flamming_python wrote:Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.

Bingo!! With the imminent IOC of hypersonic AShMs, the entire calculus of Capital ship Vs Missile is changing, and probably for good. The Soviets attempted to neutralise heavy surface ships with mass AShM attack, but in those days the technology wasn't fully up to the job. Their missiles were certainly destructive, with the potential for a mission-kill on a USN CVN with just a single hit, but they were large and very heavy, requiring large capital ships or huge SSGNs to carry them in significant numbers, their ranges were such that the attacking platform was within range of carrier aviation, and they relied on external target location and mid-course corrections to achieve their range potential. Electronics and sensors were also relatively cumbersome, limiting reliability and scope for intelligent attack profiles and autonomous target selection/prioritisation (though P-1000/P-700s did implement successful wolf-pack functionality) .

The situation now is radically different. Satellites can readily detect capital ships and relay co-ords to firing platforms, and provide course corrections on route. Advances in navigation allow missiles to proceed under GPS or inertial guidance until they can locate their own targets with multiple sensors types, and improvements in electronics allow smaller missiles to replicate the wolfpack attack modes of their larger earlier cousins. Improvements in propulsion and fuel efficiency allow greater ranges, particularly for subsonic cruise missiles with efficient turbofans, and the use of a smaller high-supersonic terminal attack stage (like the anti-ship Kalibres) will minimise the chance of interception in the final attack run. Finally, smaller missiles allow their carriers to pack more rounds into a given tonnage, allowing significant attack potential from even small corvette-sized vessels, and even larger salvos from large vessels (eg 72x missiles from an upgraded Pr949AM)

Now add hypersonics and/or low RCS stealth.....

These developments are resulting in a paradigm shift in the old Defence Vs Offence equation. Big ships are increasingly vulnerable to small, fast, evasive and intelligent AShMs, and hypersonics will greatly reduce the window of opportunity for a defense system to react and kill an incoming threat. Its conceptually clear that trying to protect a large, slow capital ship like a CVN against missile attack is FAR more difficult than attacking it, and as missile technologies improve, the relative difficulty can only increase in the missiles favour.

Can this trend be reversed? IMHO its VERY doubtful. Much hyped defensive technologies using lasers and rail-guns are just wet-dream fantasies of USN fanboi idiots. Lasers are potentially useful against single missiles but the beam requires adequate time on target to destroy it by localised heating, and the use of heat resistant materials like ceramic claddings in combination with high-supersonic/hypersonic attack speeds will make such VERY difficult to achieve in a real world setting. Rail guns are a pointless concept as their firing rates are going to be very low, and being a kinetic kill weapon, their efficacy is utterly dependent upon the accuracy of the firing solution and repeatability of projectile ballistics. It would be like trying to shoot a bullet out of the sky with another smaller bullet.... Good luck with that....

Final proof of this thesis is that there is a palpable sense of panic in the USN that their vast and expensive CBGs may be rendered obsolete by a proliferation of fast, small, intelligent AShMs that cannot be intercepted by their 70s-era AEGIS system, and for which "new technologies" are less than promising. I'm happy with that as the USNs loss is the multipolar worlds gain...

Hmmm... I didn't even mention AShBMs.... theatre-range ballistic terminally-guided anti-ship ordnance... yummy yummy.....

russia

Last edited by Big_Gazza on 15/06/17, 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

OminousSpudd

OminousSpudd: Posts : 942
Points : 947
Join date : 2015-01-03
Location : New Zealand

Post n°284

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

OminousSpudd 15/06/17, 12:42 pm

As a general rule I think it is quite obvious that Russia would avoid any open-water scenarios when talking USN vs. RuN, even if only due to the sheer number of surface vessels the US can employ. However, it is also quite obvious that Russia has dedicated much of its time to countering the US numerical advantage via the development of coastal defenses such as Bastion which provide a large umbrella of protection for Russian vessels to operate within. While having a potential 96 AShMs available is all well and good for AB DDGs, a certain problem presents itself when considering the vulnerability of the now legacy-tier Harpoon, particularly their ToT. Russia/USSR has/had long been aware of this vulnerability, and has developed comprehensive defensive suites, and offensive capabilities in the form of supersonic and now hypersonic AShMs to exploit it. Little, mobile, and hard-hitting seems to be the Russian doctrine at the moment, despite the potential of Lider-class. To me, this seems logical. I think Russia intends to keep a tactical edge as well, unconventional strategy such as the self-contained Klub-K really could make quite a difference in how a modern sea battle is fought.

I recall an event that happened during USN-RNZN drills, where one of our ANZAC-class essentially terminated multiple US vessels simply by exploiting the geography of a nearby island and operating outside of the RNZN's mandated strategy of the drill. Impressive for a ship with next to no offensive capabilities aside from torpedoes. The Americans claimed we cheated.

One may be reminded of prior military adventures that ended in failure when simple mass and traditional doctrine met with entirely unconventional enemies. Obviously, the Blitzkrieg as an example, although not a doctrine per-se but simply the result of Germany embracing mobility and communications to overcome traditional defenses. Imperial Russia's use of counter trench warfare e.g. tunneling to the enemy, allowed for quick gains during the early days of WWI. Gaius Marius during Roman times etc.

EDIT: Gazza beat me to the chase.

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4640
Points : 4632
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°285

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Big_Gazza 15/06/17, 12:55 pm

OminousSpudd wrote:While having a potential 96 AShMs available is all well and good for AB DDGs

Well, only if the AB doesn't carry any land attack rounds, and chooses not to carry SAMs.... (!!)

OminousSpudd wrote:The Americans claimed we cheated.

Yep, the US does like to ensure a positive outcome by hamstringing the "other" side during exercises. Their childish cries of outrage when a "vassal" nation dares to think outside the (imposed) limitations is like music to my ears! Very Happy

Finally, unconventional tactics can be game-winners, but can also be abject failures. Hannibal crossing the Alps with Elephants, or Iran's attempt to cross the Hawr Al Hawiza marsh with pontoons were creative but ultimately disastrous.

OminousSpudd

OminousSpudd: Posts : 942
Points : 947
Join date : 2015-01-03
Location : New Zealand

Post n°286

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

OminousSpudd 15/06/17, 01:21 pm

Big_Gazza wrote:Well, only if the AB doesn't carry any land attack rounds, and chooses not to carry SAMs.... (!!)

Hence why I said potential. Having 96 Harpoons isn't going to help much against land-based defenses either. All-in-all, operating near Russian coastal waters will be a tad hair-raising, considering the very Russian approach of not putting all eggs in one basket. Cool

Big_Gazza wrote: Finally, unconventional tactics can be game-winners, but can also be abject failures. Hannibal crossing the Alps with Elephants, or Iran's attempt to cross the Hawr Al Hawiza marsh with pontoons were creative but ultimately disastrous.

Agreed, one can find just as many strategic disasters as successes, I was cherry picking. Hannibal's elephants failed, but it was Carthage bureaucracy that called him home and stopped him in his tracks. One could also say it was the unconventional Roman strategy of attacking the enemy at home rather than committing all forces to the defending of their territory that ultimately brought defeat to Hannibal. Very Happy

George1

George1: Posts : 18315
Points : 18812
Join date : 2011-12-23
Location : Greece

Post n°287

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

George1 15/06/17, 01:43 pm

ok you all have gone off-topic so discussion continues here

SeigSoloyvov

SeigSoloyvov: Posts : 3699
Points : 3679
Join date : 2016-04-09

Post n°288

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

SeigSoloyvov 19/06/17, 03:42 am

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.

I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.

Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.

Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.

Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.

Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.

Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.

That alone tells me all I need to know.

If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.

Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.

Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.

You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.

Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general, should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.

Lets make a list of words you are trying to put in my mouth

Rafales ARE much better than F-16's. I never claimed the F-16 was some super amazing aircraft, did I?.

When did I say you need ten aircraft carriers to sink navy ships? That has nothing to do with what I said?. I said the brits lost more warships and they would have lost a shit ton more if Argentina had half decent technology the only thing that saved those carriers was the lack of technology.

When did I say my navy was number one in all things? I said it is number one yes and it is. If you doubt that then your are blinded by fanboyism.

When did I say my navy could not be touched? I said we would take losses, just we would kill more ships in return. It's cute you say this considering my remarks about the Zirzon and how I say Hypersonic ship missiles render basic Defense pointless.

Now you try and put words in my mouth again and I will ignore you in the future, I am all for an honest chat not some trying to pull what you are.

Now onto your other points.

F-18's were designed to strike ground targets and ships, Carrier-based aircraft are not better than dedicated Air Sup fighters for clear reasons that Multi-role comes with a cost.

Put you SU-33's against an F-18 see how that goes, has for the Mig-29 I'll wait and see I have yet to see any real capable action from it. It's Track record in syria proved pretty shitty so far.

Electric subs are virtually noiseless machines and Nuclear subs aren't that Los Angelos was also an older one not a new block.

The french sub merely locked on and hit a button (a simulated hit), that torpedo would not have hit if it was fired.

True but they could have easyily redesigned it front some with little hassle if they wanted to turn it into a semi carrier. So your point is quite moot here.

What would we do against Russia? depends is the Russian fleet near their coast? in which case nothing.

If we caught them on open ocean goodbye Russian fleet. China would stand a more fair chance really then Russia would on the open ocean but it would still be the death of them also.

Near their coast not much.

Your idea is not good has you cannot stick fighters on an helio carrier without basically redesigning the entire ship and harming it's Ability to land troops. so no sorry no offense but your idea is silly and shows a lack of knowledge. Russia Navy doesn't think it's a good idea, US navy doesn't Chinese doesn't.

So yes excuse me if I do not agree when professionals do not also.

Isos

Isos: Posts : 11301
Points : 11271
Join date : 2015-11-07

Post n°289

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Isos 19/06/17, 05:36 am

Well, read again the discussion and you will see that I didn't say they should build them to face US carriers (I actually said it won't be usefull to face it just to have a better picture of the air battlefield and could intercept harpoons and hornet coming too close) ... You were the first one to start to put words in my mouth ...

Till you win a war by yourself against anything other than farmers with Ak-47 (from the vietnam war till today you oponents are just using this weapon BTW) you won't be number 1 in anything. And in the middle of the pacific without your foreign bases US navy won't be that powerfull. 1 Torpedo or 1 missile in your carrier and its destroyed because of the ammunition it carries and all the jetfuel. Bye Bye hornets then russian destroyers can shot at your destroyers all day, you totaly lack antiship missiles on them. Few harpoons won't damage Ru Navy.

Professional agree with it because Thai navy, spanish navy, English navy, Japanese navy, corean navy used or use or will use similar ships. Of course if you have a budget of more than 100 billion you will go for a true carrier but if you are limited in money.

Gazputin

Gazputin: Posts : 354
Points : 354
Join date : 2019-04-07

Post n°290

agree

Gazputin 10/08/19, 03:05 pm

recently they said they will reactivate a heli-landing ship

"Additionally, the navy is considering plans for several new amphibious assault ships with aviation groups employing Ka-52K Katran and Ka-29M rotorcraft. There are also plans to restore the only surviving Project 1174 ship (Alexander Nikolayev) back into an operational condition."

so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them

the British carriers are interesting and incredibly stupid at the same time
the engines are basically the engines off an A-350 ….
which is really clever … same fuel as the aircraft
I'd even say the British are the leaders in gas turbine/electric ship propulsion as far as I can tell ….

but then you have these huge ships which are equipped with crappy VTOL short range F-35s …..
so you have to bring these big ships in close to shore to launch a piece of crap that can hardly carry anything ….
before if runs out of fuel and crashes into the sea … what a wank

….. to make those ships make any sense they should buy French Rafales ….

me … I'd make a few carriers using the same nuke engine as the Yasen nuke subs …. and stick Su-57s on them
park them in the Pacific … a bit bigger than the Kuznetsov … carriers are next to useless anywhere else

then I'd just have Yasen SSGNs everywhere …..
park a few off the USA full of ASM to knock down crappy B-52s as they take off …… etc

let's face it there is only 1 possible way NATO could even 1/2 beat Russia in a conventional war it's …..
by swarming the defences with massive waves of cruise missiles …..

to me SSGNs are new "carriers" … that's my view ….

Admin

Admin: Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10

Post n°291

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Admin 10/08/19, 08:31 pm

Gazputin wrote:recently they said they will reactivate a heli-landing ship

"Additionally, the navy is considering plans for several new amphibious assault ships with aviation groups employing Ka-52K Katran and Ka-29M rotorcraft. There are also plans to restore the only surviving Project 1174 ship (Alexander Nikolayev) back into an operational condition."

so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them

The cost of it is the reason. The French use a Mistral conducting the Joan d'Arc training cruise every year to keep their aviation assets trained. It is far cheaper to operate that, which is basically a flat deck cruise ship, than it is to operate the Kuznetsov.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38982
Points : 39478
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°292

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

GarryB 10/08/19, 09:20 pm

SSGNs are potent, but not really something you can use to show the flag.

If they are going to have decent sized surface ships then they need aircraft... AWACS and fighters, that can go anywhere they can to protect them.

When Russian ground forces went to Syria they took aircraft with them.

If Russian sea surface forces go somewhere they also need to take aircraft with them... and not short range Yak-41 style aircraft... they have already developed the Su-57... might as well modify the design for naval use and use that.

They wont have thousands of fighters at sea so if it is only going to be one or two hundred then they might as well be the best fighters you can manage to make.

The cost of it is the reason. The French use a Mistral conducting the Joan d'Arc training cruise every year to keep their aviation assets trained. It is far cheaper to operate that, which is basically a flat deck cruise ship, than it is to operate the Kuznetsov.

I would expect a radical update of systems and equipment and weapons on the Kuznetsov should allow a reduction in required crew and reduced operating costs... it doens't need to be a Ford class carrier... some sort of upgrade of the Ka-31 with AESA radar panels as part of the fuselage structure could greatly improve performance potential without making it too much more expensive.

Having said that, being a global player is not going to be cheap... if you want the US to be able to do to all potential Russian international clients what they are currently doing to Venezuela then you can kiss any future where Russia has an independent view or say on things goodbye... Like London and Paris and Berlin, you need to try to work out in advance what Washington wants and say you want that too... first... then you will be a shining light of democracy for the world to follow your example and of course international companies will come in and strip mine your country of resources and people as fast as they can...

So you wont even need your own navy... you can pay money to the us navy and they will defend your waters for you...

Rodion_Romanovic

Rodion_Romanovic: Posts : 2414
Points : 2581
Join date : 2015-12-31
Location : Merkelland

Post n°293

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Rodion_Romanovic 10/08/19, 09:31 pm

Vladimir79 wrote:

Gazputin wrote:recently they said they will reactivate a heli-landing ship

"Additionally, the navy is considering plans for several new amphibious assault ships with aviation groups employing Ka-52K Katran and Ka-29M rotorcraft. There are also plans to restore the only surviving Project 1174 ship (Alexander Nikolayev) back into an operational condition."

so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them

The cost of it is the reason. The French use a Mistral conducting the Joan d'Arc training cruise every year to keep their aviation assets trained. It is far cheaper to operate that, which is basically a flat deck cruise ship, than it is to operate the Kuznetsov.

You.can only train helicopter operations from a mistral. For the rafales they need.to use their nuclear aircraft carrier

Edit, concerning the last remaining 1174 (ivan rogov class) I read on a article a few years ago that after the not delivery of mistrals, there were plans to modify it to be a proper heli carrier, but it would have been.too expensive.

My opinion is also that it would have been stupid to do extensive modifications. The 1174 can already carry 4 helicopters. It should not.cost too much to just refurbish the engines, do minor repairs, and upgrade maybe communication systems (if you really want put there also a pantsir.for.self protection, but.not more).. It should work on its intended scope (amphibious operations). If they want an aamphibious assault ship with more than 8 helicopters, it is much more.efficient to build a proper one from scratches (priboy or lavina class)

Admin

Admin: Posts : 2926
Points : 3798
Join date : 2009-07-10

Post n°294

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Admin 11/08/19, 02:25 am

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
You.can only train helicopter operations from a mistral. For the rafales they need.to use their nuclear aircraft carrier

At the rate we are going that will be the only capability that remains.

PapaDragon

PapaDragon: Posts : 13272
Points : 13314
Join date : 2015-04-26
Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

Post n°295

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

PapaDragon 11/08/19, 03:47 am

Gazputin wrote:...so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them...

Because it's a money pit, it has two squadrons of fighter jets stuck on it that do nothing and enough pilots and sailors to staff two aircraft squadrons and dozen frigates

As for "skills" Syria has demonstrated that they are non-existent

GarryB wrote:SSGNs are potent, but not really something you can use to show the flag.....

Offshore Patrol Vessel can show the flag no problem, just make sure there is SSGN around to deliver the rest

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...The 1174 can already carry 4 helicopters. It should not.cost too much to just refurbish the engines, do minor repairs, and upgrade maybe communication systems...

This money would be better spent on another Ivan Gren, let the dead ships rot and move on already

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38982
Points : 39478
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°296

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

GarryB 11/08/19, 05:16 pm

Because it's a money pit, it has two squadrons of fighter jets stuck on it that do nothing and enough pilots and sailors to staff two aircraft squadrons and dozen frigates

As for "skills" Syria has demonstrated that they are non-existent

Yeah, keep spewing your ignorance and hate... just because two aircraft were lost you are crying like a baby, which is ironic because such over reaction is often described as throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The experience in Syria was rather more than just two crashes.... they planned and executed quite a few missions from the carrier and then from land bases to attack targets.... you know... the sort of experience you really only get with a real enemy in a real conflict, but no, lets write it all off as useless because Russia is going to fold up and turn in on itself and become North Korea.... ignoring international trade opportunities and just trade with the neighbours in europe that despise them... I am sure the west will use Russian resources more efficiently than Russians can.

Offshore Patrol Vessel can show the flag no problem, just make sure there is SSGN around to deliver the rest

And what will protect that offshore patrol vessel from anti ship missiles or air attack?

The Russians are well known for not wasting money on their military since the end of the cold war... mostly because for much of the time they haven't had much to waste in the first place... but having a weak navy that even the english could bully around is the solution you think?

Edit, concerning the last remaining 1174 (ivan rogov class) I read on a article a few years ago that after the not delivery of mistrals, there were plans to modify it to be a proper heli carrier, but it would have been.too expensive.

That is the navys answer isn't it?

A custom designed ship would be more capable and not much more expensive, but you would end up with a much better vessel that is more suited to what they need.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-16
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°297

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Tsavo Lion 02/11/19, 05:42 am

Why the only Russian aircraft carrier is powerless

I couldn't say it better myself!

Big_Gazza

Big_Gazza: Posts : 4640
Points : 4632
Join date : 2014-08-25
Location : Melbourne, Australia

Post n°298

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Big_Gazza 02/11/19, 11:29 am

Tsavo Lion wrote:Why the only Russian aircraft carrier is powerless

I couldn't say it better myself!

Whiney cry-baby article. Mostly pre-K historical stuff or personal opinion BS, little to do with the Kuznetsov itself.

Then there is this:

the two lost planes revealed both the pilots' insufficient training in landing on the aerofinisher and the complete lack of readiness of the deck teams to carry out their duties

No. The problems were caused by mechanical failures in the arrestor wires. The MiG was lost because of command error of judgement (not sending the jet to the shorebase while repairs were carried out). Nothing to do with pilot training. Nothing to do with deck crew (unless you want to hold them to account for being unable to fix a broken wire in the nominal time allowed by some bridge officer...)

or this:

NATO aircraft, carriers of anti-ship missiles, such as the R-3C Orion or Atlantic-2, repeatedly flew up to Kuznetsov.

Not one of them was intercepted, the fighters did not rise to meet them

haha... yeah, right. Interrupt their war-fighting operations by scrambling fighters against a non-existent threat in peacetime? The K was there as a TRAINING EXERCISE with live bombs against terror gangs in a once-in-a-muti-decade opportunity to put hardware and people thru their paces. Wasting time and resources on distractions from NATOista buzzing flies isn't part of the mission (cuz they already know how to do that shit).

Funnily enough, he then goes on to actually validate the K's original design intent, ie

As an aircraft carrier, the Kuznetsov air defense should, firstly, disrupt air strikes on our surface ships, and secondly, the actions of enemy anti-submarine aircraft against our submarines.

Thats precisiely the design intent, to act as an air superiority platform, not a US-style attack carrier. The Syria op should be viewed as an opportunity to see how a flatop designed for air-superiority will handle itself in an impromptu ground attack role (and to assess its operational readyness), but this guy is too wrapped up in the desire to criticise to realise that fact.

Hot air expended for little reason. Russia isn't in need of a new carrier right now, probably not for 10-15 years at least, and the K will function fine when she is ready. Flatops are only useful in flag-flying exercises, regional squabbles against minor nations or in police actions like Syria. In a war with NATO, the stakes go up and hypersonics get rolled out. Enemy flatops will sink, and Russia having 1-2 of them won't effect the outcome. Russia only needs a minimal carrier force, and doesn't need to divert funds from important programs just to build a large penis pump for navy brass or arm-chair carrier enthusiasts.

Tsavo Lion

Tsavo Lion: Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-16
Location : AZ, USA

Post n°299

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

Tsavo Lion 02/11/19, 12:11 pm

Interrupt their war-fighting operations by scrambling fighters against a non-existent threat in peacetime?

In a war zone, a CV is supposed to be on a war footing, with alert fighters set aside ready to launch to intercept & escort out all potential threats. That's the SOP.

GarryB

GarryB: Posts : 38982
Points : 39478
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand

Post n°300

Re: VMF vs. USN scenarios

GarryB 02/11/19, 03:17 pm

the two lost planes revealed both the pilots' insufficient training in landing on the aerofinisher and the complete lack of readiness of the deck teams to carry out their duties

This is bullshit.

The arrester gear of an aircraft carrier is not just some cable tied to the deck that the aircraft catches and it stops them.

Cables simply don't have that sort of strength at all.

The cables you see on the deck are attached to cables that are rolled up and held by a mechanism like the transmission on a car that feeds out more cable when you pull on it but brakes dramatically harder and harder over time so the first metre or two might be released with a bit of resistence, but the next 4-5 metres of cable are held tighter and tighter and then it lets no more cable go.

The amount of cable released is limited otherwise a heavy aircraft could go over the end of the landing strip into the water.

The rate of tension and that tension increase over the cable released distance is fixed by the mechanism and is intended to rapidly slow an enormous mass over a distance.

If it stopped instantly the it would be like hitting a brick wall and the cable would break every time... the cable is not supposed to break... it is supposed to brake.

The problem was not the cable... they are trained to replace cables in a few minutes, and anyway there are generally 4 cables fitted so if one breaks you can come around and try to land again without changing anything.

The problem was the gearing attached to the cable was not feeding out more cable under tension, so instead of the landing aircraft being pulled to a stop over 30-40m... it was trying to stop it immediately which will always break any cable.

Cables are rated for x number of landings and they do break from time to time in normal use, but when the mechanism for feeding out cable on landing is not working even the best cable will break every time.

The problem in this case is that two aircraft ran out of fuel and had to ditch because they tried to land and broke a cable and then tried again and broke another cable and tried again and broke the third of four cables so they likely replaced those three cables and tried again... by this time neither aircraft had the fuel to reach a land base and they clearly didn't have an aircraft in the air with extra fuel tanks and a buddy refuelling pack attached that could have topped them up and all three flown to land base.

I suspect a bit of arrogance... they wanted to solve the problem themselves and didn't want to send their navy aircraft to an air force airfield, but the fundamental problem was with the arrester gear... not the cable... which is like a problem with your cars transmission... something you don't do on the side of the road... you send it to the work shop and take it to bits and see what is broken or misaligned.

So it was ignorance of what the actual problem was... they didn't realise the actual problem until it was too late to save the two aircraft lost.

Not really a big deal, when the first cable fails you don't get worried because there are four and cables can break normally, but after the third cable broke these two aircraft already needed to land and remain nearby because they likely couldn't reach a land base already. So they would replace the broken cables and try again... breaking half a dozen cables means it is not the cables... it is something that is going to take a lot longer to fix than just replacing a cable... and by then it was probably too late to get a tanker in.

It is not something to get your panties in a bunch over.

Procedurally they should have immediately fuelled up a Flanker with a buddy refuelling pod on board and preferably with four external fuel tanks full of fuel, so that when it was clear it was not a faulty cable and that it was something more fundamental that needed serious work to fix they could have sent all three aircraft off to a land base to land till the problem was sorted out.

You learn that sort of thing from experience.... so that is a good thing... nobody died.

Expensive lesson of course, but war is not cheap no matter how you look at it.

NATO aircraft, carriers of anti-ship missiles, such as the R-3C Orion or Atlantic-2, repeatedly flew up to Kuznetsov.

Not one of them was intercepted, the fighters did not rise to meet them

If the landing mechanism is not working, why would you launch aircraft to intercept such trivial targets?

They carry Harpoons and Exocets... who cares if they launch them...

Russia isn't in need of a new carrier right now, probably not for 10-15 years at least, and the K will function fine when she is ready.

They would have no where to put them if they had 2-3 carriers right now...

However in 10-15 years time they will need to be able to enforce their word around the world, which will mean surface ships and carriers to provide air support for them to operate safely.

Enemy flatops will sink, and Russia having 1-2 of them won't effect the outcome. Russia only needs a minimal carrier force, and doesn't need to divert funds from important programs just to build a large penis pump for navy brass or arm-chair carrier enthusiasts.

I agree they will be pointless in any WWIII type scenario, but saying the Russian Navy with a global reach will not be important in the future is not right in my opinion. Being able to back up words with a military presence is valuable... in ten years time when Trump Junior is in power and he wants to be even better than his dad, so he wants to invade Venezuela of course... having a carrier group going to Venezuela for an "exercise" would be a valuable and useful way of telling the US to pull its fucking head in... without needing to fire a shot. In comparison you could have a dozen Yasen IIIs there and they might not even notice...

In a war zone, a CV is supposed to be on a war footing, with alert fighters set aside ready to launch to intercept & escort out all potential threats. That's the SOP.

Orions and Atlantics can be detected and identified from extreme ranges, which makes them clearly non combatants... why waste aircraft to intercept such things when the enemy is ISIS?

Either of those aircraft does something aggressive then the nearby ships can hit them much faster with SAMs than an interceptor can get airborne and near to...

Russia Defence Forum

VMF vs. USN scenarios