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.
Home
Register
Log in
gbu48098
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...