Wait I saw that thing in the thumbnail of some ultra low quality text to speach youtube videos and I thought it was a joke.
Did the Russian MOD seriously make this model?
Anyway it reminds me of an idea I had when i was 7 years old I wanted to make a submersible aircraft carying super battleship.
I remember in the late 1980s playing a game called F18 Interceptor or something... by Bob Dinnerman set in the San Francisco area I think where just off the coast a Soviet Submersible carrier was launching "MiG-29s". In fact the MiG-29s were actually black coloured F-16s or something from memory... What stood out most for me was it was the first flight sim I had where you could view the aircraft from the outside in flight... it was only later in Birds of Prey where you could see external weapons though...
Anyway either way the internal volume available on a sub would make it very unsuitable for more than one aircraft... and having just one aircraft would make it pretty useless.
Unlikely global with 2 CVs. Size of population and economy will not really allow Russia to get even close to US in terms of naval power projection.
You are confusing global with Imperial... Russia just needs to be able to send a group of ships to anywhere by sea they need to go... they don't need to protect the entire planet via the sea 24/7.
It is like the difference between the coverage of air defence over Russia and being able to send a strategic bomber to the US.
They don't need to shoot down all air power over the US... they just need to sneak a few nuclear warheads past anything operating there at the time of the attack.
Those 2 ACs have no chance against US carrier groups. Russian power projection it will be at level of UK not US. This of course will be much better then France unless Germans who would have to pay for plans or Napoleon Micron plans Laughing Laughing Laughing
I will be able to concentrate its forces with there only likely being one carrier group at sea operating at any one time... and even a Corvette armed with 12 hypersonic anti ship missiles has more striking power than a carrier group when it comes to actually sinking shit.
In comparison if they only had subsonic missiles they would need dozens of ships and hundreds of missiles and even then an organised enemy with layered defences that can attack back would still be a problem...
That's my question why do you need so huge airwing if you have no plans for Midway style wars? In US first Nimitz was 13bln USD without planes. Interesting that Russia would have to build NEW type of AWACS for naval use thus again couple of billions for 4-6 planes? and for catapults US one costs 1bln USD and doesnt work as planned yet
I doubt it would ever actually operate with a full compliment of aircraft, but if you go somewhere with 12 or 24 aircraft then you are vulnerable if there is an enemy airforce that can shoot down your aircraft... the loss of a few aircraft would force a withdraw... with 70-80 aircraft you have more layers of protection and more combat persistence...
A new type of AWACS aircraft that is medium sized would be a very useful aircraft... at sea and on land... you might have noticed they use naval versions of land based SAMs, and a naval PAK FA would further unify things, so a naval AWACS aircraft designed to operate with a small group of fighters would be very useful on land and at sea... smaller airstrips and lower costs would mean you could have 20 of them to replace perhaps 5 A-100s of a similar price...
When the cats work... and I would suggest the Russians will be rather more practical than the Americans ever have been, then they will gain long range radar at medium to high altitude, which will make their navy far safer and far more dangerous.
EM technology is worth investing in anyway.
That's your interpretation. Article says: 2 skijumps and 1 "acceleration device". Possible you're correct but you cannot be sure without seeitn this Smile
Ah and 2 aisles.
Look at the design of the Kuznetsov... three main take off runs... one longer for heavier aircraft and two from shorter locations... it would not be that hard to make the skijump narrower so the two shorter launch positions use it and a longer launch run runs beside it but does not go up the ski jump for heavier aircraft.
For vising this countries and present Russian flag much smaller and cheaper Ac than 10bln USD onr would be just fine.
For visiting a country under naval blockade a proper carrier makes more sense in the future... it is not just about showing the flag, but about inspiring confidence that Russia can back up its words when it needs to outside of Europe and close Asia...
The trade with countries it encourages and supports will make the costs seem less of an issue... the US and UK and France don't have carriers for fun or just because they can afford them... they add capability and improve safety and security.
I know but I mean something on the ship that helps the fighter to take off. Perrier said strings.
He was being a smartass.
Also thought about an old idea I had, ricket assisted take off but they would need to much rockets for intensive operations.
Solid rockets are not cheap and would add a huge burden on the logistics... a burden of very dangerous material that need to be constantly sent to the carrier to maintain operations...
Or another idea is to use a catapult that would work with a jet engine. It's not as powerfull as normal catapults but with a ski jump it could help an awacs to take off by providing enough power because it could work with post combustion. They don't need a big engine just something good enough to accelerate the aircraft as they already can take off without any help but for bigger awacs it is a simple and cheap way to substitute the normal catapulte.
So add all the complication and cost of a catapult but make it external?
You caould use a rocket powered sled with a reusable motor.
How many sleds would you need to carry?
Why do you think this would be safe on the deck of a carrier?
Why do you think this would be cheaper and easier and cleaner than an EM cat?
Dont you dare saying that subsonic AShMs are of any value. Only Granits and Onyx are of any value.
A simple analogy would be in small arms...
Dont you dare saying that pistol calibre weapons are of any value. Only Rifle calibre Assault Rifles and Machine guns are of any value.
The only way you can make a subsonic anti ship missile a capable system is to use lots... ie SMGs rather than pistols.
Without air based AWACS then low flying subsonic anti ship missiles are very dangerous... having air based eyes and sensors and also air based fly swatters then they are rather less effective and you need to use even more of them to be effective... to the point where you need so many you become vulnerable because you start loading Anti Ship missiles in tubes you would normally load SAMs or anti sub weapons in...
Well french exocet showed that it was a good missile but its replacement will be a supersonic missile.
Actually in the Falklands war it showed that little carriers with VSTOL aircraft and no fixed wing AWACS aircraft are more vulnerable to attack than larger carriers with better AEW capability.
Not really. Supersonic missiles do not "deny possibility shooting it" only make it harder. There must have been a reason why Orlans had 20 Granits and Anteys 949 24 otherwise 1-2 should be enough dont you think?
For use against carrier groups of more than large 10 ships you would need more than one or two missiles even if they were guaranteed a hit.
Supersonic missiles reduce engagement times assuming they will be detected, they use high speed to improve their chances of getting through.
In actual fact many of the missile types actually tried to go around the defences too... the SS-N-22 Moskit flew below the 7m minimum altitude of Standard SAMs, while many other missiles including Kh-22M flew above at 40km altitude... which took it above Phoenix missile altitudes...
Subsonic can flow very low, evade and also attack in packs with well coordinated tactics. Do you think why AI and smart systems are installed?.
the only operational anti ship missiles that cooperate and operate in packs are the supersonic Soviet missiles.
Imagine a volley of 50 stealth missiles is sent. Do you really think all could be shoot down?
The best chance of surviving such an attack would include an airborne sensor system... and the delay in making the carriers will likely lead to more time to perfect those photonic radars they keep talking about, which would be ideal for detecting stealthy threats as soon as possible... which would be the most critical requirement to defeating any attack.
However, if he drops another Lider/Shtorm-class sized turd again it's scorched earth rolling thunder no mercy mode in full throttle.
If you break the rules concerning abuse you will get a break from this forum... as will anyone else... including your friend in question...
I don't expect in my lifetime for Russia to have strategic/vital interests in in the Southern Atlantic or Southern Pacific, or off the coast of Africa or Asia outside of the RFE or South America, unless they decide to colonize Antarctica!
The UK didn't become a global power and THEN develop a powerful navy... the same for the US.
You have to have a navy powerful enough to operate anywhere on the globe before you can assure those you are trading with that if the US or others say no, you can say yes and actually back it up with real force.
They don't need 13 carrier groups of ships 5m longer than each equivalent US Navy warship and they don't need thousands of ships produced at the rate China seems to be making them.
They can't afford an enormous fleet but what they do have needs to be able to operate on its own for long periods and they need to be able to support them...