None of western navies have potent interceptor on deck: F-18? Rafale? F-35?
Western navies have a habit of working together and strangely currently outnumber the Russian navy in most regards, so do you think for their 200 odd Naval fighters for their 2 CVNs and the Kuznetsov they should go for MiG-21s or Su-57s?
Naval Air Arms are never cheap... the F-35 is the most expensive fighter ever... so while going for affordable they missed by an fing mile... but what should Russia do... any aircraft will be better than none and presumably in use they will be as much use as airborne radar and IRST as they will be for anything else.
Their whole purpose is to protect the surface fleet and to do so they don't need to have a 5,000km flight radius or ICBMs for air to air missiles... the ships they will be supporting will be armed to the teeth, so even if they just spot targets and pass that data back to the ships they are operating with it gives the ships plenty of time to start acting.
Any 500 missile attack on a group of ships would be tough to defend against, but if you have a dozen aircraft that detect them coming from 600km away and they can shoot down 6-7 missiles each, but also monitor the incoming missiles so ship based long range radar guided SAMs can start shooting down those incoming missiles well before they are any where near the radar horizon the chances of those ships surviving the encounter go up exponentially... especially if those fighters can engage the ships and aircraft carrying some of those 500 weapons and can shoot at them before they launch.
A MIG-29M2 moves at similar flight speeds to the much bigger Flanker and can carry the same air to air weapons to the same altitudes.
Having these fighters replaced with Chinooks and tilt rotors however makes the air defence much weaker.
so no you dont need the best of the best, you need good enough.
Well they need to scrap the Su-57 and Armata vehicle family because we don't want the best... we want good enough... except it seems they do want the best...
All of them can carry pre emptive strikes before the ships are attacked. That's nato strategy, they don't wait that the enemy has the ability to attack them, they destroy him before that.
Mig 35 has a range of 1000km. With fuel tanks and 260km range kh-35 its strike range is something like 1700km. Su30 is even greater.
Plus the fact that while the west might only have F-18s and F-35s and Rafales... they actually have quite a few of them on quite a few aircraft carriers... and that does not include their Typhoons and F-22s and of course F-15s and F-16s that are land based around the entire planet...
The thing is that ka-31 radar has a range of less than 300km which gives little time to react. They need a yak-44 on steroides.
The range of the Ka-31 is not that great, but the critical thing is that from a 4km operating altitude its radar horizon is much much better than any radar at or just above sea level. The huge radars on the ships will have enormous ranges against high flying targets but many threats fly low for that very reason... which makes the Ka-31 useful, but would make a real AWACS aircraft even more useful.
EMP are well known. Russian and US nuclear triades are protected against that. They aren't stupid to not protect them against that. A Farraday cage is realy easy to make in order to protect critical computers or bases.
EMP block transistors which can start again after some minutes depending on the power of the EMP. It has no effect on antennas. All the need to do is protect the computers inside missiles, inside firing units and inside bases. Pretty easy and probably done since long time ago.
Tests with nuclear blasts in the upper atmosphere show the ionisation of the atmosphere effects radar and radio communications for up to half an hour, which makes it a useful precursor to an attack.
Apparently Russia is going in a proper direction with their amphibious assault ships and aircraft carrier plans.
No converted civilian ships, but proper warships, with the modified 11711 that will be something between a san Giorgio class (if low end) and a Rotterdam class (upper hand), the helicopter carriers that will be proper aviation cruisers or helicopter destroyers (and may have nuclear propulsion), and the nuclear carrier that will probably be a similar concept to the soviet ulianovsk, but with modern technologies.
They were talking about a unified hull design for heavy ships... perhaps a unified design for cruisers and helicopter carriers?
I never implied "no fighters"; & stressed more capable tandem/tilt-rotors than Chinooks a V-22s.
They don't need them... the Ka-27 and its replacement will do everything they need for ship and carrier use.
A decent AWACS platform is what they need, not some half arse tilt rotor piece of crap.
There's a reason the USN CVN stays out of the Strait of Hormuz right now.
Cowardice? The US Navy doesn't know the meaning of a fair fight... it loves taking on speed boats and Airbuses though...
low yield nukes used over the Bering Sea won't do it. Also, the US could ask JMSDF for their more quiet SSKs to sneak on them for torpedo attacks.
Low yield nukes wont to bugger all, you need a 10 Megaton range weapon to get the effect you want on the Russian ships and such a thing would be very damaging to all of Alaska and Japan too.
I doubt Japan wants their subs sunk for no real practical reason.
Transporting more people & supplies using tandem/tiltrotor hybrids of An-12/26 & Mi-17/38 faster then helos will save lives & shorten wars.
What are you smoking? There are no tilt rotor or tandem rotor hybrids of anything in Russia and there certainly wont be any of those cold war dinosaurs.
The new high speed helos look interesting but the Il-276 will be much faster than any model An-12 or upgrade... and the same could be said for the Il-112 and Il-114.
The RF Marine Infantry is the maritime counterpart of VDV.
It certainly is, but they don't use BMD vehicles either...
Cold & stormy conditions r a constant factor in & around Russian waters; the climate change will bring more storms there & in all other oceans.
You mean like the heavy fog they get in London all the time?
[quote]the Egyptians kicked out all Soviet advisers & switched to Western planes after realizing that they depended on Soviet engine maintenance support, which restricted their entire AF ops- so it goes both ways. [/qutoe]
Of course the US is totally hands off and Egypt completely supports their own vehicles aircraft and equipment from the US... totally...
at the cost of property rights & other freedoms.
What property rights and freedoms?
Their legal system allows for rule through the laws made by the ruling elite (who sends their $ & kids to the West to where they themselves can flee when the going gets tough), not rule by the laws made by lawmakers & the society at large.
Actually I agree their laws are probably totally fucked up, because most of them were made with the help of America... that is where they get that fucked up law about presidents only being allowed to serve two consecutive terms... I don't know of any other country with such laws except the US... I guess it is so the corruption is spread and one party doesn't stay in charge for too long... remember political parties are like babies nappies... need to be changed regularly and for the same reasons.
they can keep talking & designing all they want, but whether they will be able to afford it to make it happen is up in the air.
That will be part of the planning process.
....BTW this is hilarious coming from a person from a country where a politician and current president says elect me again and we will cure cancer....
the same can be said about helos & planes; yet the slower Mi-26 can land & TO where the An-12 & other fixed wings can only crash land.
Your problem is that you think therefore the proper solution is a tilt rotor or tandem Mi-26 to try to turn the Mi-26 into an An-12.
I am telling you the better solution is simply to use the Mi-26 to move the load from where it needs to be lifted vertically to the nearest place the Il-276 can operate and transfer it to the much faster aircraft and get the benefit of the advantages of both types of aircraft.
speed isn't the main thing; on the plus side, they can self deploy on short notice & start their job quickly; high speed helos with 1 main/coaxial rotor(s) won't be able to carry as much cargo as large tandem/tilt/quad-rotor helos.
If tiltrotors and tandems are so wonderful where are they all?
There is only the Chinook and the V-22 that I am aware of and no great mass of customers ranging up to buy them.
Meanwhile Mi-26s and Mi-17s are out there doing the job.
If they were so wonderful why are they relatively rare?
Tandem-rotor helos will do well in Russia's & Central Asian mountains which r not as high as the Indian Himalayas.
Mi-26s can carry twice that weight... when the Indians lose some Chinooks up there they will most likely hire Mi-26s to recover them.
true; pl. pay attention to my posts: I never said that any future Russian tandem-rotor helos should have CH-47 specs.
blah blah blah... read my posts... they already have helicopters better than Chinook and super stallion, they don't need to make copies of American helicopters or tilt rotor aircraft. They already have a programme with China to make heavy lift helos... if China wanted a tandem or tiltrotor then why are they working with Russia on them?
This thread is about the Russian carrier programmes and future aircraft... they sure as hell wont have a 42 ton payload helicopter on any of their carriers... there is no need... they have landing boats for that shit and there is no room for aircraft that big anyway.
The North, Siberia & the FE will never have enough well maintained & prepared long airstrips needed to make them totally useless.
Most major settlements will justify a proper air strip and smaller communities already get by with An-2 and upgrades and Mi-17s.