- a lot more efficient to use their new class of armed naval icebreakers &/ SSGNs that don't need any icebreakers, supported by Tu-142s, IL-38s & A-50/100s.
In 20 years time they might not even need icebreakers... that is why they are talking about the NSR opening up.
- it did, but it wasn't used year-round.
It was an option but ice thicknesses would mean sometimes there was just no way through and so instead of saving 14 days in each direction it would add months to the trip having to go back and go the other way.
.- I'll like to see pics of their CBGs sailing to together in the Pacific or IO, but that is at least 10-15 years off at best.
Why do you think that?
Russia will be putting the K back into the water next year or the year after and the Kirov in upgrade will be ready then too... I would say a little bit of tentative testing to make sure everything works... perhaps a trip over the NSR from the northern fleet to the Pacific fleet is in order and once they get there then perhaps a trip further afield.... India would be a good safe option...
-IMO, there r more reasons to base her in the Black Sea than in the Barents Sea.
A reason does not count if it is no a good reason... a reason that benefits the Russian Navy is what we are after here... lack of facilities to dock and even work on the ships in the Black Sea count against it for a start.
Russia has plenty of ice breakers and the ice is getting thinner every year.
The Northern Fleet gives them direct access to the Arctic Ocean... an area of priority for Russia at the moment from a port with space for a carrier battle group to be based there too. They can also easily get to the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean fairly easily, which is exactly what a switch to the Navy will be for... opening up the globe to Russian products and trade.
Putting their sole carrier in the Black Sea limits them to the many countries of HATO that have repeatedly rejected her offers of trade and cooperation and largely responded with harsh words, abuse, and sanctions.
There is potential in north Africa and the Middle East but they don't need a carrier there for that...
-most of the PG is no wider than the Black Sea between S. Crimea & the Turkish coast; Iranian shore, ship & air based AshMs have the range to cover even a wider area.
Do they have the nerve to launch an attack knowing the likely response will involve attempted regime change and a brutal nasty obliteration of a couple of Iranian cities which CNN will tell you were surgical strikes, but in reality will be frustration carpet bombing because they are actually rather impotent against their more capable opponents.
- pl. read my posts more closely: I meant they go to the Sea of Japan; I was there on the CV-63.
With MiG-31Ks I am sure the Russians will prefer the US sends its carriers there all the time...
- how do u know? if nothing else, what if they decide to save $ & use her as a helo/UAV carrier &/ a Putin yacht like the Thai CV?
Because she is more use as a fixed wing carrier with real fighter planes than a joke ship with short range slow shit.
Why do you think Putin wants a yacht?
- even if it wasn't in the yard, by the time it arrived from Kola, the war would be over.
It was on a Russian border... there was no need for carrier support, and at the time land based aircraft would be vastly superior to the Su-33s they had at the time...
But if it was in the BSF then, it could participate as an LHA by deploying Ka-29s & Mi-9/17s landing airborne troops, SOFs &/ marines.
They managed to land troops anyway... without risking a carrier.
They realised they needed something like Mistral... but not in the Black Sea... they would need them for the Far East in case Japan started to get silly like the tie eater did.
the four Mistral carriers they would have ended up buying would be based in the Pacific and Northern fleets too... see the pattern?
- true, but it'll cost a lot of $ to do that & remove the missile compartment on the Adm. K.
Buying a civilian cargo ship and put crates on its deck with equipment for landing forces and a few missile containers in the upper layers... including SAMs and ground attack strike missiles... the munitions wont be cheap but necessary.
Replacing the Granit tubes on the K with UKSK launch tubes should be quite straight forward... they will be similar to the vertical launch tubes on one side of an Oscar class SSGN. The Oscar has two lots of 12 tubes... one set on each side outside the pressure hull. They said each existing launch tube could have three tubes installed... 24 x 3 = 72 Onyx missiles, which means half the number of tubes should fit 36 missiles... that is just putting three missile tube liners in each Granit tube so 36 Onyx or 36 91Er1 missiles could be fitted fairly quickly and easily.
With a bit more work those 12 tubes could be removed and probably 5 UKSK launch bins could be fitted... probably for about 40 launch tubes for anything from Onyx to Zircon to all the different Kalibrs and anti sub missiles.
Again... pretty straight forward.
-since we don't see them doing it, it's a moot point.
We don't know what they have done with the missile tubes... changing the ski jump deck angle is trivial.
.- wrong: Su-33s & MiG-29K on Kola need more preservation & maintenance then on Crimea or Kuban bases. there r not enough hangars & in winter they r completely covered in snow.
So build some hangars... it is not rocket science.
The VKS planes can use bases in Crimea, Syria, Sudan & Egypt to cover the entire length of the Med./Red Seas.
- defending the VMF ships on the high seas is defending Russia.
So what you are saying is that they wont need Russian aircraft carriers in the Black Sea or the Mediterranean or Red seas because land based Russian aircraft can provide air cover support missions from land bases.
Glad we agree.
No need for Kuz in Med or BS.
- true, but they don't need to be stationed there permanently.
They could deploy and train with the country in questions air force while their ships train with their navy and practise working together.
One of the things they learned from the Georgian attack in South Ossetia is that the naval infantry and airborne forces didn't train together very much, so practising working together is probably a very good thing all round.
- from the BS, they'll be no more & often even less distant than from Kola or Kamchatka.
In the northern or pacific fleets they can threaten US AEGIS class cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs and SLBMs heading over the north pole and also perhaps trying to clear a path through MiG-31BMs for their bombers...
Having Russian ships up there means more chance of sinking them with MiG-31Ks and preventing them from interfering with MAD.
- it'll be better for Russia if China gets it, so that she doesn't salivate at the RFE & Siberia instead.
Russia is happy to sell China most things they want... there is no point in coveting Siberia if it costs you a nuclear enema to actually try to get it.
Would be easier for China to just try a bit of election fiddling in Alaska and buy up the local officials... they got Biden elected so he wont object.
- the BS isn't that small; it took a passenger ship I was on 2 nights & 1 day to get from Odessa to Sochi at @ 15knots; it takes a cargo ship 18 hours from Odessa to Istanbul. Depending where it'll deploy to, ships from other fleets can form a group, & it happened before in the Med. Sea.
It can have HATO subs and ships in it and until war actually starts you have to tolerate their presence...
- let's wait till the RF economy can afford CVNs that will take advantage of that fact.
The British economy can't afford CVNs but they buy them anyway... over a period of 10-15 years a CVN is actually rather affordable... it will be teh cruisers and destroyers and frigates and corvettes they will need to be buying too, but having carriers they can exploit their access to the worlds ports and boost trade and relations with countries that don't take every chance they can to dump on them. The future is bright because the west has pushed itself out of the picture.
- still, it's better to have local facilities than using those the other fleets r using.
WHAT?
Are you trying to say the Kuznetsov can't be based in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet because the training facilities are in the Baltic Fleet and they might be using them so the Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet wont be able to get time on them?
I don't think that will be a problem.
If they r used to fly in the BS conditions, how well will they fly in the Arctic/N.
The arctic will be their primary area of operations... some days they wont be able to fly at all... tough. But certainly not a good reason not to be based there.... otherwise all the Arctic and Far East bases would be closed...
Atlantic/RFE conditions with more stormy days there in any given year?
Which will be good experience for developing their CVNs... what sort of hulls would allow operations in rough weather that current ships struggle to cope with....
they'll need to do a lot more, to say the least.
Of course there is a long way to go... but the last three presidents of America have been saying they wanted to fix the infrastructure in the US... bridges, roads, schools, electricity grids, all sorts of promises... Obama... twice.... and Trump and now Biden... but how much is actually being spent and what is actually being done.
There have been quite a few videos posted showing renovation of buildings and cities and building bridges and rail lines and road networks...
Sadly there was even a case of a new road being built in Siberia where a person drove the old road and broke down but because a newer shorter route had just opened everyone else took that route and the person who broke down was not found for a week of minus 40 degree temperatures.
Home
Register
Log in
Big_Gazza
