Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno why this pointless argument about building CVN without propulsion is going on.
That idea is as stupid as they come.
Isos wrote:Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers.
PapaDragon wrote:Isos wrote:Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers
Or why not just do intelligent thing and scrap that junk and free up men, aircraft and resources for the whole fleet?
LMFS likes this post
Backman wrote:PapaDragon wrote:Isos wrote:Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers
Or why not just do intelligent thing and scrap that junk and free up men, aircraft and resources for the whole fleet?
25 years. You have 25 more years of Kuznetsov to look forward to.
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.
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!
I implied that Russia will have her CVN long after China gets hers, if at all.
they can sail back & forth between Gibraltar & Tartus to imitate a long cruise w/o going across an ocean to L. America.
future of Russia & the VMF is also random
a heavier C-130 landed & took off on/off CV before
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.
a NP ship doesn't need to be refueled at sea, has large storage spaces & that's a huge plus.
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.
AWACS UAVs can fly 100s of miles for days & their helos & S-400 will keep the seawolves away.
they'll not occupy as much space on deck as CTOLs, so more fighters, helos & UAVs can be carried & operated on a barge.
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.
Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers
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.
training on CV/Ns is done closer to their bases, not in mid-oceans or overseas. If NZ had a CV, would it be based on the S. Island remote fiord or on the N. Island with better climate & closer to where it'll train & deploy?But that is the point of an Aircraft Carrier... the ability to train anywhere they like... just because they are based in the Northern Fleet does not mean they have to stay there and can only operate there.
if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?Then she will have a better idea of what armament and load out of aircraft types she needs for her CVN.
to be closer to home & the areas for real emergencies, & to save $. If something goes wrong, they can return or evacuate sick personnel to base faster.Why imitate when they can do the real thing?
it won't have the room, as it'll be taken by its fuel; CVN or NP vessel has more room for fuel & ammo that a CV doesn't.A conventional tug vessel could use that extra storage to run its own engines...
being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.Icebreakers are more use in places with ice that needs breaking than pissing around towing a barge halfway around the planet.
this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers. The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended. She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas, at a fraction of the cost of building, operating & deploying a real CVN. This ESB costs $135M; 3-4 such ships joined together can handle more aircraft than the Ford CVN.Or both of them breaking ice earning money helping trade between EU and Asia flourish and grow, while Russian Navy CVNs follow Russian surface ships and provide air cover and support.
it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway for the NSR ops & it can be mated with a long & wide barge/converted ship w/o any propulsion & catapults but with everything else needed to operate aircraft & with defensive armaments. So, for the price of them both u get a NP icebreaker that can earn $ on the NSR when off duty with the VMF & a virtual "turn key" TAVKR/CVN/LHA, with $ left over since a real & more expensive CATOBAR CVN/LHA doesn't need to be built & operated.So what you are suggesting is taking the idea of a CVN and splitting into two separate ships... one being with the N propulsion system to be used as an icebreaker, and the other to be a CVN but without the nuclear propulsion system and just be a barge.
they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.the barge is now four hours away at the edge of the range of the fighters sitting on it... do they even bother sending any knowing they might not have enough fuel to do more than launch a missile and then have to turn around and head back to the barge.
rather, as mini LHAs:They are currently building 40K ton Ivan Rogov helicopter landing ships... I rather doubt they plan to use them as CVNs too.
A more intelligent thing, after all the time & $ spent, would be to include it in the BSF where it could be used to train CV & UDK crews.Or why not just do intelligent thing and scrap that junk and free up men, aircraft and resources for the whole fleet?
GarryB wrote:25 years to work out why PD is so bitter about the K...
GarryB, LMFS, Hole and Backman like this post
training on CV/Ns is done closer to their bases, not in mid-oceans or overseas. If NZ had a CV, would it be based on the S. Island remote fiord or on the N. Island with better climate & closer to where it'll train & deploy?
idiots. When they retired our Skyhawks the end of life tour didn't bother coming south, because it was too far... with that sort of defence force I think we would be better off with none... it would certainly be cheaper.if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?
to be closer to home & the areas for real emergencies, & to save $. If something goes wrong, they can return or evacuate sick personnel to base faster.
it won't have the room, as it'll be taken by its fuel; CVN or NP vessel has more room for fuel & ammo that a CV doesn't.
being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.
this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers.
asserting their god given right to be .The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended.
She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas,
it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway
they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.
A significant increase in the air group, from 2 to 12 units, actually turns the Project 11711 landing ship into a helicopter carrier .
With a displacement of about 30-40 thousand tons, they will be carry 20 aircraft.
if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?
they r going to cooperate in naval matters as much, if not more, as with any other areas of mutual interests. Both operate similar CVs & will share "lessons learned". Besides, their CGNs with other ships already made log cruises & they can send UDKs around Eurasia or overseas to learn about deploying them & larger CVNs; no need to send the Adm. K that they may need to keep a lot longer than planned & that needs a lot of TLC (tender loving care).I doubt an exchange would give them the access and knowledge they would be wanting even if it was possible. ..
The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to allow operations further from home so if something goes wrong they need to learn to sort it out themselves wherever they might be when it happens.
if used in the open sea, it would also extend the range of AWACS/ ASW/SAR/COD helos, eliminating the need for catapults needed to operate fixed wings that may not be ready.Locate it three quarters of the range of the helicopters from shore and it would be a great way of extending their operational range from shore...
being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.
it'll be able to do fleet protection mission & few others just as well; as the earlier post mentioned, new more powerful reactors on icebreakers will allow higher speeds in ice free water.They don't result in the same thing so any money you might save makes little difference because it is not a CVN and it wont be able to do what a CVN does.
this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers.
there is only 1 Arctic Ocean; Russia had no reason to sail W./S. Atlantic & E./S. Pacific with CBGs (& I doubt will have) like the US does in the E./N. Atlantic & W./N. Pacific with their CSGs.With good reason... the US has no reason to sail the arctic oceans..
The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended.
as I said many times before, that trade won't pay for CBGs. L. America to Russia is what Africa was to China in the 15 century- an exotic land whose products r not essential for well being & could only be obtained by wasting $ & time.Of course they do. International trade with non western countries is going to be excellent for Russias economy... that is why the west is so set against developments in the far north and the far east and upgrades to their navy...
She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas,
even if so, in an emergency they could be used to tow av. barges; alternatively, 1-2 slated for decommissioning could be kept, refueled/refitted & not used on the NSR; even if they build 1-2 extra icebreakers, it wouldn't be as cost prohibitive as 2-3 CVNs.The icebreakers will be busy keeping trade routes clear in the north...
China will soon have her own NP icebreakers to use in the NW Passage, so Canada won't need any Russian help.Canada might even hire some for their north sea passage or whatever they call it...
it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway
if it works as an air/sea base for the USN (see my prev. post links), a larger barge would be comparable to a CVN. They could join 3 long tanker/bulker hulls to make a trimaran & put a flight deck across them. The 1 in the center could even have diesel-electric propulsion for extra safety, flexibility & extra el. power generation.Nuclear powered icebreakers are not cheap and will be needed for ice breaking. There is no evidence a barge airfield would even work so it is pissing away money in a gamble to start with. Even if it works it wont provide the same level of support an actual CVN provides.
they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.
Su-33/34/57s w/o heavy bomb/missile loads have enough range w/o them; they could have an extra barge, perhaps towed by a CGN, to land, refuel & rearm on.So you end up using expensive fighters and UAVs because your basic platform can't do the job... sounds like the fundamental idea is flawed.
A significant increase in the air group, from 2 to 12 units, actually turns the Project 11711 landing ship into a helicopter carrier .
I'm not saying it'll act as a CVN, but if they increase the # of helos on them, it refutes ur argument that there is no need for UDK in the BS...the obvious problem is that no fighter will be able to operate from such a small aircraft carrier and even if they could...
Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.
LMFS likes this post
Big_Gazza wrote:GarryB wrote:25 years to work out why PD is so bitter about the K...
maybe Rogozin once stepped foot on her deck?....
Big_Gazza and Hole like this post
if u can prove me wrong, I'll laugh at myself! Even at US prices, tankers at $135M each x3=$405M, vs. $9.55B for Nimitz & $12.99B for Ford.SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh I will, don't worry.Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.
"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"
with remarks like this, it's not hard to.
Tsavo Lion wrote:if u can prove me wrong, I'll laugh at myself! Even at US prices, tankers at $135M each x3=$405M, vs. $9.55B for Nimitz & $12.99B for Ford.SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh I will, don't worry.Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.
"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"
with remarks like this, it's not hard to.
Will a Russian CVN cost less & be as capable?
Tsavo Lion wrote:if u can prove me wrong, I'll laugh at myself! Even at US prices, tankers at $135M each x3=$405M, vs. $9.55B for Nimitz & $12.99B for Ford.SeigSoloyvov wrote:Oh I will, don't worry.Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.
"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"
with remarks like this, it's not hard to.
Will a Russian CVN cost less & be as capable?
Big_Gazza, kvs and Hole like this post
The bottom line is, from the above prices, US built CVNs r at least 23.5x more costly than 3 of their converted tankers. The Russian tankers r bulk cargo ships will be a lot cheaper, but the Storm CVN Cost:~$5.5 billion (for export version). Let's say it would cost them an equivalent of just $2.5B to build; don't tell me their 3 big tankers will cost as much or more to build & operate. The cost of the icebreaker isn't relevant as it won't be used as a tug for them for more than a few months & will go to work on the NSR once it's not needed by the VMF.SeigSoloyvov wrote:Wow, that ignorant eh?
Two different economics...but hey keep it your providing the forum with loads of entertainment.
fact of the matter is building what you are suggesting is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive.
the more you talk the more people are laughing at you to be honest.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Wow, that ignorant eh?
Two different economics...but hey keep it your providing the forum with loads of entertainment.
fact of the matter is building what you are suggesting is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive.
the more you talk the more people are laughing at you to be honest.
Remember this was the guy that was proposing to substitute the navy altogether with a fleet of Russian tankers and bombers flying perpetually around the globe ...
Big_Gazza, LMFS, lancelot and Backman like this post
Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.
Tsavo Lion wrote:..Moscow desperately needs more smaller ships and especially icebreakers rather than any single large prestige vessel.
If it'll be essential to plug "the carrier gap" while save them $ & time, why not? "If the shoe fits, wear it!"
Billions into the Kuznetsov smokestack.
Big_Gazza likes this post
|
|
|
Home
Register
Log in
PapaDragon