They all got sat. comm./internet & can listen to each other- if the CG/VMF tells any of them to leave, &/ they see things heating up, they will all return to port or go elsewhere, instead of risking their lives, boats, catch, & insurance rates.GarryB wrote:They are fishermen... when they see someone else leave they wont leave too... they will steal their spot...
During high tensions, the VMF won't risk getting caught in a narrow strait- they remember the Tsushima disaster in the wider strait. Losing even capital ships r not the same as losing armies & cities; they r not worth starting WWIII that would kill 100s of Ms. Mines can be used to delay/slow ships down or close some areas to traffic. Subs & planes then can use LR AShMs against them. They may save time using the NSR but not ships, aircraft, & lives.So even if they got their way and all the civilian craft left the region and they filled the place with sea mines and the Russian carrier and several major Russian ships are sunk...
They r accompanied with power/pipelines & other construction:Helicopters are never used for building railways...
The total time for constructing transmission lines was reduced by half in comparison with the usual methods.
Not completely useless: the Mi-6 appeared 4 years later:They tried tandem rotor design helos and didn't like them.. the Yakovlev design bureau made one from memory and it was useless... it lost in competition to the Mi-6 or something.
If it was a dead end concept, those designers wouldn't make fools of themselves. The West has the CH-53s but still keeps the CH-47s that can lift more, (even the CH-53K when flying hot/high over the mountains):
IMO, they may not be big enough for more demanding AWACS/COD roles. With pulling props their speed will be sufficient.Coaxial rotor helos are just as stable and less effected by crosswinds, and several of their planned future high speed helicopter types are tandems like the Kamov range of helos they already operate at sea.
if the shutes don't open, the cargo is lost &/ causes damage on deck...a transport aircraft could fly direct to the carriers location and drop the supplies by parachute either onto the deck or to be picked up by SAR Ka-27... it would actually be faster.
In a storm, a diver lowered from a helo can die while attaching a hook to it.
true, but having a common tandem/tilt-rotor airframe with ASW/SAR/Marine/VDV assault/COD/tanker variants will save a lot of $. A plane can only spot & drop survival gear while a helo/tilt-rotor can however/land & lift them out of the water/ground.A carrier related light transport aircraft should have better range and much better speed than any tandem helicopter or tiltrotor aircraft.
wait a couple more years!They can't even make their own engines...
that's besides the point: they have them!and you end up with a small fighter that is not cheap that has short range and small payload because it was only supposed to be a trainer anyway...
their own local fans would've spilled the beans by now;And how would we know if they were having problems or not,..
u can't hide a disaster in China- even before Mao died in 1976, the West learned of famines & earthquakes there that killed Ms.
that was then; now new models can be as good, if not better in some applications.They had tandem rotor helos and rejected them because conventional rotor design models were better.
again, that was during the CW when the arms race was in full swing & every American system had to have its Soviet counterpart. Being so late, its development stopped with a mock up.For the problem of fixed wing CATOBAR ops for AEW they developed the Yak-44, not any tiltrotor or tandem helicopter design.
as a rule, most things there take longer to develop, if at all.What makes you think that?
They built the Buran but never used it. The US has USS Ford but may never use its EMALS as intended. The VMF may never even get a CVN. Russia may have a regime change & go quasi-socialist again. the process of re-building it with modern features will put the current naval buildup well "into the right".
still, mixing 2 very different functions on expensive plane with a trained crew is dangerous. The USN had the S-3s that acted as ASW/EW/COD & tankers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_S-3_Viking#Variantsand who says it will have a radome?
there rn't that many places outside of balmy Med. Sea to do it safely. China could do the same in the SC Sea but built permanent artificial islands on reefs & rocks instead.During the cold war the Soviets simply created artificial moorings out in the open water for Soviet ships to dock and change crews and refuel and resupply.
still, that volume of trade won't pay for CVNs...trading with Russia would be a refreshing change from dealing with the west.
they need it, but if it's used wisely, it won't need as much air cover as CVN would bring. A UDK group can use its helo/drone AWACS to ID & shot down/sink attackers just as well.They don't need any navy at all, but they have one, so they might as well make it safer in open waters away from Russian air cover.
Most of those countries trade will be with China, as her middle class will be as big, if not bigger than the entire RF population. The VMF may bankrupt Russia even more than it did the USSR if it gets more CVNs & escorts, etc. that the country can support. Better to invest in Atomflot that can help on the NSR & be militarized in war time.this is a real opportunity for Russia and China to go in and trade and help them grow and develop in a more healthy and normal way...
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Jul 01, 2019 12:29 am; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)