Home
Latest images
Register
Log inThe article looks interesting but I don't manage to understand much of the proposals and analysis they are making with machine translation... even by the comments section it is not clear even for Russian speakers. If somebody makes a translation let me know please.Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
+32
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
kumbor
magnumcromagnon
George1
Tsavo Lion
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
jhelb
dino00
Gibraltar
LMFS
Isos
verkhoturye51
Borschty
GunshipDemocracy
Hole
ATLASCUB
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Azi
medo
AlfaT8
flamming_python
Kimppis
eehnie
Singular_Transform
kvs
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
Firebird
36 posters
Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°827
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Sun Mar 31, 2019 10:17 pm
Post the original paragraphs u need better translated.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°828
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Mon Apr 01, 2019 1:33 am
Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
True, since there is program to restart that direction ;-) Of course until we see primary results of proposed impersonations we can endlessly keep guessing only how it looks like?
Tome most interesting question is " will it be kind of light "front fighter" , using (V)STOL advantages it can reduce needs for long and expensive airfields close to front. Similarly less strains of shipbuilding.
Or rather heavy one something like Su-57 counterpart?
LMFS wrote:The article looks interesting but I don't manage to understand much of the proposals and analysis they are making with machine translation... even by the comments section it is not clear even for Russian speakers. If somebody makes a translation let me know please.Tsavo Lion wrote:The Yak-141 may be a dead end, but not a death sentence to the STOVL concept:
http://nvo.ng.ru/concepts/2019-03-29/8_1039_future.html?print=Y
in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
I will, thanks!Tsavo Lion wrote:Post the original paragraphs u need better translated.
The Playmobil carrier??Gunship wrote:in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.
Looking beyond the surface, it would not be a bad idea. Wide hull for hangars and landing equipment, but IMO a trimaran is much better
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°830
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Mon Apr 01, 2019 2:05 am
LMFS wrote:The Playmobil carrier??Gunship wrote:in the meantime I've found " anime CV (?)". Cool lookign but IMHO pretty useless unless part of netcentric warfare where all data is from outside and it is only heli-vstol-pad . Apparently the real proposal of Severny Design Bureau from 80s. Called Dolphin.
Looking beyond the surface, it would not be a bad idea. Wide hull for hangars and landing equipment, but IMO a trimaran is much better
Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size
BTW this palymobil is the way Russian Design Bureaus were making model mockups ...
Priboy
LMFS- Posts : 5102
Points : 5098
Join date : 2018-03-03
The Shtorm-KM is already a "simplified" trimaran, with one keel at the bow and two at sternGunshipDemocracy wrote:Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°832
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Mon Apr 01, 2019 3:58 am
LMFS wrote:The Shtorm-KM is already a "simplified" trimaran, with one keel at the bow and two at sternGunshipDemocracy wrote:Trimaran will be form Krylov with similar size
"Patience you must have my young padawan" till competition is over...
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°833
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:32 am
Su-33 ceiling is like 17km, then radar horizon is like 550km to see the ship. Of course if radar station has that range 
https://iz.ru/855829/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/avianosetc-odnim-makhom-istrebiteli-navedut-giperzvukovye-rakety
Aircraft one Mach: fighters induce hypersonic missiles
Navy pilots will be taught to share information about potential targets with each other, ships and headquarters in real time
The latest Russian missiles "Zircon", "Onyx" and "Caliber" will be aimed at the target deck fighters. Su-33 and MiG-29KR in real time will be able to transmit information about the likely enemy ships, ground bases and higher headquarters, as well as receive information from them, told "Izvestia" in the Ministry of Defense. Thanks to the new system, pilots will not only be able to hit air, sea and land targets on their own, but also direct cruise missiles to these objects. One fighter jet missile volley is capable of sending an enemy aircraft carrier to the bottom. The first phase of work will be completed at the end of this - the beginning of next year.
After the introduction of a new aviation system, sea fighters will become effective reconnaissance aircraft: they will be able not only to warn ships and air defense systems in advance about the appearance of an air enemy, but also to provide target indications for cruise missiles, S-400, S-500 air defense systems and naval anti-aircraft missiles. MiG-29KR and MiG-29KUBR have already received information exchange systems, the Su-33 is currently preparing for modernization, told “Izvestia” in the military department.
{}
Modified MiGs and "drying" will be able to report the coordinates of the enemy in real time to ships, higher headquarters and ground bases. All information from fighter radars will fall into the integrated control system (ESU) of the Navy, which online forms an interactive map of the area where fleet, coastal forces or army units operate.
If necessary, the summarized information received by the ESU from other aircraft, ships, air defense systems and reconnaissance will be sent to the pilots making the sortie. This will allow pilots to choose the optimal tactics of action when solving combat missions.
In fact, the modernized aircraft will be included in the information space of the fleet, says military expert Dmitry Boltenkov.
- The new system will help you choose the right attack tactics used by the ammunition. In the absence of ammunition, transfer the target to another aircraft, “highlight” it for cruise missiles, ”Dmitry Boltenkov told Izvestia.
The new system will seriously increase the effectiveness of strikes of cruise missiles and the actions of aircraft, ships, submarines in solving combat missions, says former chief of the Navy General Staff Admiral Valentin Selivanov.
“Any opportunity to properly classify targets and accurately determine their coordinates means a lot - it allows the command to make a decision that ensures the guaranteed destruction of the ships of a potential enemy,” said Valentin Selivanov.2
https://iz.ru/855829/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/avianosetc-odnim-makhom-istrebiteli-navedut-giperzvukovye-rakety
Isos- Posts : 11302
Points : 11272
Join date : 2015-11-06
What do you guys think of my carrier design ?
It is an idea for a light carrier not exceeding 50kt. Don't compare it with supercarriers.
250m long and 75m wide. Can be changed just for the idea I took that numbers.
Not a real catamaran. Very stable at sea. Right part is made apart and welded to the main part. Used for take off, storage of weapons and aircraft fuel. Can act as a protection against anti ship missiles from the right and be changed by building a new one. Only piece of metals so not expensive.
Main part is only 55m wide and 250 long similar to Mistral design that russia knows how to build but not as tall as mistral and with nuclear propulsion.
Red square for uksk ~24 cells. Green for redut ~36. Red circles for pantsirs and tors.
200m take off run with 3 positions. Yak-44 on steroides could take off from it too. Mainly for use with medium and small fighters. The drawing is not scaled but IMO the deck could carry 18 mig-29k (and not on landing trip). A yak 130 with folding wings takes 2 times less space than mig-29k so can carry 2 for 1 mig.
Full mig-35, I would say 32 can be carried with 2 yak-44 and some ka-62 for ASW.
If mig make a naval 5th gen mig would even be better.
It is an idea for a light carrier not exceeding 50kt. Don't compare it with supercarriers.
250m long and 75m wide. Can be changed just for the idea I took that numbers.
Not a real catamaran. Very stable at sea. Right part is made apart and welded to the main part. Used for take off, storage of weapons and aircraft fuel. Can act as a protection against anti ship missiles from the right and be changed by building a new one. Only piece of metals so not expensive.
Main part is only 55m wide and 250 long similar to Mistral design that russia knows how to build but not as tall as mistral and with nuclear propulsion.
Red square for uksk ~24 cells. Green for redut ~36. Red circles for pantsirs and tors.
200m take off run with 3 positions. Yak-44 on steroides could take off from it too. Mainly for use with medium and small fighters. The drawing is not scaled but IMO the deck could carry 18 mig-29k (and not on landing trip). A yak 130 with folding wings takes 2 times less space than mig-29k so can carry 2 for 1 mig.
Full mig-35, I would say 32 can be carried with 2 yak-44 and some ka-62 for ASW.
If mig make a naval 5th gen mig would even be better.
GarryB- Posts : 39021
Points : 39517
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The whole idea behind the angled deck is so that you can land planes at any time and also launch aircraft or even just have aircraft sitting on the deck, because the angled deck means incoming aircraft are trying to land on one corner of the deck so even if they burst in to flames other aircraft sitting on the deck or lined up for take off would not get hit or damaged.
Aircraft generally spend most of their time on the deck on most carriers as they can't move aircraft rapidly from deck to hangar and back, so having an area on the deck where they can be prepared... ie fuelled up and armed is a necessity.
Personally I like the previously shown design with the wide hull and the even wider flat top.
A decent new CVN can expect to be operational for at least 50 years, so it might start out with aircraft x or y but before it is scrapped it will have operated an enormous variety of aircraft types.
Aircraft generally spend most of their time on the deck on most carriers as they can't move aircraft rapidly from deck to hangar and back, so having an area on the deck where they can be prepared... ie fuelled up and armed is a necessity.
Personally I like the previously shown design with the wide hull and the even wider flat top.
A decent new CVN can expect to be operational for at least 50 years, so it might start out with aircraft x or y but before it is scrapped it will have operated an enormous variety of aircraft types.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°836
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri May 10, 2019 3:25 am
The Russian Navy will still get an atomic aircraft carrier
Or maybe not. we will need to wait longer to see.
Or maybe not. we will need to wait longer to see.
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
Still on the CVA-01 style I see.What do you guys think of my carrier design ?
Thats a ramp launch on separate hull on the starboard side & arrestor landing area on port?
I like that you're keeping separate take-off/landing ops.
Plane lift in the bow is presumably intended to bring down freshly landed planes (and a parking/handling area behind it) but that location is problematic in terms of weather/water tightness & most carriers don't have hangar anywhere near that far forward.
Close coupled heavy proa hullform like that is not exactly known to work well.
Much as I'm a fan of proas in smaller sail-powered iterations I'd go for either a proper cat, tri or more probably a conventional monohull for a carrier.
Major point for a Carrier aside from deck area is displacement to carry the planes, fuel & armament.
Multihulls don't like being heavy for a given length so for a given deck area it should be a lot lighter displacement (and so less capable) than an equivalent dimensioned monohull.
For big ships multihulls are also problematic in that they have a quick roll rate while ships are generally designed to have a slow roll.
I like that cat one up-thread because its pretty small & simple, obviously not trying to do very much with only 6 planes worth of hangar all in the Island (no lift) for a fairly small aircraft compliment & practically no armament so might actually be practical to be light enough to work right.
Fairly small & simple so could be built in quite large numbers, have 1 constantly available & surge several of them for more serious issues.
But on the other hand would need very many to generate a sortie able to deal with the sort of firepower NATO could put out from land/a CVN.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°838
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Thu May 30, 2019 12:58 am
I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
Rodion_Romanovic- Posts : 2419
Points : 2586
Join date : 2015-12-30
Location : Merkelland
- Post n°839
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Rodion_Romanovic Thu May 30, 2019 11:39 am
Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).Tsavo Lion wrote:I wonder why they even don't consider building an Adm. K follow on like the Chinese CV-17 which a modified Liaoning (CV-16) with 30m longer deck & a different island? They want to jump ahead of themselves with CVNs & will end up with nothing for years to come.
And Russia has already modern marine nuclear reactors to be used in the artika and lider nuclear icebreakers.
The problems are others.
Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°840
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Thu May 30, 2019 6:12 pm
But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6002
Points : 6022
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°841
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Fri May 31, 2019 1:32 pm
Rodion_Romanovic wrote: Anyway did you read that trump want to pull the plug on EMALS catapult for carriers?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/trump-steamed-over-delays-pulls-plug-on-electric-carrier-catapults/
it is difference between Russians and US. US applies tech then thinks how to make it work. In Russia they test fo ryears before going to series.
Tsavo Lion wrote:But in Russia building a CVN under 70K Tons is defeating the purpose IMO. Otherwise, how many Su-33/57 size & EW aircraft + helos & UAVs would fit on it, & how well it'll sail in the stormy Arctic, N. Atlantic /N. Pacific waters?Actually CVN refers only to the propulsion that have to be nuclear. As an example the french carrier is a CVN but it is smaller than kuz (about 42000 tons).
true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°842
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri May 31, 2019 6:21 pm
If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club...big and expensive means likely 1 and only.
hoom- Posts : 2352
Points : 2340
Join date : 2016-05-06
I'm intrigued by part of the sentence from https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F16/
Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?On" Army 2019 "we will demonstrate three models: a non-nuclear aircraft carrier up to 70 thousand tons, which will provide the most effective launch positions to increase the launch intensity of the aircraft, a landing ship with a displacement of 25–27 thousand tons and the Leader destroyer - told Polyakov.
GarryB- Posts : 39021
Points : 39517
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
true, my only cocnern is that big and expensive means likely 1 an donly.
Yeah, forget what you read from Papadragon... there is no way these CVNs are going to cost Russia 13 billion US dollars each... maybe 3 or 4 but not 13...
If built, it'll have as "busy" life as the Adm K- it's current & future role is mostly to show the flag & as a prerequisite to belong in the blue water navy club.
If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.
Has Krylov been working on a cunning layout that allows simultaneous launch & retrieve?
The traditional angled deck is tried and true, but that is not to say other alternatives are not possible and should be ignored... I would love to see something innovative and clever and lead to a new layout and design.
It is generally held that a CVN has a rule of thumb capacity of one aircraft per 1,000 ton displacement... so a 100K ton ship can carry 100 odd aircraft of all types, but it also relates to cost with every thousand tons increasing purchasing and operational costs dramatically...
If that wide hulled multi hull design with larger capacity than the Kuznetsov (which is what they want) that weighs a mere 45K tons which would make it cheap to buy and to operate would be some sort of miracle of modern ship design... you would need to test it in all sorts of conditions and sea states, but it would be a bit of a panacea in terms of aircraft carrier design...
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°845
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Tue Jun 04, 2019 3:41 pm
China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16; the VMF could send its CGN, as before, if 1 was ready instead, for a lot le$$. A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak...
Isos- Posts : 11302
Points : 11272
Join date : 2015-11-06
If the K was in the water it would be in Venezuela as we speak... being useful... and potential Russian trade partners in the region will be thinking their might actually be an alternative to being the US's bitch.
It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.
Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.
GarryB- Posts : 39021
Points : 39517
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
China invested more there & still didn't send her combat ready CV-16;
What makes you think it is combat ready?
What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?
What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?
A few DDG/FFGs & SSGNs that occasionally surface, supported by the Russian &/ allied AFs would be more useful than a TAKR in the USA's backyard.
The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission... you never see a sniper put on a high viz vest and run around for an hour in a conflict to make sure the enemy know he is there...
It would have been useless. Venezuelan economy is destroyed because of US sanctions not US troops.
Sanctions would be still there even with K off Venezuelan coast.
Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance that their painful transition from a western focused economy based on international trade organisations controlled or dominated by the US to an eastern economic focus with other countries that perhaps have also been shunned by the US or the west for various reasons will at least will not involve the risk of a US invasion which is pretty much what happened to Iraq when Saddam suggested not using US dollars for oil sales and also to Libya when Gaddafi suggested the same...
What they should also do is build a refinery in Venezuela to process their oil so they can pretty much sell to anyone they please...
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°848
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Wed Jun 05, 2019 9:15 am
Good questions!What makes you think it is combat ready?
What operational deployments has it been on recently or ever?
What is the air component of operational fighters and AWACS aircraft that it will carry?
... it was reported in November 2016 that the Liaoning is now combat ready. In mid-December 2016, China staged the first live-fire drills involving the Liaoning. ..The physical and operational limitations of the Liaoning and its associated personnel and equipment indicate that the Liaoning might be best suited for regional missions short of high-intensity conflict. As the PLAN improves its capabilities, future missions could take the Liaoning and its accompanying sailors, fleet escorts, and aircraft farther from China’s periphery.
The Liaoning’s lack of an aircraft catapult, inefficient power plant, and the relative inexperience of its aviators and support team do not augur well for sustained high-intensity combat operations—even within waters close to the Chinese Mainland, where the Liaoning could expect support from land-based aircraft and radars. Accordingly, Chinese strategists advocate using the Liaoning for regional missions—including humanitarian aid and disaster relief (HADR), training exercises with other nations, showing the flag, and asserting Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea—for which the Liaoning appears better suited.5 Furthermore, the Liaoning has considerable utility as a tool of naval diplomacy—providing helicopter lift for HADR missions and engaging in multinational training exercises will signal to other countries that China is a responsible rising power. Such efforts would complement China’s growing commitment to multilateral initiatives, such as UN peacekeeping efforts. As the PLAN improves its combined arms capabilities and the Liaoning’s personnel become proficient in higher-tempo operations, the Liaoning’s repertoire could expand to include fleet air defense and maritime and land strike further afield from Chinese waters. These missions would require enhanced personnel as well as greatly improved situational awareness, communications, and logistical support far from current Chinese bases—assets that the PLAN may not yet possess in sufficient quantity or quality.
https://chinapower.csis.org/aircraft-carrier/
Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.
They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.The N in SSGN means Never... that is they never surface during an operational mission...
That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil. Is Russia prepared to bomb their camps in Colombia & Brazil?If so, they better hone their power projection skills!Having a Russian carrier off their coast would show support and give them the reassurance..
The USN used CVNs to bomb Afghanistan & Iraq while the insurgents in both were coming from Pakistan, Syria & Iran to kill Americans & their allies. It goes both ways!
GarryB- Posts : 39021
Points : 39517
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Shortcomings aside, the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan & Cuban AFs could assist the PLAN CBG if ever get deployed there. The likely route is via the Suez Canal & Med. Sea or around S. Africa & S. Atlantic - the very areas they may be glad to show the flag! But since they didn't so far, it's not politically & militarily justified/feasible.
I suspect their focus is to counter US carriers, but I very much doubt they want to start off doing it in Americas back yard as they could call it... it is for intimidating Japan and the US regarding taiwan and south china sea issues first... maybe down the line they might use it to protect their investments... but for now I don't think they want to risk it.
They could make an exception that proves the rule; a former Soviet VMF sailor told me years ago that his SSGN went on the surface all the way to Guinea. This mission would be more political to make a statement a CGN would otherwise be called to perform.
Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem... attacking and sinking them before they launched all their missiles was probably the issue of the time.
That still wouldn't stop infiltration of proxies/SOFs from Colombia & Brazil.
Actually I think it would make Trump step back a bit.... infiltration could be called terrorism and therefore stamped upon... hard...
Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.
Of course lets be realistic... the US doesn't give a fuck about the Venezuelans or bloodshed... their previous plan involved breaking out criminals from prison and giving them assault rifles... I am sure most real Venezuelans would prefer to be protected from such people...
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5815
Points : 5771
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°850
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:29 pm
The Oscars r still noisy & keeping them submerged the whole time won't make much difference to the USN SSNs & MPA. But surfacing there will send a clear message to every1 in the region that they mean business. SSN/SSK escorts could be given them as well.Was probably at a time when tracking them was not the problem...
For a lot le$$, they & AF fighters can deploy to those bases with tanker support, like they did/do in Syria w/o the Adm. K. that needs to last a long time, as u wrote, w/o adding more wear & tear on the other side of the world which would add more time in the yards/dry docks that they don't have enough of.Having a Russian carrier down there means having Su-33s and MiG-29KRs there too... they could easily be transferred to land bases and used against an insurgent force from another country.
Navy's F-35C Stealth Fighters Won't Fly From Troubled New Ford Class Carriers For Years
Now, lawmakers want to make it illegal for the Navy to take delivery of the next carrier in the class if it can't deploy the jets.
I doubt the EMALS can ever be debugged to perform as good as the steam CAT. In the long run, it could be safer to use STOVLs & rumps.
Instead of up to 4 Yak-44 size AEWAC, they could have 5-6+ smaller UAVs & helos/tilt-rotors to control & assist them to give the same, if not better, radar coverage & situational awareness. It's also possible to have more powerful equipment & bigger range on Mi-38s:
https://www.defenseworld.net/news/24866/Russia_to_Develop_Mi_38_helicopter_Based_AWACS#.XPgHA4hKiyI
https://www.urdupoint.com/en/world/russia-to-create-new-airborne-command-post-mo-634626.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-38#Specifications_(Mi-38)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Specifications_(Ka-31)
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Jun 05, 2019 8:28 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add links, text)
Sponsored content
|
|
|