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


+68
Krepost
ALAMO
Broski
marcellogo
Azi
auslander
miroslav
thegopnik
Finty
Mir
mavaff
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Kiko
nero
flamming_python
PapaDragon
The_Observer
RTN
gbu48098
thedrunkengeneral
Firebird
ARYGER
zardof
limb
bren_tann
lyle6
slasher
mnztr
The-thing-next-door
Backman
calripson
AMCXXL
Big_Gazza
kvs
Sujoy
lancelot
Gomig-21
ult
LMFS
medo
owais.usmani
TheArmenian
ultimatewarrior
Arrow
Mindstorm
franco
d_taddei2
Viktor
JohninMK
walle83
Austin
PhSt
Tsavo Lion
magnumcromagnon
Gibraltar
Rodion_Romanovic
George1
Cyberspec
dino00
Singular_Transform
Vann7
Hole
hoom
miketheterrible
x_54_u43
marat
SeigSoloyvov
72 posters

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1565
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Tue May 04, 2021 4:01 am

    I don't think carriers will become obsolete. They might change, but the fact that you can use air power to project further away from the ship itself won't change.
    Missiles are expensive. Throwing away jet engines like you do when you launch a cruise missile isn't particularly cheap.
    Aircraft enable you to enlarge the offensive, defensive, or sensor bubble around a ship.

    Also, the idea that you can just build submarines is kind of pointless. You can't use submarines to patrol the oceans or protect the merchant fleet. Attack submarines are a weapon for sea denial basically.

    Another thing which this news ignores is the major issues with upgrading a complex system like the Kirov-class or the Oscar II-class which was built in Soviet times. The manufacturers of the original system are likely gone, and the schematics, if they were kept, aren't digitized. But once you upgrade one of these boats you can use that knowledge to upgrade the next one. I think it is better if we call this refurbishment than upgrading though.

    Future boats shouldn't have nearly this problem because the ships will be digitized and the supplies won't come from all over a nation which no longer exists. The know-how was scattered to the seven winds basically.

    LMFS wrote:Obviously they need to commission and test the Golovko with the first domestic engine and then they can go for the 22350M, in parallel they need to finish development of the new GTs for them, which will take some years too. They need to follow the sequence step by step, cutting corners is not going to work.

    Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.

    flamming_python and LMFS like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Tue May 04, 2021 4:45 am

    lancelot wrote:Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t6498p175-domestic-production-of-marine-engines-for-russian-navy#313843
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t6498p175-domestic-production-of-marine-engines-for-russian-navy#309529
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4025
    Points : 4023
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Big_Gazza Tue May 04, 2021 5:39 am

    https://www.rt.com/op-ed/522803-russian-fleet-navy-submarine/

    Kresta II-class guided missile cruiser Admiral Nakhimov....   Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

    Apparently the Pyotr Velikiy has a 28 ton displacement....  Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


    Last edited by Big_Gazza on Tue May 04, 2021 5:41 am; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB and flamming_python like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1565
    Points : 1567
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  lancelot Tue May 04, 2021 5:40 am

    LMFS wrote:
    lancelot wrote:Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/t6498p175-domestic-production-of-marine-engines-for-russian-navy#313843
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t6498p175-domestic-production-of-marine-engines-for-russian-navy#309529

    So these are 25 MW gas turbines in addition to the 20 MW gas turbines the Gorshkov uses?
    I thought M90FR already had units up to 25 MW. I guess I was wrong.
    GE has the LM2500 series with performance ranging from 25 MW to 35 MW.
    The Rolls Royce MT30 ranges from 25 MW to 40 MW.
    The MT30 is based on the 777 engine. If you look at Russian aircraft engines even the future PD-35 is like 787 class not 777.

    Sure those engines will be useful if they go for a 10000+ tons destroyer. But if they just want to make a 7000 tons ship I think 4x 20MW engines would be enough.
    What is the power of the engines on the Udaloy?
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Tue May 04, 2021 12:34 pm

    Yes, yes, amateur

    So your expert credentials are....

    Meanwhile we have a guy here claiming that by 2025 they will have Su-57 stationed on Kuznetzov

    It is slightly smaller than the Su-33 and has more installed thrust and much less drag... but it was more a response to a member who described it as a useless hulk.

    They have tested Su-33KUB from the carrier... there is no reason why they couldn't also test current Su-57s from the carrier too to see how it performs and what effect such takeoffs have on range and payload capacity.

    That's 4 years from now and at that point Kuznetzov will be in precisely the same location as it is now (providing it doesn't sink again but that would also qualify as the same location only longer term than now so it's all good thumbsup)

    LMFS wrote:
    @PD: Keep barking, writing drivel in provocative ways does not turn you in the expert and the VMF in the amateurs.

    Wait who said they will station a navalized SU-57 on the Kuz by 2025?

    The problem with discussing serious issues with fucking retards, is that when they say something stupid it is tempting to say something stupid in reply.

    The fact that that is what you picked up from the conversation suggests you are not worth discussing this with either.

    They were probably hoping for it to sink when that dock disaster occured.....its the typical Russian indifference when it comes to somethings..

    So they are following the best naval traditions after the US ship caught fire and burned out in three days because they couldn't put the fire out... typical American incompetence and lack of knowledge about fire.

    Obviously they need to commission and test the Golovko with the first domestic engine and then they can go for the 22350M, in parallel they need to finish development of the new GTs for them, which will take some years too. They need to follow the sequence step by step, cutting corners is not going to work.

    Yes, the American way of experiment and fail is just not going to cut it here.

    I can imagine that after the M version of Su-57 being deployed predictably in 2024, they should start working seriously in the possible naval version. A world beating aircraft which is already STOL is a no-brainer starting point for a naval plane, specially for Russia that needs to compensate for a severe numerical inferiority vs. USN.

    Transferring the Su-35 technology and equipment to the Su-33s would make the most sense in terms of commonality across the board of Flankers in Russian service, but the MiG-29KR/35 is a much better fit for the Kuznetsov and therefore I would expect the LMFS will be its replacement... but longer term a CVN replacement for the Kuznetsov will be in development and would likely use a mix of Su-57K and LMFS to give depth and numbers of aircraft on board.

    They don't need a huge number of CVNs to compensate for anything... they will have radars and optical sensors and sonars on ships and subs and helicopters and fixed wing planes and drones of all types and the best damn SAMs and guns on the planet... How many MiG-35s and Su-35s would Russia need right now to protect its national borders... when operating with MiG-31s and of course a nation wide IADS.

    The US has an impressive fleet but how keen are they to lose some of those ships?

    But being realistic, it will take maybe more than ten years to get the PAK-KA deployed and in the numbers needed, and the Su-33 would need to be upgraded to cover the gap until then, together with the MiG-29K.

    I don't think Su-33s are a good idea on Kuznetsov... Su-57s make more sense... and if LMFS was entering operations today I would say it should be on the carrier instead of the MiG-29KR for obvious reasons too.

    Nah, naval professionals are all ego maniacs and they just want to have the biggest ship beyond any technical reason

    They have an obvious history of overspending and stealing from taxpayers with products they know could never work even with the trillions thrown at it that they do. clown

    For sure, small vessels cannot sustain operations far from their shores and are limited in so many ways. This is not even up for discussion in any serious venue.

    They can operate with support ships that could act as local tenders to keep them operating longer but that just defeats the purpose.

    I posted a video of Combat Approved in the Karakurt thread that has english subtitles and they clearly state that the Karakurt is specifically designed as a patrol and humanitarian focused ship that is more comfortable and has more room on board at the cost of a reduced armament for missions like anti piracy jobs where endurance is more important than being able to single handedly sink HATO.

    Having different types of Corvettes is useful for different purposes, but such small ships makes it harder to make them super all purpose vessels.

    The upgrades of the Udaloy class ships is interesting because they are called frigates... the Soviet Navy didn't use many frigates at all, that was MVD and KGB and other interior ministry forces that used the Krivak class frigates... they were essentially long endurance corvettes with about half the fire power of a Destroyer of the time, but for purposes where that didn't really matter... they were always much better armed than pirates and smugglers.

    These days Corvettes are short range Frigates... except the Karakurt which is a frigate endurance corvette hopefully, but they need ships bigger than their frigates that can carry a useful number of SAMs to defend themselves in more than one engagement before it can be rearmed, and big enough to operate away from base for much longer periods.

    VMF has the Tsirkon to allow for a surface fleet without air power to have a decent deterring power even vs. USN.,

    Anti ship missiles are not the best way of keeping enemy ships back... most of the time western ships can hide behind tankers and container ships to sneak up... plus a corvette has 8 launch tubes... does it carry 8 Zircon and be vulnerable to the first HATO sub that comes past? Or 4 Otvet and 4 Zircon... but what if the targets it launches at are not real?

    A corvette by itself with a 150km range SAM could be attacked by a flight of Hornets armed with Harpoons from a carrier 1,500km away... the carrier is outside of the range of the Zircon and the Harpoons will be launched from outside the range of the Corvettes SAMs, so it just becomes a situation where who runs out of missiles first... the Corvette in SAMs or the Carrier in Harpoons...

    Equally once the carrier has found the corvette it can pass its location to nearby SSNs who can launch Harpoons at the target... as long as they launch from outside the 50km range of Ovtet then they will be safe.

    If it is a cruiser then the cruiser has more SAMs and probably 3 or more helicopters and a much bigger sonar and could probably go on the offensive and start hunting those subs and that carrier.

    because their fighters are challenged operating at big distances from their carriers, their AD is not up to the task of stopping hypersonic missiles and their AShM suck.

    Their anti ship missiles are ordinary, but they are not awful, and they always relied on numbers and they still have that advantage.

    Eventually they are going to have hypersonic missiles too and the best defence is having air power support to start engaging incoming targets as soon as possible to whittle down threats as soon as you can as far away from the targets as you can.

    Hypersonic missiles don't make carriers obsolete... groups of ships with no aircraft and no AWACS support are the things that are obsolete... a missile that flys at mach 9 or 10 at high altitude should be able to fly at sea level at mach 3-4, which does not sound like much but nothing else moves at that speed at that altitude.... its shockwave wake would probably kill unprotected people on the surface....

    But if pushed to try, they will find the way or simply deploy enough forces to overwhelm Russian naval assets.

    That is true, but the act of concentrating such forces to have a chance of victory will be plainly obvious and lead to real opportunities of pre-emptive self defence... perhaps including nuclear weapons.

    The point is that most of the time they will actually do nothing and just let Russia continue doing what it was doing... which is what Russia wants.

    That is where you need extremely deep magazines and extended radar horizon like you have with the Orlans. A Gorshkov is nice when part of a detachment, alone is just asking USN to sink it.

    It is where cruisers shine... imagine the Peresvet (spelling) system they could carry... imagine a ship with an extra mini nuke power plant specifically designed to power the onboard laser system.

    I remember in the late 1980s it was believed (in the west) the Frunze would have the worlds first operational laser defence system... obviously didn't pan out though.


    Good posts in many other threads, but these VMF related meltdowns are simply irrational. Russia would surely wish to have their fleet composed just with brand new ships of the latest technology instead of the current salad of models and versions, and not need to deal with the consequences of the fall of the USSR, but it does not mean Slvas, Orlans or Kuznetsov have no military value, that is certified BS.

    A few stupid posts and all the good posts become hard to remember sadly... the Russian Navy can't turn a tap and have mature modern new ship designs it can hand to shipyards and have done by next year... they need to manage what they have to get what they need for now and work to get new replacements developed and produced and into service... but they can't afford to build shit and only after the 3rd one enters service realise there is something fundamentally wrong with it. They don't have dozens of sycophant bitch allies they can sell failed crap to and pretend they are doing them a favour.

    They also don't have bottomless pockets to waste money on shit that might actually work but they have no use for.

    Their new cruisers wont be the size of Kirovs... more likely in the 17-18K ton weight range, but the design of the new missile launchers means they will have enormous fire power capacity... honestly I think half the time they will sail around with half their tubes empty.

    Even tho they don't live there....or ever went there but you know they read stuff on the internet, never served in a military, never worked in any capacity in military R&D, production, or anything else...so that makes them a highly qualified expert.

    Don't think of me as an expert on how perfect Russia is.... think more of me as an expert of how fundamentally evil the west is, and based on the anti Russian propaganda in the west for a leader Putin who is a corrupt moron, and Russia is a backwards third world gas station that does not produce anything... their navy is collapsing... perhaps the US could send a few extra rubber inflatable boats like they sent Ukraine they would be right for ships for the next decade or too... so they don't interfere in what the west wants to do... but how could such a broken backward country warrant such attention from the west.... maybe the west is lying again... still.... as usual.

    Sarcasm aside, not saying that to be mean or rude just that they have no experience.

    Considering your experience is murdering people in Syria defending their country from terrorists and foreign invaders I am touched you don't want to be mean or rude.

    Aircraft carriers may be obsolete but submarines still have huge potential – what the Russian fleet will look like in the future, by Mikhail Khodarenok, military commentator for RT.com. He is a retired colonel. He served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.

    Article by a hard core submarine fan.

    Problem is that the future purpose of the Russian Navy is to support the expansion of Russian commerce to the rest of the world... how are submarines going to have any effect or make any difference at all in that regard?

    Surely if Subs are so amazing why do western countries send other ships?

    So far, one thing is clear: the state needs a robust merchant fleet as much as it needs a strong navy.

    There is no point having one without the other... the compliment each other.

    To start with, every system and component of a ship has a life cycle, just like the ship itself. Once the vessel nears the end of its cycle, it would seem a sound solution to just send it in for an upgrade.

    Very true, but as ships get bigger they get more costlier, so it is always going to be true that you will have more Corvettes than Carriers, and a Corvette in many ways is going to be a case of shoe horning lots of weapons and sensors and equipment into a relatively small space.

    Learning to do that well is important because when you scale ships up you get more space but also a lot more stuff that has to fit in that space.

    Not all designs scale up well so you might find a Frigate can be a scaled up Corvette, but a scaled up frigate might need modifications to increase weapon numbers to satisfactory levels while leaving space to get better endurance and performance, while the next step above destroyer is cruiser which has a different focus again... so is it just scaled up or a redesign?

    Present-day analysts agree that aircraft carriers are useful only if you don’t plan on invading a nation any stronger than a banana republic. In a naval standoff between equal powers, they’d be taken out first because they’re easy targets for guided missiles.

    A surface group of ships is much easier to take out if it does NOT have an aircraft carrier. Even Banana republics can have fighter aircraft that could rip to pieces a group of ships without airborne early warning and a combat air patrol of fighters operating with it. Conversely a group of ships with an aircraft carrier has a high speed long range air protection screen and airborne radar coverage from sea level up to space for hundreds of kms around the group of ships that can coordinate defence and attack to massively improve performance in both.

    The command and control of an AWACS aircraft is all about maximising your reach and vision and coordinating your defence so everyone contributes effectively so your group of ships is much stronger and better organised and able to defend itself and also inflict effective attacks on targets too.

    The Soviet Navy spent most of its budget on weapons to defeat US carrier groups and that was the focus of the force for most of the Cold War.

    They achieved some impressive results but it was not until they were able to scale these big fast impressive missiles to a useful size as shown by Onyx and now Zircon that they achieved real progress.

    Their new missiles are very impressive... but the only thing more impressive than their capacity to sink ships is their air defence capacity on land.

    New ships and upgraded ships will transfer that expertise from land to sea... but an aircraft carrier makes that transfer complete because it properly fills gaps in low altitude radar coverage and also adds fighter interceptor capability too.

    But more importantly during peace time or near war type situations if you see a blip on the radar 400km away you can't really launch a SAM at it, but sending a pair of fighter aircraft out to investigate and perhaps another pair to hold back and be available if there is a problem.... without launching a missile you can investigate and perhaps foil the start of an attack, or perhaps identify a potential mistake in the making... a civilian aircraft or balloon for instance or civilian ship or whatever... without the carrier you might wait a couple of hours for the ships helicopter to get there...

    Nowadays land based systems that can attack carriers like missiles or aircraft have much more range so even in the middle of the oceans carriers are not safe and will be destroy pretty fast.

    Destroy pretty fast... it will be sitting amongst the equivalent of Moscows air defence batteries of SAMs... how vulnerable would they actually be?

    As vulnerable as a Russian military base in Syria, or a Saudi Oil refinery?

    Subs have proven multiple times to be able to sneak in the carrier formation and sink it. Even during USSR when subs were 60-70s tech and much louder than a modern Yasen.

    And if the threat of SSKs is real then they can launch helicopters and their own submarines and hunt for them.

    The only subs that have proven a problem for US carriers is SSKs which when running on electric motors are rather quiet...

    Any country wanting to sink Russian carriers had better understand that nuclear retaliation will damage their economic growth for the next quarter at least.

    When was the last time an aircraft carrier was sunk?

    SSKs are not brand new.

    Their only safe place is to be used around your shores far away from the enemy.

    That is the only place they are not needed.

    I don't think carriers will become obsolete. They might change, but the fact that you can use air power to project further away from the ship itself won't change.

    Exactly... just like the MANPAD has not made helicopters and CAS aircraft obsolete and ATGMs have not made armoured vehicles obsolete... having an airborne radar system monitoring the airspace around your forces provides critical situational awareness and having supersonic fighters able to respond to changing situations in attack and defence just makes a group of ships with carriers vastly more difficult to deal with than one without a carrier.

    A carrier means that force that could have sunk those ships is now inadequate... you need a bigger force... which reduces the number of potential enemies that could successfully defeat you, and also increases the damage they will take in any attempt.

    The presence of an active aircraft carrier might be the deterrent that stops the attack from happening in the first place.

    Also, the idea that you can just build submarines is kind of pointless. You can't use submarines to patrol the oceans or protect the merchant fleet. Attack submarines are a weapon for sea denial basically.

    Like most solutions they are part of a good and useful force but should not be the only solution.

    Future boats shouldn't have nearly this problem because the ships will be digitized and the supplies won't come from all over a nation which no longer exists. The know-how was scattered to the seven winds basically.

    They can take the opportunity to test new radar and sonar systems and indeed the new 152mm gun could be installed in place of the 130mm guns also used on new Frigates... They can test new systems and equipment for use on new build ships with some of the bugs sorted...

    Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.

    Not certain, but their destroyers might be nuke powered...

    If you look at Russian aircraft engines even the future PD-35 is like 787 class not 777.

    The PD-35 will be from 35 tons up to 50 tons thrust...

    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Tue May 04, 2021 2:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    So they are following the best naval traditions after the US ship caught fire and burned out in three days because they couldn't put the fire out... typical American incompetence and lack of knowledge about fire.
    Ha ha, you couldn't resist bringing US again into the center of the world of every issue, attention and bar whores try to do this and you are neither :-).....incompetence and indifference knows no nationality and mercilessly leads to bad and tragic results. Not the first time Kuznetzov suffered these near fatal accidents. Waiting for your justifications and bringing in unrelated things into mix....as bad as US Military is becoming their scale and mission rate is huge compared to any other country and yet accidents are not that many but yes declining discipline and skill leading to more accidents. Stay or keep it relevant.....

    SeigSoloyvov likes this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 12654
    Points : 12712
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  PapaDragon Tue May 04, 2021 4:46 pm

    GarryB wrote:Any country wanting to sink Russian carriers had better understand that nuclear retaliation will damage their economic growth for the next quarter at least....

    So if your solution to the fact that aircraft carriers suck is to launch nukes why bother with aircraft carriers in the first place?

    Just invest in nukes... oh wait, they already invested in nukes and are getting their money's worth unlike with carriers



    GarryB wrote:When was the last time an aircraft carrier was sunk?...

    Several months before the end of last war in which aircraft carriers were used in naval warfare

    They were going down like 2$ whores for 4 years straight:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_aircraft_carriers

    Their stats suck when you put it all together and this was waaaay before missiles were invented

    That Russian one came close to sinking all by itself just recently though, does that count? Razz

    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Tue May 04, 2021 5:38 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Several months before the end of last war in which aircraft carriers were used in naval warfare
    I think most can agree that modern carriers are safe and yet as vulnerable as ever but thats pretty much everything.....can't just fold it in, we can leave that everything is dust and ashes eventually to spiritual realm. Deterrence and will the to use and go on offensive are as real as ever. Ww2 generation is different and we do not have modern comparisions yet...USSR did not sink carriers in viet or korean wars or any other country so far

    They were going down like 2$ whores for 4 years straight:
    Good talk

    Their stats suck when you put it all together and this was waaaay before missiles were invented
    That Russian one came close to sinking all by itself just recently though, does that count? Razz
    This is the age of deterrence and pussy footing with proxy wars and women wielding dicks
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Wed May 05, 2021 12:34 am

    GarryB wrote:Transferring the Su-35 technology and equipment to the Su-33s would make the most sense in terms of commonality across the board of Flankers in Russian service,

    Indeed, they may not be the first priority in terms of defence of the country or amount of airframes, but technically they would really receive a massive increase in capabilities with Su-35 level upgrade in terms of engines and avionics. TO from the ramp demands the most thrust among all Flanker variants. Since the acceleration on the TO run is close to 1 g, for every extra tf in the engines, you gain 2 t MTOW. But what is most relevant for the comparison is how much of the CTOL MTOW you are losing by using the ramp. With 2x 2 tf extra, you may be able to TO with full fuel load and a respectable payload even from the short runs. I should actually check that, but I don't think I should be off by a big margin.

    but the MiG-29KR/35 is a much better fit for the Kuznetsov


    The Su-33 is remarkable in terms of folded footprint. Of course the bigger the plane, the more difficult it is to pack a big number of them onboard. I think the 3000 km range of the plane and potential capability to carry big AShM in the centerline pylon is a big plus for it. The MiG-29K has no real argument against any existing naval plane like F-18, F-35 or Rafale. When VMF is so below in numbers, not having an advantage that compensates that is not specially good.

    but longer term a CVN replacement for the Kuznetsov will be in development and would likely use a mix of Su-57K and LMFS to give depth and numbers of aircraft on board.

    If they get a balanced CVN with Su-57K before I get old I will already be a happy man.

    They don't need a huge number of CVNs to compensate for anything... they will have radars and optical sensors and sonars on ships and subs and helicopters and fixed wing planes and drones of all types and the best damn SAMs and guns on the planet... How many MiG-35s and Su-35s would Russia need right now to protect its national borders... when operating with MiG-31s and of course a nation wide IADS.

    SAM magazines in a ship are necessarily limited. And the West will, I assume, come up with a decent AShM sometime. I do think VMF needs to have qualitative advantages, because the quantitative superiority is with the West and will remain there for more than one decade, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

    The US has an impressive fleet but how keen are they to lose some of those ships?

    True, for a bully coming home everyday after having received a beating is not good business, so attacking in unclear assessment of the possible outcome will normally be discarded. But if by accumulating forces they can avoid being hit, that will be the path they will follow. For instance, having lots of CBG operating far and still managing to have the firepower needed to overwhelm Russian AD as you suggest below. Is not very practical, since US already said they would need 15 CBG to cover all potential conflict areas, but it is a risk Russia may like to avoid.

    They have an obvious history of overspending and stealing from taxpayers with products they know could never work even with the trillions thrown at it that they do.   clown

    Wait...  unshaven

    Having different types of Corvettes is useful for different purposes, but such small ships makes it harder to make them super all purpose vessels.

    Yes, if 22350 is enough, then why 20385 is not? Soon we end up by the Ukrainian rafts with some MANPADs and RPGs, more than enough to defend Russia and keep megalomaniac VMF leadership in check. Good, that every naval professional knows what each type of vessel is designed for...

    Anti ship missiles are not the best way of keeping enemy ships back...


    I myself defend that, but VMF will not have a fully developed air component within this decade and they will need to rely on the long range of the Tsirkon. 1000-1500 km with the risk of SSGNs being much closer is not a very comfortable situation for any navy, much less if it has been decaying in complacency for so long as the USN. It may well bridge this decade for the VMF with decent results.

    A corvette by itself with a 150km range SAM could be attacked by a flight of Hornets armed with Harpoons from a carrier 1,500km away... the carrier is outside of the range of the Zircon and the Harpoons will be launched from outside the range of the Corvettes SAMs, so it just becomes a situation where who runs out of missiles first... the Corvette in SAMs or the Carrier in Harpoons...

    Yes that is clear. The radar horizon of the corvette is very small, the saturation threshold is relatively low and the magazine depth is clearly marginal. Compared with an Orlan, with several hundreds of SAMs and capability to carry 40N6-sized missile that would outrange the Harpoon, and radars placed twice or thrice higher, obviously does not even play in the same league.

    Hypersonic missiles don't make carriers obsolete... groups of ships with no aircraft and no AWACS support are the things that are obsolete...


    Agreed, it is not carriers that become obsolete if AD does not advance in parallel, is the whole concept of surface fleets. And the carriers and bigger vessels will be by far the best protected assets.

    perhaps including nuclear weapons.

    Nukes will not be used in such situations. Not by Russia, they clearly prefer not to enter venues where they do not have escalation control. They are smart enough.

    The point is that most of the time they will actually do nothing and just let Russia continue doing what it was doing... which is what Russia wants.

    Exactly, that is the idea.

    It is where cruisers shine... imagine the Peresvet (spelling) system they could carry... imagine a ship with an extra mini nuke power plant specifically designed to power the onboard laser system.

    Certainly, a big vessel with a NPP is the ideal carrier of such systems. Laser or RF, it does not matter, but those are going to be bulky, expensive and require huge amounts of power and energy, plus shielding and distance from the crew and other devices. Clearly not ideal for corvettes but probably ok for a carrier in the short to medium term.

    lancelot wrote:So these are 25 MW gas turbines in addition to the 20 MW gas turbines the Gorshkov uses?
    I thought M90FR already had units up to 25 MW. I guess I was wrong.
    GE has the LM2500 series with performance ranging from 25 MW to 35 MW.
    The Rolls Royce MT30 ranges from 25 MW to 40 MW.
    The MT30 is based on the 777 engine. If you look at Russian aircraft engines even the future PD-35 is like 787 class not 777.

    Sure those engines will be useful if they go for a 10000+ tons destroyer. But if they just want to make a 7000 tons ship I think 4x 20MW engines would be enough.
    What is the power of the engines on the Udaloy?

    The information is scarce by now, but it makes sense that they develop somewhat bigger engines for all the bigger hulls they want to have, starting by the 22350M, instead of having many smaller engines with more shafts or more complex gearboxes. Udaloys have like 90 MW COGAG power on two shafts if I am not wrong.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3258
    Points : 3240
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Wed May 05, 2021 5:00 am

    @Papa

    Yes Japanese did lose a lot of their CV's but that was also due to bad designs, the Japanese never bothered to build features that would keep the carriers afloat after they got hit, Examples include Akagi and Kaga, they only started to do this with the Taiho class which was their last carrier and was sunk due to incompetence, not the US to be fair.

    Whereas the Essex class was built with taking damage in mind and took tons of damage during midway and was still operational and fight worthy.

    Carriers aren't worthless, Submarines need air cover and planes allow you to strike in ways ships cannot and they offer utility, While I hardly agree with Garry on many things, in this area they are right to a degree.

    Another problem you do not realize, is the fighters can attack outside the range of the AD while not putting the carrier at risk.

    A battlegroup with no CV would just be slim pickings it would be like this

    Wave 1- Sinks one ship

    Wave 2- Sinks another

    The carrier would just keep hounding and twiddling away the battlegroup with no cover and it wouldn't need to return for bombs, as munitions ships would bring it more.

    @GarryB

    Suggesting they will place a Naval SU-57 on that carrier is regarded, you are right when you say stupid statements, that is a stupid statement.

    They aren't going to put a Naval SU-57 on the Kuz. Sure a future carrier probably but the Kuz? No that stupid to say.

    Due to weight issues and the lack of catapult alone.


    Last edited by SeigSoloyvov on Wed May 05, 2021 5:12 am; edited 3 times in total
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3258
    Points : 3240
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Wed May 05, 2021 5:02 am

    gbu48098 wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    So they are following the best naval traditions after the US ship caught fire and burned out in three days because they couldn't put the fire out... typical American incompetence and lack of knowledge about fire.
    Ha ha, you couldn't resist bringing US again into the center of the world of every issue, attention and bar whores try to do this and you are neither :-).....incompetence and indifference knows no nationality and mercilessly leads to bad and tragic results. Not the first time Kuznetzov suffered these near fatal accidents. Waiting for your justifications and bringing in unrelated things into mix....as bad as US Military is becoming their scale and mission rate is huge compared to any other country and yet accidents are not that many but yes declining discipline and skill leading to more accidents. Stay or keep it relevant.....

    Yeah Garry does this a lot, you get used to it.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Wed May 05, 2021 7:22 am

    Ha ha, you couldn't resist bringing US again into the center of the world of every issue,

    If the Russian military is so fucked up obviously it makes sense to use a much better skilled and much better funded and much more capable example as a comparison and the US springs to mind because it is the biggest and gets more money than most of the rest of the world combined to piss away on crap.... why would I not mention them?

    ..incompetence and indifference knows no nationality and mercilessly leads to bad and tragic results. Not the first time Kuznetzov suffered these near fatal accidents.

    It is hilarious... the first part says shit happens in every fleet to every navy, well if that is the case then isn't problems with ships like the problems the Kuznetsov has had going to be pretty normal and par for the course.... or did the Kuznetsov sleep with your mother and never call her back afterwards?

    Waiting for your justifications and bringing in unrelated things into mix....as bad as US Military is becoming their scale and mission rate is huge compared to any other country and yet accidents are not that many but yes declining discipline and skill leading to more accidents. Stay or keep it relevant.....

    They have had problems with the Kuznetsov, but it is still their only aircraft carrier which makes it important to the Russian fleet.

    So if your solution to the fact that aircraft carriers suck is to launch nukes why bother with aircraft carriers in the first place?

    No. Any country sinking a US carrier can expect to be nuked... that is a significant deterrent to countries and a really good reason not to try.

    Trying to sink a Russian carrier would probably lead to the platforms trying to be sunk and the country of origin being attacked.

    Aircraft carriers make surface groups of ships much stronger and harder to defeat... to the point where very few countries could sink an operational Russian carrier group, and even less will try.

    The only country with a chance would be the US and that would mean WWIII anyway.

    Any other country would be obliterated with conventional or nuclear weapons... but you will notice outside of actual war countries don't tend to sink ships of any kind because the provocation is dangerous and ultimately self defeating... a little country likely couldn't sink a Russian carrier and in trying to do so will lose a lot of ships and subs.

    Having a carrier makes such things easier for Russia... an aircraft carrier doesn't make you a target, it makes you a threat.

    Just invest in nukes... oh wait, they already invested in nukes and are getting their money's worth unlike with carriers

    So what you are saying is that if the US and HATO navies decide to start enforcing naval blockades and regime change actions on any major trading partner of Russia to prevent both from developing and trading... which is Russia going to nuke?

    Ships on their own without carrier support are much easier to sink so if you say they would sink a carrier then any smaller ship is even more likely to be sunk.

    Several months before the end of last war in which aircraft carriers were used in naval warfare

    Such carriers had no defences at all... but I guess because all tanks can be penetrated that no tanks are needed... stop the Armata programme... and of course the amazing air defence systems of Russia means big heavy fighters are stupid wastes of money... withdraw Su-27s and Su-30s and Su-35s as well as Su-57s in fact get rid of all their fighters.... they need huge airfields that are expensive and are just sitting ducks... just have SAMs... totally mobile... and if you are getting rid of all airfields that means A-50 and A-100 should be scrapped because ground based radar should be plenty... right?

    But then those big radar sites would be horribly vulnerable too, maybe make millions of those small battlefield radars mounted on the roof of a Tigr and get complete coverage that way...

    They were going down like 2$ whores for 4 years straigh

    Yet they kept producing them afterwards.

    France has a mini carrier in the form of the CdG and the carrier design they are planning to replace it is about 30K ton heavier at about 75K ton with cats and AWACS aircraft.... the madness...

    I think most can agree that modern carriers are safe and yet as vulnerable as ever but thats pretty much everything...

    Nothing is safe in war, to expect it to be so is childish... you can't play Chess if you don't want to lose any pieces.

    Indeed, they may not be the first priority in terms of defence of the country or amount of airframes, but technically they would really receive a massive increase in capabilities with Su-35 level upgrade in terms of engines and avionics.

    Keeping older avionics and engines in service can become more expensive than an upgrade to be the same as the others.

    Of course the bigger the plane, the more difficult it is to pack a big number of them onboard. I think the 3000 km range of the plane and potential capability to carry big AShM in the centerline pylon is a big plus for it.

    Not sure it would get airborne with a heavy centreline weapon... it is primarily AA.

    The MiG-29K has no real argument against any existing naval plane like F-18, F-35 or Rafale.

    An upgrade to MiG-35 level makes it no worse in most areas and better in some.

    When VMF is so below in numbers, not having an advantage that compensates that is not specially good.

    They are never going to have thousands of fighters on carriers so they are going to be expensive anyway, so they might as well spend a little extra money and make sure they are the best.

    And the West will, I assume, come up with a decent AShM sometime.

    If the west is launching Anti ship missiles at Russian ships then all bets are off so a couple of manouvering hypersonic missiles with tactical nuclear warheads would be my go to response... why wait?

    I do think VMF needs to have qualitative advantages, because the quantitative superiority is with the West and will remain there for more than one decade, even under the most optimistic scenarios.

    Against a well organised and well managed defence numbers don't have enormous value... if Europe didn't learn from WWI that marching slowly towards enemy lines against machine guns doesn't work because you are going to run out of men before they run out of bullets.

    Russia doesn't need more carriers than the west... they just need enough missiles.

    I myself defend that, but VMF will not have a fully developed air component within this decade and they will need to rely on the long range of the Tsirkon. 1000-1500 km with the risk of SSGNs being much closer is not a very comfortable situation for any navy, much less if it has been decaying in complacency for so long as the USN. It may well bridge this decade for the VMF with decent results.

    Zircon is just the first missile... over time they will likely develop a wide range of very long range very high speed weapons.

    Having 1,000km range missiles makes little sense if you can't send something out to have a look to make sure it is worthy of a missile.

    Yes that is clear. The radar horizon of the corvette is very small, the saturation threshold is relatively low and the magazine depth is clearly marginal. Compared with an Orlan, with several hundreds of SAMs and capability to carry 40N6-sized missile that would outrange the Harpoon, and radars placed twice or thrice higher, obviously does not even play in the same league.

    Not to mention the Orlan can carry 5 helicopters... one of which could easily be a Ka-31 AEW aircraft to detect low flying threats early.

    Laser or RF, it does not matter, but those are going to be bulky, expensive and require huge amounts of power and energy, plus shielding and distance from the crew and other devices. Clearly not ideal for corvettes but probably ok for a carrier in the short to medium term.

    Most importantly the first systems might be limited and big and bulky and expensive... but over time and improvements and modifications and materials development they will get smaller and destroyers will get them... they already have optical dazzlers on their ships for optically guided weapons...

    Due to weight issues and the lack of catapult alone.

    The only problem for the Su-57 on the K right now is lack of folding wings... it is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 and with internal weapons has less drag and more lifting devices... and it has rather more engine power even without the new more powerful engines that it will have by 2024...

    It was always intended for the Su-57 to be a carrier based aircraft to replace the Su-33... the former is not in production and the cost of making more would not be much different from the costs of modifying the Su-57.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3258
    Points : 3240
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Wed May 05, 2021 7:34 am

    1. No it was never intended to replace the 33's the Mig where this is a lie

    2. No it is virtually the same weight as a SU-33, maybe minus a couple of hundred pounds, The engine also doesn't change this problem.

    3. The SU-33 is already incapable of taking off with full load and has to burn a considerable amount of fuel when taking off anyways.

    4, Attempting to fold the words would cause serious flaws to the entire design that could not be fixed.

    5. There are also other issues

    The SU-57 isn't compatible with the Kuz likely will be with future CV's but not this one.

    Big_Gazza dislikes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10245
    Points : 10231
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Isos Wed May 05, 2021 11:02 am

    Whereas the Essex class was built with taking damage in mind and took tons of damage during midway and was still operational and fight worthy

    Well ww2 carriers were much simplier.

    Modern carriers are full of bombs and their aircraft need all the deck to land and take off. A hole in the landing zone means carrier is not usable anymore. Take out the steam system for catapults and it's not usable.

    A missile hitting them will very likely touch some fuel or stored weapons and create massive fire or explosions.

    And let's not talk about hitting the nuclear reactor.

    Kinzhal/kh 32 have top attack mode so if they succeed they will hit the deck and go down and have a chance to destroy the reactors.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  LMFS Wed May 05, 2021 1:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:If the west is launching Anti ship missiles at Russian ships then all bets are off so a couple of manouvering hypersonic missiles with tactical nuclear warheads would be my go to response... why wait?

    Nukes are reserved for existential threats, if you cannot handle things conventionally then you don't play the game of power projection. That is exactly the way Russia is behaving.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:They aren't going to put a Naval SU-57 on the Kuz. Sure a future carrier probably but the Kuz? No that stupid to say.

    Due to weight issues and the lack of catapult alone.

    I don't think it is likely that they use the Su-57 in numbers in the Kuznetsov, for several reasons, but weight / catapult are hardly among them. The Su-57 is clearly better than the Su-33 in those regards and is also smaller.
    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Wed May 05, 2021 3:08 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    If the Russian military is so fucked up obviously it makes sense to use a much better skilled and much better funded and much more capable example as a comparison and the US springs to mind because it is the biggest and gets more money than most of the rest of the world combined to piss away on crap.... why would I not mention them?
    I did not say they are fucked up....my comment was related to this specific ship and in general they have quite a few in-dock disasters percapita.....if you want to compare to US then Russian navy simply does not have the scale to compare in statistical relevance especially surface navy. So comparing US accidents to Russian accidents needs normalization.....Plus there is a time to compare yourself to others....


    It is hilarious... the first part says shit happens in every fleet to every navy, well if that is the case then isn't problems with ships like the problems the Kuznetsov has had going to be pretty normal and par for the course....
    You seem to have no understanding of basic stats, try to refresh atleast the high school level stats concepts and there were some great Russian ones that contributed in that field since you have a hard-on for them. It does not seem like numbers and real data has any value to you....this ship has spent more time anchored than it is on the sea. Leave the mothers out....I wont stoop to your level


    They have had problems with the Kuznetsov, but it is still their only aircraft carrier which makes it important to the Russian fleet.
    Dude, atleast read what people say and you are kiwi, so English is your first language I am guessing. When did I say it needs to be scrapped, I clearly said based on Gorshokov work, they have experience in working these ships but does not look like its priority to fix this one.

    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Wed May 05, 2021 3:10 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Yeah Garry does this a lot, you get used to it.
    Looks like its more of a fetish to bring US into everything, kinda nonsensical but what can you say...whatever rocks his boat and gets his rocks off
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Thu May 06, 2021 4:52 am

    1. No it was never intended to replace the 33's the Mig where this is a lie

    They converted their Su-27 into the naval Su-33, but they wont convert their Su-57 into a naval version... they have said several times that further development will include a ship based model.

    2. No it is virtually the same weight as a SU-33, maybe minus a couple of hundred pounds, The engine also doesn't change this problem.

    Even if it was exactly the same weight with the same engines and the same external weapon load drag... the Su-33 operates on the K so the Su-57 should be able to operate on there too... and the Su-57 is lighter than the Su-35 and the Su-33 is heavier than the Su-35 because of the folding wings and structural strengthening.

    So lighter and more powerful engines means can take off from shorter distances...

    3. The SU-33 is already incapable of taking off with full load and has to burn a considerable amount of fuel when taking off anyways.

    The Su-33 never operates at full load... it carries air to air missiles... at most it might carry 2-3 tons externally... nothing like its full payload capacity.

    4, Attempting to fold the words would cause serious flaws to the entire design that could not be fixed.

    They already managed to do it with the Su-27... why do you think they can't do it again?

    The SU-57 isn't compatible with the Kuz likely will be with future CV's but not this one.

    Specifically why.

    Modern carriers are full of bombs and their aircraft need all the deck to land and take off. A hole in the landing zone means carrier is not usable anymore. Take out the steam system for catapults and it's not usable.

    That is why they would use their air defences to stop any damage in the first place... any ship hit with a modern missile is going to stop what it was doing and start trying to make it home without sinking... BTW the French Navy is going from the 40K ton CdG to a 75K ton new carrier... where are you complaints about that being stupid and obsolete?

    A missile hitting them will very likely touch some fuel or stored weapons and create massive fire or explosions.

    And let's not talk about hitting the nuclear reactor.

    Hitting it in the first place would be the trick really.

    Kinzhal/kh 32 have top attack mode so if they succeed they will hit the deck and go down and have a chance to destroy the reactors.

    Indeed... but how many does the US navy have... or HATO perhaps?

    By the time the west has manouvering hypersonic missiles the Russians will have perfected their defences against them and all of a sudden they wont be so dangerous... for Russia.

    Nukes are reserved for existential threats, if you cannot handle things conventionally then you don't play the game of power projection. That is exactly the way Russia is behaving.

    Nukes will always be something that need to be factored in to any situation, because Russia is never going to make enough ships and subs to be able to take on everyone... there needs to be a place to escalate to that the other side wont want to continue to get to.

    99% of the time it will be the presence of lots of large Russian ships supported by a carrier that will end most disagreements immediately.

    I did not say they are fucked up....my comment was related to this specific ship and in general they have quite a few in-dock disasters percapita.

    It is about reporting too, most countries have plenty of fuckups in there history... it is the nature of the job.

    .if you want to compare to US then Russian navy simply does not have the scale to compare in statistical relevance especially surface navy. So comparing US accidents to Russian accidents needs normalization.....Plus there is a time to compare yourself to others....

    Let me guess... is that time when it reflects better on the US?

    Normalisation is just statistics bullshit used to bend the truth.

    Like those charts on the Pandemic thread that showed that covid is much more dangerous in Europe and the UK than in India, but only when you do it on a per million people population scale which totally screws up the numbers.

    It does not seem like numbers and real data has any value to you....this ship has spent more time anchored than it is on the sea.

    It is a fucking aircraft carrier... they had a complete change of governmental system, a change from communism to democracy and about three economic collapses all in the 1990s.... they realised the advice and solutions they were getting from the US were making things worse so they kicked censored like Bill Browder out of the country and have spent the best part of the last 20 years rebuilding what they lost and also steaming ahead with new things they never had before like 5th gen stealth fighters and hypersonic scramjet powered missiles... of course it will spend most of its time at anchor... it was the west invading countries and murdering people around the globe...

    When did I say it needs to be scrapped, I clearly said based on Gorshokov work, they have experience in working these ships but does not look like its priority to fix this one.

    The K was in dry dock for upgrades and repairs... they took it out half way through so it could go to Syria and test itself against real world targets... they did that and then sent it back to complete the upgrades and repairs and to make other changes based on their experience in Syria to further improve the design.

    It is not their top priority because it really does not have a lot of ships that could sail around the world with it, but they have spent a lot of money on it and two land based carrier training bases that they have also funded and kept operational...

    Looks like its more of a fetish to bring US into everything, kinda nonsensical but what can you say...whatever rocks his boat and gets his rocks off

    Amusing that those that criticise Russia never criticise America for anything... but that is your fetish.

    The Amusing thing is that much of the criticism and speculation regarding Russia is that they are not enough like America... they are not aggressive and murderous enough for many it seems.

    Russia is not the worlds police like the US pretends to be... the US and the west are not interested in human rights or democracy... they are interested in oil and rare earth mineral rights and lithium deposits... they are not the worlds police, they are a lynch mob that is only interested in crimes against their own interests... otherwise they could care less.

    Which is why Russia needs a strong navy because no only will the west not lift a finger to help them, they will likely actually try to act against them and support any opposition that might appear.

    As the west declines it will become less of a problem of course.

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Thu May 06, 2021 2:18 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    It is about reporting too,  most countries have plenty of fuckups in there history... it is the nature of the job.
    Is there anything you can't or wont hang on to? First you bring something totally unrelated into context and then now you are blaming that entire world hides their accidents? You can certainly do better....


    Let me guess... is that time when it reflects better on the US?
    Normalisation is just statistics bullshit used to bend the truth.
    Like those charts on the Pandemic thread that showed that covid is much more dangerous in Europe and the UK than in India, but only when you do it on a per million people population scale which totally screws up the numbers.
    What? This is a joke, I will let the readers to judge your aptitude.....whole probability theory is closely tied to this distribution, I guess probability of kill's of missiles does not make sense to you...unless its Russian I guess. No point in going back and forth with someone your level of aptitude with that many posts....accident rate is related to proportionate population size....most statistics concepts are intuitive to one that understands, does not seem like you do

    It is a fucking aircraft carrier... they had a complete change of governmental system, a change from communism to democracy and about three economic collapses all in the 1990s.... they realised the advice and solutions they were getting from the US were making things worse so they kicked censored  like Bill Browder out of the country and have spent the best part of the last 20 years rebuilding what they lost and also steaming ahead with new things they never had before like 5th gen stealth fighters and hypersonic scramjet powered missiles... of course it will spend most of its time at anchor... it was the west invading countries and murdering people around the globe...
    Huh? Again totally unrelated....I clearly said this ship does not seem like a priority. Pointless waste of time....


    The K was in dry dock for upgrades and repairs... they took it out half way through so it could go to Syria and test itself against real world targets... they did that and then sent it back to complete the upgrades and repairs and to make other changes based on their experience in Syria to further improve the design.

    It is not their top priority because it really does not have a lot of ships that could sail around the world with it, but they have spent a lot of money on it and two land based carrier training bases that they have also funded and kept operational...
    This is exactly what I said and there was no reason to bring in the US and act like a pigeon shitting the board....this ship has seen incident after incident at dock and on sea and that is its record.

    Looks like its more of a fetish to bring US into everything, kinda nonsensical but what can you say...whatever rocks his boat and gets his rocks off

    Amusing that those that criticise Russia never criticise America for anything... but that is your fetish.
    [/quote]
    You seem to live in some sort of strange hallucinated world....I blamed west and US from F-35 to high frequency of US navy accidents recently and US Dollar abuse using QE and so on.....I think I know your type now....pretty hopeless....ignore reality and keep mumbling what you want contrary to things occuring. Since its waste of time, I will limit to one to 2 rounds with you.....you do the same thing with LMFS while he backs up his technical arguments, you just keep messing up the board with same mantras

    lancelot dislikes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri May 07, 2021 11:31 am

    Is there anything you can't or wont hang on to? First you bring something totally unrelated into context and then now you are blaming that entire world hides their accidents? You can certainly do better....

    Incidents in the west do not get the coverage problems in other countries get.

    I guess probability of kill's of missiles does not make sense to you...unless its Russian I guess.

    In Syria the kill probability of western missiles against Syrian targets where the Syrian systems were not working together and was mostly obsolete was pretty much rubbish.

    Attempts to attack Russian bases with all sorts of drones seems to have failed too.

    I would say when it comes to air defence, the Russians are pretty much number one, but denying their ships operating away from Russian territory air capability will limit their capacity for air defence and leave them more vulnerable to surprise attack.

    accident rate is related to proportionate population size....most statistics concepts are intuitive to one that understands, does not seem like you do

    If that is true then India must have lost at least three times more space shuttles than America has because their population is three times bigger... oops... that makes **** all sense to me...

    Countries that have different navies with different numbers of ships and different types of ships and different operating areas and indeed whether they operate in war zones all influences accident rates... especially the level of risk taking that is considered acceptable within the culture of the force...

    Population has nothing to do with anything... as I said... it was a way of manipulating the scale of the charts to create useful optics to use in propaganda... it was a way for Europe to say we are suffering worse than India so we can look after our own and ignore your situation by pretending our situation is as bad as yours.

    Huh? Again totally unrelated....I clearly said this ship does not seem like a priority. Pointless waste of time....

    Totally unrelated?

    If they had no future use for it it would be scrapped. If they had past and present urgent uses for it it would be operational. They don't need it urgently right now, but have plans to expand out into the world over the next decade or two which will make a carrier a very useful platform and the skills of operating a carrier very useful for the Russian Navy.

    As I said... they funded it to keep it working but had no urgent jobs for it to do. During its last upgrade and overhaul and opportunity appeared to test it in real combat in Syria so they took it out of dry dock and into a combat area. Unfortunately for them they had a problem with the recovery cable arrester gear mechanism which led to them losing two aircraft, but they were able to do what they wanted... they used recon to locate targets and plan missions, which they had not been able to do before in a real combat situation, so they probably learned a few useful new things and probably were able to make suggestions for some useful changes to be made during the completion of the repair and upgrade cycle. They had a small fire, which was contained and put out... such fires happen in any Navy, including recently in China and in the US. The floating dock they were repairing the ship in sank... it was an old dock and they needed new ones anyway.

    The fact is that they will put it back into service and they will be able to test the new modifications to the ship, and that will help them in the development of a new CVN to operate with and eventually replace her... she is not going anywhere... big ships are good for 40-50 years...

    This is exactly what I said and there was no reason to bring in the US and act like a pigeon shitting the board....this ship has seen incident after incident at dock and on sea and that is its record.

    A fire during maintenance is nothing and means nothing at all. A sinking dry dock is incompetence of the company maintaining the dry dock and has nothing to do with the carrier at all...

    You seem to live in some sort of strange hallucinated world....I blamed west and US from F-35 to high frequency of US navy accidents recently and US Dollar abuse using QE and so on.....I think I know your type now....pretty hopeless....ignore reality and keep mumbling what you want contrary to things occuring. Since its waste of time, I will limit to one to 2 rounds with you.....you do the same thing with LMFS while he backs up his technical arguments, you just keep messing up the board with same mantras

    When I want your professional opinion I will be sure to ask. Otherwise keep it to yourself.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3258
    Points : 3240
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Fri May 07, 2021 1:56 pm

    1. They have said that, doesn't mean it's going on the Kuz or when they will do such a thing. Keep in mind Russia has said LOTS of shit that hasn't came true.

    2. Do you know how much runway the 57 needs to take off based on what it's carrying? You don't The kuz doesn't have a long runway and the engines on the 57 aren't all that much more powerful than the 33's.

    3. Yes because of the reason I just named....christ.

    4. SU-57 isn't a 27, apples and oranges, much different aircraft.

    5. No catapults, hanger isn't large enough, you would be super limited in what weapons it could carry etc, there is a whole host of reasons.
    avatar
    gbu48098


    Posts : 198
    Points : 200
    Join date : 2021-04-18

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  gbu48098 Fri May 07, 2021 2:50 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Incidents in the west do not get the coverage problems in other countries get.
    What? We are talking about particular ship and you bring in whatever into context....this is about kuznetsov and you are talking conspiracies of west....


    In Syria the kill probability of western missiles against Syrian targets where the Syrian systems were not working together and was mostly obsolete was pretty much rubbish.

    Attempts to attack Russian bases with all sorts of drones seems to have failed too.

    I would say when it comes to air defence, the Russians are pretty much number one, but denying their ships operating away from Russian territory air capability will limit their capacity for air defence and leave them more vulnerable to surprise attack.
    Another disjoint argument, my comments was to your ignorance about statistical concepts and probability to determine kill ratio....syrian assets are taken out everyday almost with 0 israeli losses except for that one f-15 /16 incident. They even killed their own IL-20.


    If that is true then India must have lost at least three times more space shuttles than America has because their population is three times bigger... oops... that makes **** all sense to me...

    Countries that have different navies with different numbers of ships and different types of ships and different operating areas and indeed whether they operate in war zones all influences accident rates... especially the level of risk taking that is considered acceptable within the culture of the force...

    Population has nothing to do with anything... as I said... it was a way of manipulating the scale of the charts to create useful optics to use in propaganda... it was a way for Europe to say we are suffering worse than India so we can look after our own and ignore your situation by pretending our situation is as bad as yours.
    You do not seem to understand, what pop size is in the context of stats....this is elementary....seriously brush up your middle/high school level math



    If they had no future use for it it would be scrapped. If they had past and present urgent uses for it it would be operational. They don't need it urgently right now, but have plans to expand out into the world over the next decade or two which will make a carrier a very useful platform and the skills of operating a carrier very useful for the Russian Navy.
    That is what I said, not a priority and you got riled up and started blaming US or whatnot.....total madness to debate on any issue in this way

    The fact is that they will put it back into service and they will be able to test the new modifications to the ship, and that will help them in the development of a new CVN to operate with and eventually replace her... she is not going anywhere... big ships are good for 40-50 years...
    No need to repeat the same thing I mentioned in first post.....priority.

    A fire during maintenance is nothing and means nothing at all. A sinking dry dock is incompetence of the company maintaining the dry dock and has nothing to do with the carrier at all...
    Fires on ship are considered critical to fatal incidents and take one of the highest priority at docks or on sea aside form armament explosions.....I said incompetence knows no nationality. Please digest before you get riled up. I think it will be more interesting if you leave your extreme bias a bit
    When I want your professional opinion I will be sure to ask. Otherwise keep it to yourself.
    Agreed, that was said to your disjoint and totally tangential comments to very specific ship. Unintentional and intentional bias both leads to misjudgement....perhaps you can moderate it a bit
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri May 07, 2021 5:03 pm

    2. Do you know how much runway the 57 needs to take off based on what it's carrying? You don't The kuz doesn't have a long runway and the engines on the 57 aren't all that much more powerful than the 33's.

    The Su-57 looks like a bigger wing area and lower drag body, it has more powerful engines in its current form and is about to get even more powerful engines in 2024.
    The Su-57 is smaller and lighter than an Su-33 and has more engine power and with internal weapons much lower drag.

    Kuznetsov has two short and one long takeoff run... the latter is for the Su-28 twin seat trainer aircraft which lacks engine power to get airborne from the shorter take off positions... but as it has no combat role other than allowing takeoff and landing practise on the carrier that is not a huge problem normally.

    4. SU-57 isn't a 27, apples and oranges, much different aircraft.

    Not hugely different actually, both intended for air superiority roles... one old and obsolete and out of production and the other new and capable and entering serial production now.

    5. No catapults, hanger isn't large enough, you would be super limited in what weapons it could carry etc, there is a whole host of reasons.

    It wouldn't need catapults, it is a high thrust to weight ratio sports car, and the missiles it would carry are air to air missiles primarily.

    What? We are talking about particular ship and you bring in whatever into context....this is about kuznetsov and you are talking conspiracies of west....

    It is not the only ship in the world to have had a few problems. Mentioning problems in the west regarding incidents and problems puts things in perspective...

    Another disjoint argument, my comments was to your ignorance about statistical concepts and probability to determine kill ratio....syrian assets are taken out everyday almost with 0 israeli losses except for that one f-15 /16 incident.

    They have the latest and the best in terms of world class 5th gen super fighters and stand off weapons and their results against a third world country with a few Russian systems has been pathetic. Attacking from as far away as they can and exploiting rules the other side has to follow can get you a zero losses record, but it does not bode well for the most potent fighter in the west being too afraid to enter Syrian airspace to attack targets like they say they will to trash S-400 batteries at will.

    They even killed their own IL-20.

    That was the Israelis so afraid of the Syrian air defences that they used Russian aircraft for cover. Pretty sure that if they could take that back now they would...

    You do not seem to understand, what pop size is in the context of stats....this is elementary....seriously brush up your middle/high school level math

    I do understand, they are manipulating the numbers in the graph by changing the criteria from reality to bullshit fairy land...

    Population size is an opportunity to distort figures the way you want them distorted to make one set of figures seem worse or better depending on how you manipulate the units on one of the axis of the chart.

    Make the scale big enough and a tiny ripple in price change can look like a collapse, or a strong surge in performance.

    No need to repeat the same thing I mentioned in first post.....priority.

    The priority is to retain skills and start using her operationally in the Arctic.

    Fires on ship are considered critical to fatal incidents

    Yet they happen world wide on a fairly regular basis. There was a Chinese helicopter carrier that caught fire a while back... like with the K they got it under control... like the K they disabled the fire fighting equipment and systems while doing some welding. The US ship that caught fire in the same circumstances burned for 3-4 days and the fire was not contained and the ship was destroyed... I understand the US has more ships.... in fact you could say she has ships to burn, but where is your criticism of those types of ships being deathtraps, or to question their skills and competency?

    Please digest before you get riled up.

    Wondering why a small fire that is put out on a Russian ship means something and examples of such things happening in other countries are meaningless things I am bringing up to distract or because I am having a temper tantrum.

    Agreed, that was said to your disjoint and totally tangential comments to very specific ship. Unintentional and intentional bias both leads to misjudgement....perhaps you can moderate it a bit


    This thread is about the Russian Navy, the Admiral Kuznetsov is a core part of the Russian Navy and fires on board their ships is also an important factor for them too... they don't have 20 Kuznetsovs so when the one they do have catches fire they can't just get out the marshmellows and watch it burn like the Americans did... they put the fire out... like the Chinese did.

    Bias has nothing to do with anything I have said... they had a fire on the K and it was contained and put out... these are facts. A similar incident recently occurred in the Chinese and US navies. The Chinese put their fire out, but the Americans were overwhelmed and the ship was a total write off... these are facts too.

    The fact that that makes the Americans perhaps look bad is not my fault, I am merely comparing like with like and further proving that the Russians have an interest in retaining fixed wing carrier capability, while suggesting the Chinese know what they are doing with fires to, where perhaps the Americans have too many ships and don't care about them so much... they can always print more money.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3258
    Points : 3240
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Fri May 07, 2021 5:09 pm

    1. That portion of your argument would really only matter in the ai not during take-off so no. A few hundred-pound difference isn't going to mean much, Smaller by maybe a couple of inches lol, again such a minor difference isn't going to mean anything. You are grasping at straws so hard.

    2. They are vastly different aircraft.....it amazes me you said that.

    3. It would need them, there is no reason to put them on a carrier if it's just for that role at all. That is completely pointless.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34881
    Points : 35399
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  GarryB Fri May 07, 2021 5:33 pm

    PhSt wrote:
    What is Russia's counterpart to the American Aegis Combat System? I have read a lot of commentary about how Russia excels in anti aircraft/ ballistic missile/ satellite systems, but I saw information about the US Standard Missile 3 which claims to have 1,200 km range and engage targets up to 1,050 km in altitude, when I compared it to Russia's S-400, it only has a maximum range of 400 km and 60 km altitude. And S-400 don't even seem to have a naval version. Am I comparing different systems for different roles? I checked information about Poliment-Redut but its range and altitude are even lower than the S-400.

    Actually from a quote recently posted on another thread:

    On the territory of the former air base in the Deveselu region in Romania, the AN / SPY-1D mobile early warning missile radar and the Aegis Escore ground-based missile defense system are equipped with 24 Standard-3 missiles to intercept operational-tactical missiles with a range of up to 1000 km.

    The Standard 3 is able to intercept ballistic missiles with a range of up to 1,000km which is actually rather pathetic... the old SA-12 could intercept ballistic targets with a range of 2,500km. Which is about 4.5km/s. The S-400 long range missile can intercept 4.8km/s targets... so probably 3,000km range weapons.

    Obviously S-500 with 7km/s target engagement capability... is clearly much better, but not yet in service.


    1. That portion of your argument would really only matter in the ai not during take-off so no. A few hundred-pound difference isn't going to mean much, Smaller by maybe a couple of inches lol, again such a minor difference isn't going to mean anything. You are grasping at straws so hard.

    Dude... you are saying a newer fighter that is smaller and lighter and lower drag with more powerful engines can't operate from a ship that already operates a heavier bigger aircraft with external higher drag weapons with less engine power... if it was the same size with the same engine power and internal weapons it could already take off easily... the Su-57 carries less external weapons than the Su-33 so even with all external weapon points loaded it would still be lower drag than the Su-33 with weapons carried.

    Who is grasping here?

    2. They are vastly different aircraft.....it amazes me you said that.

    The Su-57 is the natural replacement for the Flanker... on land and at sea... or do you think the Russian Navy is going to build their own new 5th gen stealth fighter to replace the Su-33 but only operate on their one aircraft carrier?

    3. It would need them, there is no reason to put them on a carrier if it's just for that role at all. That is completely pointless.

    They are developing catapults so they can operate proper AWACS platforms to replace the Ka-31 AEW helicopter.

    Their fighters don't require assisted takeoffs.

    Sponsored content


    Russian Navy: Status and News #5 - Page 26 Empty Re: Russian Navy: Status and News #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:47 am