Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:28 am

    again, their situation was different then.

    Their situation was different then, but even when they did end up building aircraft carriers, the Kiev was based at Murmansk in the northern fleet and went to the med several times... the only place it could be repaired was the black sea but it was never based there.... it would go there for repairs and would leave once those repairs were completed.

    The Minsk was based in the pacific fleet... and the third Kiev class ship Novorossiysk served in the Pacific Fleet too... and the forth ship, the Gorshkov, was also based in the Northern Fleet.

    The Admiral Kuznetsov is based in the Northern Fleet now too.

    So far all their carriers have been made in the Black Sea in what is now the Ukraine but all their carriers have been based in the Northern or Pacific Fleet bases.

    What has changed to make them do something different now?

    who knows, if Crimea wasn't lost, it could stayed there, at least for longer than it did, instead.

    Once the carriers they complete were operational, they all left the Black Sea for the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet.

    adding more expences, wear& tear on it & its aircraft, not to mention the crew;

    It is called experience and it is critical to developing new tactics in cooperation with other Russian Naval ships.

    Having it sit in the Black Sea "saving money" will mean it costs millions of dollars to keep it operational but it would be worthless.

    What was once a Russian naval backwater is now the centerpiece of Russian power projection into the Mediterranean. Indeed, setting aside the nuclear deterrent mission carried out by the Northern and Pacific Fleets, the Black Sea Fleet has proven to be the most operationally and tactically successful of Russia’s four major fleets.

    The northern sea route renders the Black Sea a useless backwater... it will get ships the northern fleet and pacific fleet don't need.

    all it needs r a longer pier, more barracks, & perhaps fuel storage & housing for dependents. Sevastopol & Novorossiysk r not the only naval bases there .

    Of course... all they need is a longer pier.... right.

    it is, since both US & RF naval bases r so remote from the areas they'll deploy their CB/SGs to.

    What the USN does is not relevant to the Russian Navy.

    they could make more room for all of them across other bases;

    Splitting a carrier and all its support ships across different oceans is stupid and unnecessary... they will all fit in the Northern Fleet and they will all fit in the Pacific Fleet... they wont fit in the Caspian Fleet or the Black Sea Fleet or the Baltic Fleet but that is OK because they will never be based there.

    to me, all the reasons I stated r good enough.

    They have never based any aircraft carriers in the Black Sea... even though they were all built there... what does that tell you?

    I can think the same way the Russians think on naval matters to justify steps that others won't approve or understand.

    Yeah because all the decision makers in the Russian Navy all ran away from their country and signed up to fight in an enemies military so of course their thinking is going to be identical to yours.

    In their reality, they must do things differently than any1 else, while adopting certain things that others do.

    They do what suits their interests, which the west does not understand and finds different because they are self centred morons who don't understand Russian wants and needs and methods are different from those of the US of A.

    Why didn't they build a huge fleet of carriers like we did... oh... it must be because they can't afford it... which is hilarious because it is part of what is breaking the US... America can't afford all those carrier groups... maybe half are operational...

    To me, Russia isn't an enigma like it was/is to Churchill & other Western leaders.

    I would say it clearly is if you think they want to base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea.

    if they decide to transfer more ships to the BSF, all they need to do is move some boats to Asov/Caspian Sea &/ get rid of ex-Ukr.N boats to make more room at the BS bases. More upgrades & expansions could be done later.

    But they are not even moving anything and they could do that for next to nothing... unless there are not plans to expand the number of ships any time soon.

    that's not how they think. More often than not, they play it by the ear.

    Yeah, no planning... just making shit up as you go... the Russian way... except the reality is the total opposite... rebuilding their military the way they have done took a lot of careful planning and hard work...

    not only the local forces, but all forces & personnel that can go there to train.

    Local forces will have to go to the Northern Fleet to train then.

    they could be converted to SSGNs &/ UU/AV carriers.

    They would remain expensive to operate and really only useful in a full scale war... ie WWIII.

    That is OK for strategic only weapons but for other weapons it is a luxury Russia can't afford.

    most of the time, the Americans shoot 1st & ask ?s later; they won't pay any1 they can just shoot;

    I know... Americans are too stupid to use their brains and use their money efficiently, the result is a never ending war that will mentally damage a percentage of American youth... not money well spent really.

    eing under occupation= losing ur lifestyle & culture. That's why Mexicans kicked out the French & NK kicked out all Chinese advisors & troops after the Korean War.

    The Afghans kicked the British out about 5 times already and this will be number six, plus the Soviets and now the Americans and Europeans... they have time...

    just wait, their turn will come!

    Why wait? Why hit other people and other companies... why not attack the head of the snake and get your way right now... except that it is all bullshit... if that money exists it will be oligarchs Putin doesn't like because Putin didn't want olicgarchs to take their money out of Russia, so taking that money will please the hell out of Putin because it will stop other Oligarchs from doing the same and keeping their money invested in the west where it does not help Russia.

    The last time Britain threatened to clamp down on their Russian billionaires Putin offered to have the FSB supply them with all the financial information they wanted because money in Britain means nothing to Russia and Russians... including Putin.

    They didn't of course.

    [qutoe]I joined NATO as soon as I arrived to Italy & NY in 1988; my home is the whole world, & I could care less about that forsaken place[/quote]

    So why am I bothering to discuss this with you... you don't care what they do or who they elect... in fact you probably want them to make bad choices so you feel better about the ones you made.

    Russia needs to be the alfa fe/male if she is to stay great, & not only in size.

    Bullshit. She just needs to be more trouble than she is worth to bother with... and Putin is moving to that position more and more these days.

    The more the west pushes the more he cuts ties and writes them off...

    soon the tactical nukes will be used while the MAD is the last resort.

    Ah yes, the western belief of a gradual escalation... what a terrible surprise they are in for...

    the US does & will use its forces to fight for them.

    Then it had better be prepared to lose.

    time will tell!

    Time has told.

    they r upgrading those in storage & will have enough to deploy. if not, Su-30/34/35s could substitute them.

    They are upgrading the ones they want to use, they are not boosting production for overseas basing of any types except Backfires it seems in Syria... most likely to allow much heavy bomb loads to be used against the terrorists.

    it's about helping to defend them & their trade there.

    With increasing trade they can buy their own weapons.

    - they rn't building them yet!

    They upgraded two Kirovs and will likely upgrade the three Slavas and the Kuznetsov has been upgraded and soon to go back into service to test the upgrades.

    I'm talking about sailing NP icebrakers & floating airfields South as a substitute for CVNs, if need be.

    Why waste a NP icebreaker where there is no ice?

    slower NP icebreaker speed is a trade off for the $Bs saved on CVN construction & operations. After deployments supporting the VMF, it can resume its work on the NSR.

    Working the NSR would be rather more useful to Russia than anything it could achieve by towing a barge.

    which would defeat the purpose of sending a CBG there in the 1st place, as land based AWACS & fighters can detect & deal with threats to those forward deployed ships/boats.

    AWACS aircraft with fighters on their own is not a strong setup. A carrier operating with Russian ships means AWACS aircraft with fighters operating over one of the strongest IADS networks outside of Russia.

    Fighters add speed and flexibility to an air defence that can be moved rapidly from hot spot to hot spot.

    A Russian corvette can defeat an entire CBG.....get off those drugs alright?

    I swear the shit, I read on this forum

    8 Onyx missiles would challenge any western CBG and likely sink one or two ships at the very least. In the near future 8 Zircon missiles will turn that into 6-7 sunk ships...

    This isn't WW2 and in modern times, a CBG would have more than enough warning of a storm.

    Very true, but where it is supposed to be going and what it is supposed to be doing might mean it has to enter that storm.

    No, it's common sense, only a fool would believe if you drop a nuke that the other side won't drop them on you if they have them of course. I am not going to debate this if you think otherwise then you just a fool.

    20% of missiles in the Soviet Navy were nukes and that included the large SAMs. It has long been expected that a conflict between Soviet and western navies would turn nuclear very quickly.

    Lol, I am no fanboy sure anything that floats can be sunk, however saying a mere corvette could sink an entire CBG and that if Russia used a nuke they wouldn't be returned if nothing but stupidity at its finest.

    I never said sink an entire carrier group... I said they were dead meat because after a corvette sinks a large number of their ships that carrier group is not going to continue its mission especially when those missiles will target the carrier as the highest priority... once the carrier is sunk it is no longer a carrier group...

    A CVN must be hit with just 2-3 HSMs to be disabled/sunk.

    I would say a Zircon missile diving at 3km/s that punched down through the deck and actually exploded in the water under the ship would have an excellent chance of sinking that ship.

    Especially if it hit the middle and not just one end.

    Note that all these ships aren't armored at all, in fact practically nothing is.

    Even if they were armoured a Zircon moves at 3km/s which is 1.2km/s faster than the APFSDS round from a T-72 tank... and it weighs more than 7kgs.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:29 am

    And thank you Tsavo Lion for changing your method of replying, I am sure members using phones appreciate it...

    Rodion_Romanovic likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:29 pm

    What has changed to make them do something different now?
    more BS nations r in/allied with NATO which is also on RF W. borders, & Russia is weaker than USSR was economically & militarily as far as the VMF is concerned.

    Once the carriers they complete were operational, they all left the Black Sea for the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet.
    the RF VMF is a shadow of the Soviet VMF, so don't compare & expect them to base their ships as before.

    It is called experience and it is critical to developing new tactics in cooperation with other Russian Naval ships.
    they can get all needed skills & experience by spending less $ & time since they don't have much of either 1; "time is $".

    Having it sit in the Black Sea "saving money" will mean it costs millions of dollars to keep it operational but it would be worthless.
    I bet it'll be spending more time sailing in that sea than in the Barents Sea; if OTH it'll be worthless there, it's won't be any more worthless than in the NF.

    The northern sea route renders the Black Sea a useless backwater... it will get ships the northern fleet and pacific fleet don't need.
    the world has changed & Russia is directly engaged in the ME & Africa. Even the Caspian Flotilla ships were used in CM strikes & 2 IIRC were later transferred to the BSF. 1 CG from the Pac. Fleet was sent to the Med. as the N/BSF didn't have an extra CG. It'll be a long time before it turns to a backwater again, if at all.

    it is, since both US & RF naval bases r so remote from the areas they'll deploy their CB/SGs to.
    What the USN does is not relevant to the Russian Navy.
    if it's relevant to the PLAN which models its CV ops on it, why is the VMF so special, at least in the context of training locations vs. operational deployments?

    Splitting a carrier and all its support ships across different oceans is stupid and unnecessary...
    not all support ships & not in other oceans; they all need to deploy anyway & sometimes will join the CBG if need be.

    They have never based any aircraft carriers in the Black Sea... even though they were all built there...
    there is a 1st time for everything, & the Adm. K isn't a CV, it's TAVKR according to its correct designation. Being a hybrid ship, it doesn't need to be based only on the open ocean front. By ur logic, they don't need to have 6 Project 636.3 SSKs there (as many as in the PacF) too, as there r restrictions on their movements in/out of the BS & Russia can defend her coast & territory well even w/o them.

    Yeah because all the decision makers in the Russian Navy all ran away from their country and signed up to fight in an enemies military so of course their thinking is going to be identical to yours.
    the CW was over by then, & I knew Russia & US wouldn't be fighting anyway. I still know their mentality & can mentally put myself in their situation better than u who knows very little about them & probably never served in any navy.

    They do what suits their interests, which the west does not understand and finds different because they are self centred morons who don't understand Russian wants and needs and methods are different from those of the US of A.
    true, but u don't really understand them much better, if at all.

    Why didn't they build a huge fleet of carriers like we did... oh... it must be because they can't afford it...
    it's not a secret that they had a different doctrine tailored to & influenced their geography, history, & yes the economy. The same factors why Germany, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada & China didn't build/use many carriers before.

    I would say it clearly is if you think they want to base the Kuznetsov in the Black Sea.
    I don't claim to know what they want to do at any given time on this issue. Russia is unpredictable, so don't project ur NZ logic on it.

    But they are not even moving anything and they could do that for next to nothing... unless there are not plans to expand the number of ships any time soon.
    it may come later, time will tell! Quantity, in this case of ships, will turn into quality, according to Marxism. I'm not a Marxist but that philosophy & theory has many correct postulations.

    Yeah, no planning... just making shit up as you go... the Russian way... except the reality is the total opposite... rebuilding their military the way they have done took a lot of careful planning and hard work...
    that planning by necessity could include improvising & doing more with less.

    Local forces will have to go to the Northern Fleet to train then.
    there r worse conditions than in the BS for such training to be conducted as often & as safely, & for le$$.  

    in fact you probably want them to make bad choices so you feel better about the ones you made.
    I don't care what choices they make; some r better than others but none r 100% good in their situation.

    Why waste a NP icebreaker where there is no ice?
    Working the NSR would be rather more useful to Russia than anything it could achieve by towing a barge.
    it won't be wasting more $ if it saves $ on CVN they must spend $Bs to build & operate; a barge or floating CTOL airfield can have more & bigger aircraft for the fraction of the cost. The same if if I want an RV (recreational vehicle), & have an expensive truck that can tow heavy trailers, a lot of $ can be saved by getting a travel trailer instead of a motor home of the same size.

    AWACS aircraft with fighters on their own is not a strong setup. A carrier operating with Russian ships means AWACS aircraft with fighters operating over one of the strongest IADS networks outside of Russia. Fighters add speed and flexibility to an air defence that can be moved rapidly from hot spot to hot spot.
    using an armed NP icebreaker & a large barge with the same or bigger # of aircraft could be as effective as a Nimitz/Ford size CVN. It'll be slower but they could send more subs &/ VKS bombers to threaten enemy airfields, ships, & naval bases.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:05 am; edited 5 times in total (Reason for editing : add text, links)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:56 am

    more BS nations r in/allied with NATO which is also on RF W. borders, & Russia is weaker than USSR was economically & militarily as far as the VMF is concerned.

    Yeah, but only the Bullshit Black Sea nations have changed to HATO so nothing actually changes at all.

    Russia was weaker in the 1990s, but now they are stronger... Russia never exported advanced milling machines to Germany before, and she has never produced as much wheat as she does now.... and in terms of weapons they really have turned the tables on HATO... most of the Cold War the HATO said the Soviets had the numbers but they had quality that could over power brute force of numbers... yet information we know now about Soviet tanks and aircraft of the time suggests they didn't even have advantages in quality. Now it is the reverse Russia has superior equipment in many areas and at least parity in most other areas... they just lack the overwhelming numbers they used to have, but that is not necessary because if you are defensively oriented you don't need to massively outnumber your enemy.... you just have to be able to cripple them in their attack and then strike back at their home countries to make sure they can not do it again... which is something Russia is capable of today I believe.

    the RF VMF is a shadow of the Soviet VMF, so don't compare & expect them to base their ships as before.

    Their main fleet bases have not changed and are unlikely to change.

    they can get all needed skills & experience by spending less $ & time since they don't have much of either 1; "time is $".

    Basing in the Black Sea would mean upgrading the Black Sea fleet bases the way they have been upgrading the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet bases... it would not save any money at all... it would cost more money to upgrade and modify the bases in the Black Sea for aircraft carriers.

    They also really don't have time to do it anyway because the upgraded Orlan class cruiser and Kuznetsov carrier will be ready to road test over the next 2-3 years.

    I bet it'll be spending more time sailing in that sea than in the Barents Sea; if OTH it'll be worthless there, it's won't be any more worthless than in the NF.

    The Russians will be trying to promote the NSR to civilian traffic... if they can't or wont send military ships there what sort of message does that send?

    the world has changed & Russia is directly engaged in the ME & Africa.

    They have plenty of land based aircraft in Syria to deal with any issues there... soon to include Backfire bombers, which should be rather impressive.

    Even the Caspian Flotilla ships were used in CM strikes & 2 IIRC were later transferred to the BSF. 1 CG from the Pac. Fleet was sent to the Med. as the N/BSF didn't have an extra CG. It'll be a long time before it turns to a backwater again, if at all.

    Those corvettes on the Caspian were used to test them for the role just like Blackjacks also launched missiles too... it was merely a chance to test some platforms... most of the time it would be cheaper to drop dumb bombs from tactical aircraft... and soon small guided weapons from armed drones.

    if it's relevant to the PLAN which models its CV ops on it, why is the VMF so special, at least in the context of training locations vs. operational deployments?

    The US has pledged support for Taiwan so the chance of conflict against the US becomes a focus for China who also likely intends to expand its trade relations with countries around the world which America will most likely see as running counter to their special interests and therefore try to oppose like the asshats they are.

    The USN is pretty dumb and will try to push China who they will see as a junior or novice... Americans don't really respect anyone. I don't think they will underestimate the Russians in the same way though... I could be wrong... betting on Americans thinking about things properly is always a long shot. Twisted Evil

    there is a 1st time for everything,

    Not necessarily.

    & the Adm. K isn't a CV, it's TAVKR according to its correct designation.

    It is an aircraft carrier.

    By ur logic, they don't need to have 6 Project 636.3 SSKs there (as many as in the PacF) too, as there r restrictions on their movements in/out of the BS & Russia can defend her coast & territory well even w/o them.

    Kilo SSKs are ideal for shallow waters and are the best system for operations in the BS and the med... anything else has a big bulls eye on its back and would need protection from other assets there.

    the CW was over by then

    Cold War over in 1988... I didn't notice...

    & I knew Russia & US wouldn't be fighting anyway. I still know their mentality & can mentally put myself in their situation better than u who knows very little about them & probably never served in any navy.

    The fact that you think mentality comes in to it in placing ships is amusing... exactly what suicidal mentality would they need to want to put their biggest and most powerful aircraft carrier in a shit pond like the Black Sea?

    Ridiculous...

    true, but u don't really understand them much better, if at all.

    I understand the Kuznetsov is supposed to provide air support for Russian surface ships operating away from Russian air defence coverage so there is no point in having it in the Black Sea at all, and if all the big ships that operate with it are in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet then it makes pretty obvious basic common sense to base it in one of those ports just like it currently is...

    it's not a secret that they had a different doctrine tailored to & influenced their geography, history, & yes the economy.

    They didn't bother with aircraft carriers because their best way to kill Americans has and always will be SSBNs and ICBMs... aircraft carriers are not useful in killing Americans so they didn't spend the money. The Kiev class were anti sub carriers the Yak was a pathetic fighter and would be worse than useless against an enemy carrier. the Kuznetsov and later designs were to allow large cruisers and destroyers to take on if necessary US carriers with fighters as protection.

    And that is what they are for now... allowing Russian ships to operate anywhere to improve their protection and attack performance.

    it may come later, time will tell! Quantity, in this case of ships, will turn into quality, according to Marxism. I'm not a Marxist but that philosophy & theory has many correct postulations.

    But as you say, they can't afford quantity so the ships they do have need to be rather good...

    that planning by necessity could include improvising & doing more with less.

    Planning but being flexible to change plans when needed is not the same as having no plans because plans can change so just do what you want when you want it and just wing it.

    there r worse conditions than in the BS for such training to be conducted as often & as safely, & for le$$.

    The two training bases are in the BS... training in the Northern Fleet on the actual carrier will be operational training and wont happen in the arctic... they will sail somewhere for the training... that is the whole point of having a carrier... other wise they could just scrap the carrier and save lots of money and practise at the two training centres in the BS and when they want to start spending money build a CVN.

    Clearly they want to actually use a real carrier so there is no point using it in the Black Sea because they already have two training centres there for that anyway.

    it won't be wasting more $ if it saves $ on CVN they must spend $Bs to build & operate; a barge or floating CTOL airfield can have more & bigger aircraft for the fraction of the cost.

    They have speculated the idea but they have not tested it... and besides what about what happens with this barge thousands of kms away from Russian airspace.... a storm is coming and you have a dozen aircraft on this barge... there is no under deck hangar you can send the planes... what if there is not enough fuel to fly out all the aircraft.... more importantly you would need to store ordinance on this barge... what are you going to do with that during this storm... what if the barge breaks up and sinks and take billions of dollars of guided missiles and modern aircraft and fuel to the bottom of the sea?

    How cheap will it be then?

    The same if if I want an RV (recreational vehicle), & have an expensive truck that can tow heavy trailers, a lot of $ can be saved by getting a travel trailer instead of a motor home of the same size.

    But your expensive truck in this case you bought for your trucking business to move freight.... that means every time you go on a holiday you stop earning money... motor home and you could hire a driver to keep your business working and take the profits and he earns your wages while he is working.

    Of course if you only go camping once every 5 years or so it probably makes more sense to rent a room in a 5 star hotel than having to worry about maintaining and operating a mobile home... expensive and lose their value terribly as soon as you turn the key.

    using an armed NP icebreaker & a large barge with the same or bigger # of aircraft could be as effective as a Nimitz/Ford size CVN. It'll be slower but they could send more subs &/ VKS bombers to threaten enemy airfields, ships, & naval bases.

    A barge has no hangar and not fuel or armament storage and would need to be gigantic especially if you want to operate larger aircraft.

    I can see potential but it wont be cheaper than a CVN in the long run... certainly one big enough to be comparable in performance...

    Building arrester gear into the barge would be an issue too... not to mention landing lights and SAR helicopters etc etc etc.

    It is an interesting idea... maybe something they could float in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific where support ships could sail up and connect to provide fuel and stores and munitions, but I couldn't see super heavy aircraft operating from such a thing...
    JohninMK
    JohninMK

    Posts : 8683
    Points : 8776
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  JohninMK Sat Mar 06, 2021 1:54 pm

    Do you really need to generate these acres of text Garry?

    Is it worth your time? Surely you can cover just the major points rather than tear every sentence apart creating lots of little sections?

    It would save you wasted time as well as I suspect many, like me, just skip over it as we do with Vann.

    owais.usmani likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3357
    Points : 3359
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:19 pm

    Circles and circles, Garry is trying to discuss with a broken record. Honestly it is ages since I don't follow this discussion anymore, the thread is basically done.

    Big_Gazza and JohninMK like this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:03 pm

    Russia was weaker in the 1990s, but now they are stronger...
    not in the VMF department.
    Their main fleet bases have not changed and are unlikely to change.
    the BSF is becoming the 3rd main fleet, & its bases will be improved & expanded

    Basing in the Black Sea would mean upgrading the Black Sea fleet bases the way they have been upgrading the Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet bases... it would not save any money at all... it would cost more money to upgrade and modify the bases in the Black Sea for aircraft carriers.
    the upgrades will be only for 1 TAVKR, & it was there during its acceptance trials & training with no problems.

    They also really don't have time to do it anyway because the upgraded Orlan class cruiser and Kuznetsov carrier will be ready to road test over the next 2-3 years.
    it can change its homeport afterwards, if they decide to do it.

    The Russians will be trying to promote the NSR to civilian traffic... if they can't or wont send military ships there what sort of message does that send?
    there r many other ships that can go there, besides the icebreakers OPVs they r introducing.

    They have plenty of land based aircraft in Syria to deal with any issues there... soon to include Backfire bombers, which should be rather impressive.
    often the naval support comes to the rescue of land forces & is a force multiplier, so they better not put all their eggs in 1 basket.

    Those corvettes on the Caspian were used to test them for the role..
    but if 2 were sent to the Med. & a CG from the Pac. F to join them, it means that the BSF is much needed & is now in the process of expansion.

    & the Adm. K isn't a CV, it's TAVKR according to its correct designation.

    It is an aircraft carrier.
    yes, & since it also carries LR ASh/CMs, it's a hybrid like no other CV. If Turkey raises objections, the Adm K. can transit the straits w/o any fixed wings; they can fly in via Iran, Iraq & Syria once it's in the Med. Sea.

    Kilo SSKs are ideal for shallow waters and are the best system for operations in the BS and the med... anything else has a big bulls eye on its back and would need protection from other assets there.
    true, but the VMF could save $ by keeping more minisubs there & increasing ASW forces. BSF SSKs will be "going for repairs" to the Baltic & but in fact deploy to the Med: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore, the Black Sea Fleet’s Kalibr-capable Kilos have become the submarines of choice.

    the CW was over by then
    Cold War over in 1988... I didn't notice...
    Some Soviets would consider me a traitor for leaving, even to reunify with other family members abroad, but since 1991 the official stance been that it's an individual's choice where to live. I won't sacrifice a single hair from my body for an empire or any state, emigrated not as an anti-USSR enemy & FYI joined the USN in 12/93.

    The fact that you think mentality comes in to it in placing ships is amusing...
     it's rather a paradigm- method of making decisions
    exactly what suicidal mentality would they need to want to put their biggest and most powerful aircraft carrier in a shit pond like the Black Sea?
    what other fixed wing aircraft carriers do they have & will have in the near future?

    I understand the Kuznetsov is supposed to provide air support for Russian surface ships operating away from Russian air defence coverage so there is no point in having it in the Black Sea at all, and if all the big ships that operate with it are in the Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet then it makes pretty obvious basic common  sense to base it in one of those ports just like it currently is...
    they managed to go to L. America & the IO w/o it so far, & may do it again many times in the future.

    The Kiev class were anti sub carriers the Yak was a pathetic fighter and would be worse than useless against an enemy carrier.
    but not vs. enemy ASW MPA; they were TAVKRs, not only for ASW.
    the Kuznetsov and later designs were to allow large cruisers and destroyers to take on if necessary US carriers with fighters as protection.
    & to strike them with their own AshMs.

    And that is what they are for now... allowing Russian ships to operate anywhere to improve their protection and attack performance.
    & the BS is very well situated to deploy from to the most likely areas they'll operate in, just like the YS for the PLAN CV/Ns.

    But as you say, they can't afford quantity so the ships they do have need to be rather good...
    still, in adequate #s, 2 extra for each to be deployed.

    that planning by necessity could include improvising & doing more with less.

    Planning but being flexible to change plans when needed is not the same as having no plans because plans can change so just do what you want when you want it and just wing it.
    I bet they have plans for any possibility, we just don't know everything.

    The two training bases are in the BS... training in the Northern Fleet on the actual carrier will be operational training and wont happen in the arctic...they will sail somewhere for the training...
    no, they won't sail outside the Barents Sea which is in the Arctic & away from the ABs to were they may need to divert fighters.
    other wise they could just scrap the carrier and save lots of money and practise at the two training centres in the BS and when they want to start spending money build a CVN.
    they could still save lots of money by not basing it there instead; why can't they build/import a floating doc for it the BSF, if the Zaliv's doc isn't big enough?

    Clearly they want to actually use a real carrier so there is no point using it in the Black Sea because they already have two training centres there for that anyway.
    training at sea is the final stage for the real world ops & can't be substituted by any NITKA.

    ..what happens with this barge thousands of kms away from Russian airspace.... a storm is coming and you have a dozen aircraft on this barge... there is no under deck hangar you can send the planes...
    what if there is not enough fuel to fly out all the aircraft.... more importantly you would need to store ordinance on this barge... what are you going to do with that during this storm... what if the barge breaks up and sinks and take billions of dollars of guided missiles and modern aircraft and fuel to the bottom of the sea?..A barge has no hangar and not fuel or armament storage and would need to be gigantic especially if you want to operate larger aircraft.
    they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN.
    Building arrester gear into the barge would be an issue too... not to mention landing lights and SAR helicopters etc etc etc.
    no it won't; even if so, if it's large, it's not so critical as barricades could be erected to catch a plane in trouble; the same with lights & helipads. Some of its planes & helos could also be amphibian, besides ekranoplans, & Russia has them.

    But your expensive truck in this case you bought for your trucking business to move freight.... that means every time you go on a holiday you stop earning money...
    u can tow a large 35' travel trailer with a pickup, not commercial truck, as I had done.

    It is an interesting idea... maybe something they could float in the middle of the Atlantic or Pacific where support ships could sail up and connect to provide fuel and stores and munitions, but I couldn't see super heavy aircraft operating from such a thing...
    they can be medium, not bigger than An-26/72s & Su-33/34/57s; helos can be as big as Mi-26/38s.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:27 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:58 pm

    "they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN"

    Lol So waste billions of dollars on a CVN without propulsion, lol!

    Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

    The Kuz's hull structure was specially designed for the launch and retrieval of aircraft. it is an aircraft carrier by design it has a flat deck, elevators, hangers, and everything else for aircraft. So nice try
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:33 pm

    Lol So waste billions of dollars on a CVN without propulsion, lol!
    & w/o the catapults as it'll be longer than CVNs. $Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.

    Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."
    since it also has LR Ash/CMs, it's not "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

    it is an aircraft carrier by design it has a flat deck, elevators, hangers, and everything else for aircraft.
    no, it's not a flattop if if it has a ski rump.
    They can tell Turkey (its economy depends on Russian trade & tourism) that it needs repairs in Severodvinsk every time it must go to the Med. Sea & beyond, & it won't be often anyway, as it can stay in the BS for training, incl. against NATO ships that r there on permanent bases.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:39 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Lol So waste billions of dollars on a CVN without propulsion, lol!
    & w/o the catapults as it'll be longer than CVNs. $Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.

    Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."
    since it also has LR Ash/CMs, it's not "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

    it is an aircraft carrier by design it has a flat deck, elevators, hangers, and everything else for aircraft.
    no, it's not a flattop if if it has a ski rump.
    They can tell Turkey (its economy depends on Russian trade & tourism) that it needs repairs in Severodvinsk every time it must go to the Med. Sea & beyond, & it won't be often anyway, as it can stay in the BS for training, incl. against NATO ships that r there on permanent bases.

    The primary function is aircraft, not the missiles. If you cannot see the ship was designed around operating aircraft then you're a total idioit.

    I realize you will argue until your blue in the face but you are so wrong, and I'm not going to waste my time with a genius who suggested building a CVN without propulsion

    the fact your trying to cling to straws like "it has a ski jump it's not a flat top" shows how stupid your logic is the only reason it has a ski jump it because back when this thing was made the user did not have catapults.

    The entire deck minus a small portion is flat, its a flat top. Not going to argue with you, those are the facts
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:08 pm

    ..suggested building a CVN without propulsion
    I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway.

    The entire deck minus a small portion is flat, its a flat top. .. those are the facts
    Despite all the facts, it has more defensive & offensive missiles than any other CV/N, & Russia can brush them off if Turkey objects, or use loopholes as with her SSKs: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore, the Black Sea Fleet’s Kalibr-capable Kilos have become the submarines of choice.
    Btw, Turkey will build a new canal to bypass Istanbul & can be even more flexible, if not ignoring them altogether, to the rules governing the use of the straits.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:17 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:13 pm

    "I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway."

    you suggested giving it every feature a CVN has, making it bigger than a CVN without propulsion where it will need to rely on smaller ships to be moved which makes it a sitting duck and still require protection some other vessels.

    So you suggested making a large CVN without propulsion, are you really this short-sighted?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:25 pm

    .
    .you suggested giving it every feature a CVN has,..
    not all of them: it'll have no catapults, propulsion, a big island, & as much, if any, defensive armaments. Thus, it'll be easier, faster & cheaper to build & operate. The Atomflot & VMF has enough NP icebreakers & escorts to make up for deleted features & still save $Bs.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:26 pm

    catapults aren't universal on all carriers, that's mostly a feature on american CV's.

    so yes you proposed a large CVN without propulsion.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:39 pm

    A future VMF CVN, if built, would be CATOBAR; a large floating avaiation barge or airfield won't need to be CATOBAR.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:11 pm

    Do you really need to generate these acres of text Garry?

    Answering questions, and talking about things is something that is done in a discussion forum.

    I appreciate it can be boring if you are not interested but you can stop reading any time you like if it is not interesting.

    Is it worth your time? Surely you can cover just the major points rather than tear every sentence apart creating lots of little sections?

    You mean summarise, and make briefer... it would probably take me longer to do that than just refer to each point.

    It would save you wasted time as well as I suspect many, like me, just skip over it as we do with Vann

    I wont keep replying forever, but his stubbornness can be interesting.

    Not so much interested in why I think he is (in my opinion) wrong, more why he thinks I should agree with him.

    Circles and circles, Garry is trying to discuss with a broken record. Honestly it is ages since I don't follow this discussion anymore, the thread is basically done.

    Do you know me?

    I have been posting such enormous walls of text on the internet for a very long time.

    the BSF is becoming the 3rd main fleet, & its bases will be improved & expanded

    No evidence of that, but even if there was that means there are two more important fleets.... the Northern Fleet and the Pacific Fleets where their cruisers and CVs and any CVNs and helicopter carriers will be based.

    the upgrades will be only for 1 TAVKR, & it was there during its acceptance trials & training with no problems.

    No mention of that by the media of that being in the budget and it will be back at sea in the next 2-3 years so they better pull finger... except if there is no intention to base in the BS... which is much much more likely.

    it can change its homeport afterwards, if they decide to do it.

    They might base it here in New Zealand... but unlikely.

    often the naval support comes to the rescue of land forces & is a force multiplier, so they better not put all their eggs in 1 basket.

    Hasn't happened yet.

    but if 2 were sent to the Med. & a CG from the Pac. F to join them, it means that the BSF is much needed & is now in the process of expansion.

    Not really. Moving corvettes is not the same as moving a CV.

    yes, & since it also carries LR ASh/CMs, it's a hybrid like no other CV. If Turkey raises objections, the Adm K. can transit the straits w/o any fixed wings; they can fly in via Iran, Iraq & Syria once it's in the Med. Sea.

    Not moving is quicker and cheaper and simpler. Leave it at the Northern Fleet.

    true, but the VMF could save $ by keeping more minisubs there & increasing ASW forces. BSF SSKs will be "going for repairs" to the Baltic & but in fact deploy to the Med: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore

    Would make more sense to make Tartus a submarine capable base.

    Some Soviets would consider me a traitor for leaving, even to reunify with other family members abroad, but since 1991 the official stance been that it's an individual's choice where to live. I won't sacrifice a single hair from my body for an empire or any state, emigrated not as an anti-USSR enemy & FYI joined the USN in 12/93.

    You don't need to justify your actions to me... I am just an invisible guy on the internet... you can do as you please... I don't judge you or anyone else.

    what other fixed wing aircraft carriers do they have & will have in the near future?

    They wont have any other fixed wing aircraft carriers in the next 8-10 years, so if they want operational experience then they need to use the one they have.

    they managed to go to L. America & the IO w/o it so far, & may do it again many times in the future.

    Very true, but every time they leave the cover of Russian waters and Russian airspace they become more vulnerable to attack... the solution to that vulnerability is an aircraft carrier, but just taking one with them wont make them safer... they need to work out how to use it properly which means experience... what works and what does not... they wont know till they try. Which ports will let them replenish... don't know till you try. What sort of support will it need in different locations... can't be sure till you go there. What new capabilities does it give a group of Russian ships to have a carrier there... what can they do and what can't they do... all these questions and problems can only be solved by doing it and testing and experimenting.

    They might find an Aerostat could be carried and released and provide better AEW than a helicopter (Ka-31). They might find with a catapult a Yak-44 like aircraft can be used but is its performance better than an Aerostat with a 20m long radar array panel inside it?

    Can't say till they test it.

    The practise is for the carrier but also the ships operating with the carrier because they need to learn to use its features and capabilities too.

    but not vs. enemy ASW MPA; they were TAVKRs, not only for ASW.

    They would be very ordinary against MPAs... in fact a Kirov operating with the carrier could probably bring down most MPAs with its 90km range SAM better than a Yak could do it... These days with the potential for 400km S-400 it is not even close.

    & to strike them with their own AshMs.

    Its primary missile was the AS-7 Kerry which was useless and would have made the aircraft horribly vulnerable to being shot down by even the weakest air defence.

    & the BS is very well situated to deploy from to the most likely areas they'll operate in, just like the YS for the PLAN CV/Ns.

    No it isn't. The Black Sea is not very interesting and the Med is not much more interesting.

    I bet they have plans for any possibility, we just don't know everything.

    They will plan for all sorts of weird stuff, but they will only go forward with sensible plans.

    they could still save lots of money by not basing it there instead; why can't they build/import a floating doc for it the BSF, if the Zaliv's doc isn't big enough?

    Because there is already a perfectly good dock in the Northern Fleet where it has been based most of its operational life.

    Spending extra money on a floating dock... they wont.

    training at sea is the final stage for the real world ops & can't be substituted by any NITKA.

    That is right, which is why land based training facilities will be used but the K has to go to sea for real training too otherwise there is no point in having it.

    they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN.

    So they could make it as expensive as a CV but not as independent... right...

    no it won't; even if so, if it's large, it's not so critical as barricades could be erected to catch a plane in trouble; the same with lights & helipads. Some of its planes & helos could also be amphibian, besides ekranoplans, & Russia has them.

    So getting bigger all the time... is it still cheap?

    they can be medium, not bigger than An-26/72s & Su-33/34/57s; helos can be as big as Mi-26/38s.

    You are not getting it... we are talking about an airfield that can follow Russian surface ships around the world... why would they want Ukrainian transport shit planes of such short range, and what is the purpose of heavy helicopters to a group of ships?

    Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."

    The agreement was that it could leave but could not return except for repairs because the shipyard able to handle it was in the Ukraine. Well now that it is in the Ukraine and wont be repairing or upgrading the K there is no justification or excuse to send it in to the Black Sea, so they wont ever send it there again.

    $Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.

    No. Those billions were spent so those icebreakers can break paths through ice fields in the far north to the far east. They were never intended or suggested as propulsion systems for barge airfields.

    They can tell Turkey (its economy depends on Russian trade & tourism) that it needs repairs in Severodvinsk every time it must go to the Med. Sea & beyond, & it won't be often anyway, as it can stay in the BS for training, incl. against NATO ships that r there on permanent bases.

    Much easier and cheaper and simpler to say nothing to Turkey and keep it in the Northern Fleet where it has been for all this time.

    I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway.

    A nuke icebreaker can't break ice wide enough for an airfield barge of the size you are suggesting... it is simply not wide enough to clear a path through the ice for the barge.

    If there is no ice then there is no need for an icebreaker...

    A future VMF CVN, if built, would be CATOBAR; a large floating avaiation barge or airfield won't need to be CATOBAR.

    Having catapults allows it to carry bigger heavier aircraft that it would otherwise be too small to operate... effectively it allows it to be smaller and lighter but with more capable aircraft.

    EMALS cats also involve new technology in electricity and plasma and magnetics and superconductors... it is just the sort of technology Russia should be working on developing because it should be widely useful in a lot of fields of technology... an excellent investment in fact.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:17 pm

    Pepsi for vodka
    Thirteen years later, in 1972, Kendall entered into an exclusive agreement with the Soviet Union, which gave him the opportunity to enter the communist market. However, there was one problem - the Soviet currency was worth nothing outside the Union. Kendall proposed a barter system. In exchange for the production and sale of the drink in the Soviet Union, Pepsi received exclusive rights to distribute Stolichnaya vodka in the United States.
    Pepsi's market grew rapidly and in the late 1980s the company had more than 20 bottling plants throughout the Union.
    How about warships
    Every year in the USSR, they drank a billion portions of carbonated drink. This was not commensurate with how much vodka was sold in the United States. Therefore, Kendall began looking for other Soviet products to exchange.
    The USSR offered warships that were decommissioned. Therefore, in 1989, Kendall signed a new agreement, according to which Pepsi acquired 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate and a destroyer. The company quickly sold them for scrap. For each submarine alone, Pepsi received $ 150,000.
    https://innovation.24tv.ua/ru/sovetskij-sojuz-obmenjal-voennye-korabli-novosti-ukrainy-i-mira_n1558582

    the BSF is becoming the 3rd main fleet, & its bases will be improved & expanded
    No evidence of that, but even if there was that means there are two more important fleets....
    they r all important, in their own specific ways.

    the upgrades will be only for 1 TAVKR, & it was there during its acceptance trials & training with no problems.
    No mention of that by the media of that being in the budget and it will be back at sea in the next 2-3 years so they better pull finger... except if there is no intention to base in the BS... which is much much more likely.
    the Ukr.N is gone & its former assets on bases r for the VMF; more ships & subs can be moved to other bases in the BS from Adm K. to come back, & plans may change the next time they look at their finances & decide to save more money.  

    it can change its homeport afterwards, if they decide to do it.
    They might base it here in New Zealand... but unlikely.
    Novorossiysk is a lot more likely.

    but if 2 were sent to the Med. & a CG from the Pac. F to join them, it means that the BSF is much needed & is now in the process of expansion.
    Not really. Moving corvettes is not the same as moving a CV.
    even w/o a TAVKR, it's not a backwater location for a fleet.

    yes, & since it also carries LR ASh/CMs, it's a hybrid like no other CV. If Turkey raises objections, the Adm K. can transit the straits w/o any fixed wings; they can fly in via Iran, Iraq & Syria once it's in the Med. Sea.
    Not moving is quicker and cheaper and simpler. Leave it at the Northern Fleet.
    if nothing else, it will last longer in the BS & will need less maintenance to the hull, radars, & missile launchers.

    true, but the VMF could save $ by keeping more minisubs there & increasing ASW forces. BSF SSKs will be "going for repairs" to the Baltic & but in fact deploy to the Med: Russia now has, in effect, a permanent submarine force in the Mediterranean using Black Sea Fleet diesel-electric boats, despite the Montreux Convention. Russia could already deploy submarines to the Mediterranean from its Baltic and Northern Fleets. But these fleets are further away and have competing priorities. Therefore
    Would make more sense to make Tartus a submarine capable base.
    it's more risky & they need to be dispersed across other bases. The sub base in Balaklava will be used again.

    Some Soviets would consider me a traitor for leaving, even to reunify with other family members abroad, but since 1991 the official stance been that it's an individual's choice where to live. I won't sacrifice a single hair from my body for an empire or any state, emigrated not as an anti-USSR enemy & FYI joined the USN in 12/93.
    You don't need to justify your actions to me... I am just an invisible guy on the internet... you can do as you please... I don't judge you or anyone else.
    good; that makes me qualified in ur eyes in my objective & non-biased judgements/opinions on Russia.

    what other fixed wing aircraft carriers do they have & will have in the near future?
    They wont have any other fixed wing aircraft carriers in the next 8-10 years, so if they want operational experience then they need to use the one they have.
    but IMO, if history is any indication, it will be more abused than used if it stays in the NF.

    they managed to go to L. America & the IO w/o it so far, & may do it again many times in the future.
    Very true, but every time they leave the cover of Russian waters and Russian airspace they become more vulnerable to attack... the solution to that vulnerability is an aircraft carrier, but just taking one with them wont make them safer... they need to work out how to use it properly which means experience... what works and what does not... they wont know till they try. Which ports will let them replenish... don't know till you try. What sort of support will it need in different locations... can't be sure till you go there. What new capabilities does it give a group of Russian ships to have a carrier there... what can they do and what can't they do... all these questions and problems can only be solved by doing it and testing and experimenting.
    I doubt it'll be done with the Adm. K; they don't even know if/when a CVN will be there to sail on.

    They might find with a catapult a Yak-44 like aircraft can be used..
    that plane is only mockup & there r no news of it being built; that's another confirmation that a CVN is still a pipe dream.

    & the BS is very well situated to deploy from to the most likely areas they'll operate in, just like the YS for the PLAN CV/Ns.
    No it isn't. The Black Sea is not very interesting and the Med is not much more interesting.
    naval cruises r not supposed to be interesting, esp. for the VMF; "live the adventure" is what USN recruiters & advertisements used tell to get folks to sign up.

    they could still save lots of money by not basing it there instead; why can't they build/import a floating doc for it the BSF, if the Zaliv's doc isn't big enough?
    Because there is already a perfectly good dock in the Northern Fleet where it has been based most of its operational life.
    then, it'll give them an excuse to tell Turkey next time it will deploy out of the BS "to get repaired".

    training at sea is the final stage for the real world ops & can't be substituted by any NITKA.
    That is right, which is why land based training facilities will be used but the K has to go to sea for real training too otherwise there is no point in having it.
    in much more difficult & dangerous Barents Sea, if it stays in the NF.

    they could built it with hangars & everything else a CVN has, minus propulsion, nav. bridge & ship's fuel storage. El. cables could bring power from the towing ship. Ordinance will be as safe as on a CVN.
    So they could make it as expensive as a CV but not as independent... right...
    w/o those features, it'll be less expensive!

    no it won't; even if so, if it's large, it's not so critical as barricades could be erected to catch a plane in trouble; the same with lights & helipads. Some of its planes & helos could also be amphibian, besides ekranoplans, & Russia has them.
    So getting bigger all the time... is it still cheap?
    yes, & it could be built in modular sections & joined together.

    they can be medium, not bigger than An-26/72s & Su-33/34/57s; helos can be as big as Mi-26/38s.
    ..why would they want Ukrainian transport shit planes of such short range, and what is the purpose of heavy helicopters to a group of ships?
    anything Ukrainian is like red cloth to a bull to u, isn't it? I mentioned them just to give size reference; those helos may not be based on it but can be used as CODs.

    Lion btw no the Kuz isn't allowed in the straights, the treaty describes carriers as ships "designed or adapted primarily for the purpose of carrying and operating aircraft at sea."
    The agreement was that it could leave but could not return except for repairs because the shipyard able to handle it was in the Ukraine. Well now that it is in the Ukraine and wont be repairing or upgrading the K there is no justification or excuse to send it in to the Black Sea, so they wont ever send it there again.
    time will tell!

    $Bs were/r going to be spent on NP icebreakers that can act as its propulsion & power supply.
    No. Those billions were spent so those icebreakers can break paths through ice fields in the far north to the far east. They were never intended or suggested as propulsion systems for barge airfields.
    there was an icebreaker in WWII they used as auxiliary cruiser in ice free waters; if need be, they can be repurposed.

    I suggested building a barge or floating airfield, not CVN, that can be towed by a NP icebreaker that they already have/will have more of them anyway.
    A nuke icebreaker can't break ice wide enough for an airfield barge of the size you are suggesting... it is simply not wide enough to clear a path through the ice for the barge. If there is no ice then there is no need for an icebreaker...
    I meant to use it in the ice free waters, since they have no other NP ship (except the bulk carrier Sevmorput), that can tow big ships & doesn't need to be refueled at sea.

    A future VMF CVN, if built, would be CATOBAR; a large floating aviation barge or airfield won't need to be CATOBAR.
    Having catapults allows it to carry bigger heavier aircraft that it would otherwise be too small to operate... effectively it allows it to be smaller and lighter but with more capable aircraft.
    they can build a very long aviation barge or airfield with ski rumps that will make CATOBAR CVN concept useless, at a fraction of the cost. Several of such things would coast as much as 1 CVN.
    Also, amphibian/ekranoplan AWACS/COD/tanker planes could be developed.[/quote]


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Mar 07, 2021 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add a quote)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:46 am

    the Ukr.N is gone & its former assets on bases r for the VMF; more ships & subs can be moved to other bases in the BS from Adm K. to come back, & plans may change the next time they look at their finances & decide to save more money.

    Its operational base and the place it is repaired is in the Northern Fleet.

    Moving it to the Black Sea will just cost extra money for no positive results and that is assuming the Turks let it in and they wont need to because there is no indication the Russians want it there... just your nostalgia or some other crap.

    Novorossiysk is a lot more likely.

    Neither is likely, New Zealand is a zero, and so is any base in the Black Sea for reasons I have already pointed out.

    Lots of problems and costs and no advantages... rebuilding new basing facilities is vastly more expensive than sailing from the Northern Fleet to Tartus in Syria for a test run of the new systems and equipment.

    even w/o a TAVKR, it's not a backwater location for a fleet.

    At best it might get an Ivan Gren, but the new 40K helicopter carriers will be Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet based.

    It is where they based the Kiev class carriers they had too which essentially turned into helicopter carriers anyway.

    if nothing else, it will last longer in the BS & will need less maintenance to the hull, radars, & missile launchers.

    It does not need to last forever... it needs to be useful... and it is not useful in the Black Sea.

    good; that makes me qualified in ur eyes in my objective & non-biased judgements/opinions on Russia.

    Not at all, you views so far make me think you have a similar mentality to other fellow Ukrainians, or indeed even Poles when it comes to Russia.

    You say you were in the Navy but you don't recognise the plainly obvious futility of basing an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea... either you mopped floors in the Navy or you are consciously giving bad advice to an enemy state.

    Either way I don't agree with what you are suggesting.

    but IMO, if history is any indication, it will be more abused than used if it stays in the NF.

    It became operational in the early to mid 1990s... the perfect time where they neither had the money nor the interest in operating a global naval fleet. They had enormous numbers of ships and subs that were obsolete and in need of disposal and didn't really need an aircraft carrier at all... the fact that they kept it and maintained it in such a situation shows they value its potential. After spending an enormous amount of time and planning and costs in terms of restoring and retaining technology and skills learned in the cold war and to restore companies and factories and shipyards that have spent the best part of 2 decades doing fuck all, to now be in a position where they have state of the art Corvettes and state of the art Frigates... not just good for Russia, but world class boats that would stand up against any world equivalent anywhere, and are in the process of getting them into production, and are just starting building bigger ships like 40K ton helicopter carriers and of course new destroyers and then perhaps new cruisers... which might be a period away but they have upgraded destroyers and upgraded cruisers in the mean time to fill that gap... they have got a few years now to test and practise and use the upgraded carrier and upgraded cruisers to work out what works and what doesn't and what changes they might want or need for the new build CVN and new build destroyers and cruisers to follow.

    They are not going to build thousands of ships, but the ships they do make will be formidable and capable and operating with aircraft will make them even more effective and safer in hostile situations. They wont be invincible but should be able to deal some serious hurt to anything that tries to attack them.

    I doubt it'll be done with the Adm. K; they don't even know if/when a CVN will be there to sail on.

    You can doubt all you like but new fighters and upgrades to the ship... why would they not sail it around and give it a good test.

    They took it out of dry dock to go to Syria for some testing they would not be able to get any other way... and that conflict is still ongoing... the first trip might be back to Syria to test the upgrades and do it all from the ship this time and they can evaluate what can be changed or improved next time.

    It will remain off the coast of Syria and will not try to enter the Black Sea... just like it did the last time it went to Syria.

    that plane is only mockup & there r no news of it being built; that's another confirmation that a CVN is still a pipe dream.

    They have had plans in place for an AWACS platform, the rumour is that they have fitted cats of an unknown type on the K as an upgrade... none of the aircraft that normally operate on the carrier would require cat assistance... suggests either a new AWACS platform maybe, but perhaps more likely the ability to launch unmanned drones of a large size... most of which are designed for long endurance and therefore have very low thrust to weight ratios and would struggle to get airborne on a carrier and a catapult would certainly help to make them usable.

    naval cruises r not supposed to be interesting, esp. for the VMF; "live the adventure" is what USN recruiters & advertisements used tell to get folks to sign up.

    I don't mean interesting as in entertaining, I mean interesting as in being useful and a learning experience for the Navy.

    then, it'll give them an excuse to tell Turkey next time it will deploy out of the BS "to get repaired".

    There is no value in basing there so spending money on facilities you will not be using is a waste of money.

    in much more difficult & dangerous Barents Sea, if it stays in the NF.

    They can practise flights from land bases in the northern fleet region to get a feel for the different conditions and they don't need to sail and launch aircraft in snow storms.

    w/o those features, it'll be less expensive!

    And even less useful.

    yes, & it could be built in modular sections & joined together.

    It almost certainly will be but yet again you are missing the point and screwing things up with your US Navy goggles.

    Russia doesn't want an enormous floating airfield it can park off the coast of a country it wants to bomb... the purpose of the Kuznetsov is to provide aircover to a moving group of Russian surface ships... if they sit around a barge that might be moved at perhaps 6 knots at best then they are essentially a sitting duck.

    The concept of the floating aircraft is genuine but has nothing at all to do with replacing CVs or CVNs in the Russian navy.

    anything Ukrainian is like red cloth to a bull to u, isn't it?

    They fucken burned people to death because those people wanted to speak Russian... they were Ukrainian people... What I don't understand is why I am so nice and generous to them...

    Especially when the excuse for murder is... Putin.

    I mentioned them just to give size reference; those helos may not be based on it but can be used as CODs.

    Proper support ships should be just fine.

    I meant to use it in the ice free waters, since they have no other NP ship (except the bulk carrier Sevmorput), that can tow big ships & doesn't need to be refueled at sea

    Icebreakers are for icebreaking... why do you think refuelling a ship at sea is so impossible?

    Even if the barge does not need to be refuelled it will be carrying enormous volumes of aviation fuel that will need to be refuelled at sea too... helicopters and jet aircraft use enormous volumes of fuel every day... the barge will require lots of refuelling ships whether it is pushed by a nuke or a conventional ship... even if an old Typhoon class sub is used to tow it...

    they can build a very long aviation barge or airfield with ski rumps that will make CATOBAR CVN concept useless, at a fraction of the cost. Several of such things would coast as much as 1 CVN.
    Also, amphibian/ekranoplan AWACS/COD/tanker planes could be developed

    It wont be cheaper and wont be able to keep up with the ships it is providing air cover to like a CV or CVN needs to... and it certainly wont be cheaper because it does not do the job required.

    Amphibian or Ekranoplan tankers and AWACS are probably good ideas... and I have mentioned repeatedly before an airship would also be good for AWACS... especially with new technology in terms of fuel cells and modern fire proof fabrics and electric motors etc etc and the potential for enormous solar cells and new battery technology.



    AMK likes this post

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    the Ukr.N is gone & its former assets on bases r for the VMF; more ships & subs can be moved to other bases in the BS for Adm K. to come back, & plans may change the next time they look at their finances & decide to save more money.

    Its operational base and the place it is repaired is in the Northern Fleet.
    it's not written in stone & may change.

    Moving it to the Black Sea will just cost extra money for no positive results and that is assuming the Turks let it in and they wont need to because there is no indication the Russians want it there...
    I got the idea from another Russian & there may be more who think the same way.

    Novorossiysk is a lot more likely.
    Neither is likely, New Zealand is a zero, and so is any base in the Black Sea for reasons I have already pointed out.
    once they see that it's mostly useless in the NF & is only good for training & wasting money, those reasons will become moot.

    Lots of problems and costs and no advantages... rebuilding new basing facilities is vastly more expensive than sailing from the Northern Fleet to Tartus in Syria for a test run of the new systems and equipment.
    they need to upgrade bases there anyway & it won't take much more $, if at all. Some # of ships will be at sea or in the yards at all times, so there is no need for empty piers.

    even w/o a TAVKR, it's not a backwater location for a fleet.
    At best it might get an Ivan Gren, but the new 40K helicopter carriers will be Northern Fleet or Pacific Fleet based.
    It is where they based the Kiev class carriers they had too which essentially turned into helicopter carriers anyway.
    but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.

    if nothing else, it will last longer in the BS & will need less maintenance to the hull, radars, & missile launchers.
    It does not need to last forever... it needs to be useful... and it is not useful in the Black Sea.
    as a training ship/LHA, IMO it'll be more useful there; it may never be useful for anything else anywhere, unless India or China buy it, which is unlikely.

    good; that makes me qualified in ur eyes in my objective & non-biased judgements/opinions on Russia.
    Not at all, you views so far make me think you have a similar mentality to other fellow Ukrainians, or indeed even Poles when it comes to Russia.
    she well deserves the reputation she got among them. There's a reason why so many people fled & formed Cossack/Old Believers bands that colonized lands in the South & East over 100s of years.

    You say you were in the Navy but you don't recognise the plainly obvious futility of basing an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea...
    basing it there is the lesser of the 2 evils, see the above reply.
    either you mopped floors in the Navy or you are consciously giving bad advice to an enemy state.
    FYI, I handled ship/air cargo before doing aviation maintenance jobs, at sea & ashore after going to schools for that.

    but IMO, if history is any indication, it will be more abused than used if it stays in the NF.
    ..and use the upgraded carrier and upgraded cruisers to work out what works and what doesn't and what changes they might want or need for the new build CVN and new build destroyers and cruisers to follow.
    no need to go to W. Atlantic for that; B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas during all 4 seasons could be used instead. In fact, closed seas r more challenging than semi-open/open seas & oceans.

    I doubt it'll be done with the Adm. K; they don't even know if/when a CVN will be there to sail on.
    You can doubt all you like but new fighters and upgrades to the ship... why would they not sail it around and give it a good test.
    if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.

    They took it out of dry dock to go to Syria for some testing they would not be able to get any other way... and that conflict is still ongoing... the first trip might be back to Syria to test the upgrades and do it all from the ship this time and they can evaluate what can be changed or improved next time.
    I bet they'll need to make many more trips to Syria, esp. since there won't be a light at the end of the tunnel any time soon.

    It will remain off the coast of Syria and will not try to enter the Black Sea... just like it did the last time it went to Syria.
    if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.

    that plane is only mockup & there r no news of it being built; that's another confirmation that a CVN is still a pipe dream.
    They have had plans in place for an AWACS platform, the rumour is that they have fitted cats of an unknown type on the K as an upgrade... none of the aircraft that normally operate on the carrier would require cat assistance... suggests either a new AWACS platform maybe, but perhaps more likely the ability to launch unmanned drones of a large size...
    if an AWACS plane isn't ready by the time a CVN is, it'll nix ur high regard for their alleged rational planning abilities that u so admire. The Chinese CV-18 is far from completion, but their AWACS is already being tested.

    naval cruises r not supposed to be interesting, esp. for the VMF; "live the adventure" is what USN recruiters & advertisements used tell to get folks to sign up.
    I don't mean interesting as in entertaining, I mean interesting as in being useful and a learning experience for the Navy.
    as mentioned, the B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas r useful, relatively close by & realistic enough to train in.

    w/o those features, it'll be less expensive!
    And even less useful.
    at least as useful as a CVN.

    yes, & it could be built in modular sections & joined together.
    Russia doesn't want an enormous floating airfield it can park off the coast of a country it wants to bomb...
    it can be parked farther away & still provide extra capabilities they won't have otherwise.
    the purpose of the Kuznetsov is to provide aircover to a moving group of Russian surface ships... if they sit around a barge that might be moved at perhaps 6 knots at best then they are essentially a sitting duck.
    it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.

    anything Ukrainian is like red cloth to a bull to u, isn't it?
    They fucken burned people to death because those people wanted to speak Russian...
    & they were pro-Russian whom the nationalists wanted to purge/delete; tolerance isn't in their vocabulary.

    I mentioned them just to give size reference; those helos may not be based on it but can be used as CODs.
    Proper support ships should be just fine.
    even with them, vertreps r faster.

    I meant to use it in the ice free waters, since they have no other NP ship (except the bulk carrier Sevmorput), that can tow big ships & doesn't need to be refueled at sea
    Icebreakers are for icebreaking... why do you think refuelling a ship at sea is so impossible?
    it'll need to be done more often on a non-NP ship, even if the latter at needs only aviation fuel.
    Even if the barge does not need to be refuelled it will be carrying enormous volumes of aviation fuel that will need to be refuelled at sea too...
    true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.

    they can build a very long aviation barge or airfield with ski rumps that will make CATOBAR CVN concept useless, at a fraction of the cost. Several of such things would coast as much as 1 CVN.
    Also, amphibian/ekranoplan AWACS/COD/tanker planes could be developed
    It wont be cheaper and wont be able to keep up with the ships it is providing air cover to like a CV or CVN needs to...
    some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.
    and it certainly wont be cheaper because it does not do the job required.
    but, as u say, they'll need to try it to see if it'll work well or not.

    Amphibian or Ekranoplan tankers and AWACS are probably good ideas... and I have mentioned repeatedly before an airship would also be good for AWACS... especially with new technology in terms of fuel cells and modern fire proof fabrics and electric motors etc etc and the potential for enormous solar cells and new battery technology.
    right, & any of them can make CATOBAR useless for the VMF. TAVKRs, tenders & floating airfields can cater to them.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 15980
    Points : 16477
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  George1 Tue Mar 09, 2021 1:54 pm

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 43747510
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 43749010
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 43750410
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 43754910
    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 43756510

    medo, tanino, LMFS, Backman and Daniel_Admassu like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28716
    Points : 29246
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 10, 2021 9:55 am

    it's not written in stone & may change.

    No reason to change so far.

    I got the idea from another Russian & there may be more who think the same way.

    Doesn't really matter unless that other Russian is head of the Russian Navy.

    once they see that it's mostly useless in the NF & is only good for training & wasting money, those reasons will become moot.

    The Northern Fleet or the Pacific Fleet are the ideal places to keep it, and as an operational carrier its Ka-31s provide excellent low level air coverage, while the fighters on board give any Russian group of ships the ability to go out hundreds of kms in a few minutes to visually inspect threats and targets detected on radar or other means. Such situational awareness is worth gold in peace time and in war time.

    they need to upgrade bases there anyway & it won't take much more $, if at all. Some # of ships will be at sea or in the yards at all times, so there is no need for empty piers.

    They have Corvettes and Frigates and the next step will be production so older ships can be retired, they will be upgrading bases for new ships and expanding for the new destroyers which will be next... not to mention the two helicopter carriers they are building.

    but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.

    In the Black Sea land based aircraft would be a much easier and more readily available option.

    For Indian ocean or Med ops the K can sail from the northern fleet and be based at Tartus for the duration... no need to head into the black sea.

    as a training ship/LHA, IMO it'll be more useful there; it may never be useful for anything else anywhere, unless India or China buy it, which is unlikely.

    It purpose is to provide air cover for Russian Navy ships when they are operating beyond land based Russian Air power, it would have zero use in the Black Sea which is why it will never be based there... ever.

    she well deserves the reputation she got among them. There's a reason why so many people fled & formed Cossack/Old Believers bands that colonized lands in the South & East over 100s of years.

    Yeah, those terrible Russians... killing all those lovely german nazis and pushing them back to western germany... but it is OK... they live on in HATO and the west.

    basing it there is the lesser of the 2 evils, see the above reply.

    You clearly think it is useless so I don't really care what you think about basing locations.

    FYI, I handled ship/air cargo before doing aviation maintenance jobs, at sea & ashore after going to schools for that.

    Good for you.

    no need to go to W. Atlantic for that; B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas during all 4 seasons could be used instead. In fact, closed seas r more challenging than semi-open/open seas & oceans.

    With climate change by 2035 the Arctic will be navigable all year round... not closed at all.

    if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.

    Why would that matter? Do you think if China sends its carrier to places that Russia cannot then do the same?

    Russia is the country with hypersonic anti ship missiles that can obliterate any other navy it comes across... it is not Russia that has the problems at sea.

    I bet they'll need to make many more trips to Syria, esp. since there won't be a light at the end of the tunnel any time soon.

    Syria offers a chance to test systems and procedures and make sure things are working, but using carrier aircraft is not particularly efficient if there are ground bases you can use instead. It will be a month testing or so and then probably off to sail around the place and test the support structure for it and other ships in the carrier group. Coordinating trips and organising supplies and fuel at specific places so they can collect resources without having to return to base all the time is part of what they are practising and training at.

    if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.

    Hahahaha... the lottery is random... attempting to predict that is meaningless... you can calculate all the possible results and you can also calculate the probability
    of any specific set of numbers being drawn, but you cannot actually determine which combination will be drawn with any certainty.

    Otherwise mathematicians would win every week, and most math experts I know don't even bother buying a ticket.

    if an AWACS plane isn't ready by the time a CVN is, it'll nix ur high regard for their alleged rational planning abilities that u so admire.

    Why. They already have Ka-31s. They could easily use a portable cat unit to launch drones... they might have a long endurance drone with a radar on its back... their new radar antenna are surface mounted which would make building a aircraft with 360 degree radar coverage rather easy in fact.

    You do understand that part of planning and managing is fault tolerance... if something is not ready that is not the end of the world... if it takes an extra 5 years to get a decent AWACS platform up and working it is not the end of the world.

    The Udaloy class destroyers were in service for about 5 years before they got the radar equipment for the naval TOR systems to work...

    The Chinese CV-18 is far from completion, but their AWACS is already being tested.

    Good for them...

    as mentioned, the B/Med./Red/Arabian Seas r useful, relatively close by & realistic enough to train in.

    It is too close and therefore not a useful place to send a ship that is supposed to free the Russian Navy to operate world wide with a good level of protection from air attack.

    it can be parked farther away & still provide extra capabilities they won't have otherwise.

    They might assemble one in the middle of the med sea, or maybe off the coast of Antarctica...

    it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.

    No it couldn't... an airfield big enough to land An-12s would need to be 1km long and would probably need to be 60m plus wide.... there is no way any NP icebreaker is towing that faster than 2-3 knots.

    & they were pro-Russian whom the nationalists wanted to purge/delete; tolerance isn't in their vocabulary.

    They were fellow Ukrainian citizens who were burned to death... the lack of shock shows they are not worth anything.

    even with them, vertreps r faster.

    Bullshit. How many thousand tons of aviation fuel can a COD aircraft deliver per hour... it would take weeks to deliver 1,000 tons and 2-3 tons at a time...

    Supply ship can pull a long side pass a hose and pump thousands of tons of fuel and fresh water while the crane on the deck can transfer pallets of food and ammo and equipment... flying it in in planes or helicopters is pathetically slow and inefficient in comparison... a US Navy guy would know that...


    it'll need to be done more often on a non-NP ship, even if the latter at needs only aviation fuel.

    Less often actually, ships and aircraft use different fuel grades so a ship fuel tanker on one side refuelling the ship and an avgas ship on the other side pumping fuel for the aircraft... the avgas tanker would be needed three or four times more than the ship towing the barge because once it is in position most of the time will just be station keeping manoeuvres... which would be bugger all.

    true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.

    Too expensive to waste time towing a barge though... there are a lot of cheaper ships that would be better suited.

    Either way still wont replace a CV.

    some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.

    Sail ahead... away from the air cover... why?

    but, as u say, they'll need to try it to see if it'll work well or not.

    The plans for the barge based air field is not related to and not expected to replace aircraft carriers... they might float some up north to extend the flight range of aircraft to places in international waters.

    right, & any of them can make CATOBAR useless for the VMF.

    Amphibious or Ekranoplan based tankers or AWACS aircraft would have zero value as CAP and air defence for Russian ships in international waters, so no, they could not replace a CV or CVN, but they might still be useful.

    TAVKRs, tenders & floating airfields can cater to them.

    Helicopter carriers would still need fighter aircraft cover support... floating airfields like CVs and CVNs.

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:14 pm

    They have Corvettes and Frigates and the next step will be production so older ships can be retired, they will be upgrading bases for new ships and expanding for the new destroyers which will be next... not to mention the two helicopter carriers they are building.
    the ex-Ukr. N ships now occupy spaces big enough for at least 1/2 of the CBG. There r other locations in the harbor that they can use to anchor/moor ships at.

    but if they ever need an LHA in the BS/Med./IO, the Adm. K can be used as such.
    It purpose is to provide air cover for Russian Navy ships when they are operating beyond land based Russian Air power, it would have zero use in the Black Sea which is why it will never be based there... ever.
    for the rest of its active life, I doubt it'll be tasked with that; so far & in the foreseeable future it'll be used for training & trials so they can write NATOPS for worldwide CVN ops & hope it won't be in vain.

    Yeah, those terrible Russians... killing all those lovely german nazis and pushing them back to western germany...
    not only Russians defeated them; w/o C. Asian/Azeri manpower, Mongolian meat & furs, Ukrainian & Armenian generals as well as Chinese guerrillas keeping Japan occupied, the USSR would be history before 1945.

    With climate change by 2035 the Arctic will be navigable all year round... not closed at all.
    this reminds me how the Americans trained for a war in Europe after 1945 but ended up fighting in SE Asian jungles/rice paddies, ME deserts & Afghan mountains instead. The VMF can train in the ice free areas of the Arctic, but that still won't prepare it for the temperate & tropical seas. Bad idea!

    if they do, it won't be before China does with her CBG.
    Why would that matter? Do you think if China sends its carrier to places that Russia cannot then do the same?
    I implied that Russia will have her CVN long after China gets hers, if at all.

    Coordinating trips and organising supplies and fuel at specific places so they can collect resources without having to return to base all the time is part of what they are practising and training at. ..
    It is too close and therefore not a useful place to send a ship that is supposed to free the Russian Navy to operate world wide with a good level of protection from air attack.
    they can sail back & forth between Gibraltar & Tartus to imitate a long cruise w/o going across an ocean to L. America.

    if u think u r so good at predictions, play a lottery & win a jackpot.
    Hahahaha... the lottery is random... attempting to predict that is meaningless...
    future of Russia & the VMF is also random; as Chinese correctly observed, Russia is an unpredictable country, & continental at that.

    They might assemble one in the middle of the med sea, or maybe off the coast of Antarctica...
    or in the Mid-Atlantic/Pacific to serve as refueling stop for bombers, transports, tankers, MPA/ASW/AWACS, & their fighter escorts.

    it can be moved a lot faster by a NP icebreaker.
    No it couldn't... an airfield big enough to land An-12s would need to be 1km long and would probably need to be 60m plus wide.... there is no way any NP icebreaker is towing that faster than 2-3 knots.
    a heavier C-130 landed & took off on/off CV before; a 400-500m aviation barge is still big enough for dozens of Su-33/34/57s & a few An-26/32 or Yak-44 size planes.

    even with them, vertreps r faster.
    Bullshit. How many thousand tons of aviation fuel can a COD aircraft deliver per hour... it would take weeks to deliver 1,000 tons and 2-3 tons at a time...
    I meant for dry cargo.
    .
    .while the crane on the deck can transfer pallets of food and ammo and equipment...
    I've seen it many times; suspension cables r used to transfer certain things between ships, but big nets under helos take less time to fill up & empty on fantails.

    ..the avgas tanker would be needed  three or four times more than the ship towing the barge..
    a NP icebreaker can have extra storage for av. fuel that it can then pump to a barge that was converted from a big tanker or built with large fuel tanks; a barge itself can get fuel pumped directly from a tanker.

    true, but a NP ship towing it won't need to be fueled with non-aviation fuel at all & can make its own fresh water.
    Too expensive to waste time towing a barge though... there are a lot of cheaper ships that would be better suited.
    a NP ship doesn't need to be refueled at sea, has large storage spaces & that's a huge plus.

    Either way still wont replace a CV.
    it'll replace its propulsion & el. power supply since it's comparable with CVN propulsion. If armed with even 1/3 of TAVKR/CVN armaments, it'll aid in the defensive/offensive capabilities. They can have 2 of them 1 towing aviation/amhpib. tender barge & the other towing a missile barge.

    some escorts can go a few knots slower to stay together while others can sail ahead.
    Sail ahead... away from the air cover... why?
    AWACS UAVs can fly 100s of miles for days & their helos & S-400 will keep the seawolves away.

    Amphibious or Ekranoplan based tankers or AWACS aircraft would have zero value as CAP and air defence for Russian ships in international waters, so no, they could not replace a CV or CVN, but they might still be useful.
    they'll not occupy as much space on deck as CTOLs, so more fighters, helos & UAVs can be carried & operated on a barge.

    [quote]TAVKRs, tenders & floating airfields can cater to them./quote]
    Helicopter carriers would still need fighter aircraft cover support... floating airfields like CVs and CVNs.
    the TAVKRs r both helo & STOBAR carriers; LHA/Ds & UDKs may have STOVLs while av. barges can have any combination of them.
    Russia may even chose to build QE2 style CV/N & UDK hybrid, saving & on separate CVNs & UDKs.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2372
    Points : 2354
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:20 pm

    Dunno why this pointless argument about building CVN without propulsion is going on.

    That idea is as stupid as they come.

    PapaDragon likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7364
    Points : 7350
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Isos Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:29 pm

    Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers lol1 .
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5605
    Points : 5599
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Mar 10, 2021 8:31 pm

    They already built/ding NP icebreakers that r w/o flight decks & hangars & that can be used to tow av. barges with flight decks & hangars. Together, they can be used as CVNs.
    Just like a locomotive that can be equipped with a big shovel to clear snow in winter & pull an armored/BM train in summer.

    Sponsored content

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2 - Page 33 Empty Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:11 pm