But ideally, the Kh-101 is perfect for striking ABM sites from long ranges.
But what are you striking the ABM sites for?
If it is so you can launch a preemptive nuclear strike then that does not work because it will take more than an hour for your missiles to fly the 2,000km to the target, which is plenty of time for them to detect the attack and launch a full ICBM strike and also use their ABMs against any weapons you launch in return.
If it is because the US has used those forward deployed ABM missiles with nuclear warheads as a first strike system then your missiles will strike an empty ABM base a hour after everything is dead.
If you detect US ICBMs on the way and you launch your cruise missiles to defeat the ABM system so it cannot interfere with your return launch of your ICBMs... by the time the ABMs are taken out the American ICBMs will have already landed half an hour before... so you either launch your ICBM reply and accept the ABMs will be used against them and any not launched will be destroyed half a hour later or more by your cruise missiles...
Do you see that it is pointless?
The only useful way would be to use something like a 2,500km range Iskander that can get to the ABM sites in a useful time period... but even then it is simpler and cheaper to make a whole lot of extra ICBMs with decoys and jammers that you launch in the first wave that the ABM system engages and uses up all its missiles against... then fire the real missiles with actual warheads and more decoys and jammers and that is based on the fact that Russia is not interested in a first strike so a minor delay in launching the ICBMs with actual warheads wont matter too much... ie US launches first and hopes its ABM screen will make the Russian reply tolerable. Russians launch fake first response that uses up all the ABM missiles... then launches the real attack with ABM evading warheads and decoys and jammers etc which should all make it through...
This would make snse if the igures reeased would not be coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for some project. But in this case are coincident (according to sputnik) and are coincident with the figures and specifications previously released for the Project 23000 Shtorm.
They probably made a lot of studies regarding operational costs and building costs and potential capability.
For example you see a lot of single engine jet fighters and twin engine jet fighters but not many three or four engine jet fighters... it just works out better to have bigger engines than more engines in some cases.
That will be why all the projects are about the same size... they will have worked out a Kiev sized ship is not big enough and that the Kuznetsov itself is also not big enough, but how much bigger do they need?
Some organisation has obviously worked out the size they have published so all the companies wanting to make these ships will build their model to that size...
Oh great the LHD obsessed fools return somone get me the anti retard spray... oh and get my nuke ray incase things get hairy.
If the ministry of finances tells the navy to waste its money on VTOL then they will be arrested as forign backed sabatures.
A big carrier works a small one does not.
It is OK... the Russian Navy aren't fools.... they have made bigger carriers and they have made smaller carriers (Kuznetsov and Kiev respectively) and they clearly want the bigger carriers.
A carrier group is going to be expensive to operate whether it has big carriers at its core or one or two smaller carriers... neither option is going to be cheap, but the bigger carrier is going to be more effective and useful.
There is clearly no convincing you that you are wrong...
No one knows who will be right in this regard...
It just depends whose lobby win... but the fact is that if they have to develop a catapult system to get AWACS platforms airborne then it makes little sense to waste time and money on VSTOL... having a cat means even the heaviest fixed wing fighter can get airborne at full load safely.
Most of their fighters will be operating at no where near max weight as they will be armed for Air to air...
I am not sure what you dont understand. You mentioned that CVs have neither value in confronting US CSGs nor in case of war at seas Russia now.
Then you dont really need uber-Ford type CV costing 13 billions USD ( not counting airwing, AWACS etc). It is wiser to build something for 2-3 billions and 30% of maintenance costs. This will do the same job perfectly. So what is the reason to justify 300% cost increase?
Having two large carriers wont be that much more expensive than having 4-6 mini carriers, and the carrier groups will cost the same, so having 3-4 carrier groups worth of support ships and support infrastructure will make the smaller carriers more expensive than the bigger carriers, while at the same time rather less capable.
You need uber-fords only in one case= full conventional war. Which never happens for Russia.
Who is talking about Ford class ships?
The future Russian navy needs to be a compact relatively low number force... which means quality and capability per unit... currently their corvettes have the fire power of Soviet era destroyers, their new frigates have twice the fire power of Soviet Era destroyers, and their new destroyers will have four times the fire power of their SE destroyers.
Their upgraded cruisers with 80 launch tubes has ten times the fire power of Soviet era destroyers... (soviet era destroyers had 8 main weapons... Moskit for Sovremmeny, and SS-N-14 for Udaloy etc etc).
Why shouldn't their new carrier have 4-10 times the number of aircraft?
You need power projection? fine, 4 Su-35s and 4 Su-30SM in Syria. Third year there were not more than 8 fighters, And they have done their job havent they? If 70 fighters would be needed why they were not sent there?
It is a bit expensive using cruise missiles to hit every target... if you are using carrier aircraft it is because it is too far away for aircraft to operate from Russia... which means not just fighters but also AEW and AWACS and light strike and also surveillance would be needed... if not from land then from sea.
Obviously a lot of the observation and light strike could be drones operated from the carrier... but you need a lot of space for extra stuff like that.
The other change from the cold war (other than in raw fire power) is that the new vessels are multi role and that would include the carrier...
and who says it must be a monster? if subs are fucking expensive, such a monster is like 5 yasens.
When you go to the Chemist do you buy extra small condoms because they are cheaper and you can fit more in your pocket, or do you buy the super large condom because you like it nice and tight around your dick?
The Russian Navy has decided it needs a boat slightly bigger than the K... and they know because they tried the tiny size with the kiev class and they tried a medium with the K, so now when they are asking for a large you think the missus is going to say no... they are too expensive... get a little one.
Little ones break on big dicks... and you don't get your money back.
Very vague prospects. What is sure is billions invested.
It is not about how much it will cost, but how well they design it so that it can be useful for other purposes to defray that cost by making more than 6 of them.
If you spend 10 billion dollars making a big carrier... and you spend over 50 billion on all the infrastructure and support vessels that help it operate around the world then you would be a pretty dumb fuck to then balk at spending another billion to give it decent eyes so it is better protected... especially when that same platform can be used by your own army and other navies and armies around the world belonging to your allies...
M-55 is dead, M-17 is even deader Smile besides I am curious how you want to fit 40m wingspan plane on CV ?!
Probably make two folds in each wing... but the M-55 and M-17 were never considered for naval use... just army and air force for recon and comms relay etc etc... oh and obviously originally shooting down balloons.
I believe drones will do the job. In order to have good look on the horizon you need altitude. There are such drones in testing. V/STOL
The vertical landing component means they will be weight limited... there is a reason the Boeing Sentury is based on a very very large aircraft... even the Ka-31 is a 12 ton helo... not really a light weight.
It still doesn't answer the question if this is NOT for war then WHY so big and expensive? Bombing big or small is an act of war. Then why to overpay?
Persistence, and it is for war... but like previous wars not including WWI or WWII... it is a way of showing smaller countries that in a local event that Russia can turn up and help and no other power could impose and enforce a blockade.
It is a sabre rattling thing... but not to bully little countries... to protect them from bullies.
And no, I am not talking about becoming the world police part two... it will only be for trading allies that the US is trying to bully to stop being trading partners.
That's a good one, for 80's 90's but now surely they didnt think abut it having multi-sensor data fusion and cameras with image recognition :-)
Smoke and DIRCMS will deal with cameras... and IR flares will give it volume in the IR spectrum...
Sure and people are prepared for everything right? AFAIK They build solutions on Boyd's loop principle. Strategies are trained off line or in batches and operational parameters adjusted in real time.
The problem is shown with opposing forces training... they don't think like you do all the time... their experience and training can lead them to different thoughts and conclusions and different actions... but lets be honest at the top level the US clearly does not understand Russia... why would it be any different further down the chain?
Plus Russia has had 30 years experience with this sort of shit... or are uber smart westerners immune from being behind in experience?
Garbage in Garbage out.
This was actually about reverse situation. That those sites shoot massive cruise missiles' volley. If it was so easy to shoot them why concerns?
If those ABM sites launch cruise missiles that is a direct violation of the INF treaty... so it is a concern.
Almost 400 ordered F-35Bs also doesn't confirm your thesis.
These orders are politically motivated... which alternative option did they have to replace Harriers on carriers too small for fixed wing fighters?
You have full right to express your opinion! but it doesn't : mean you're right though.
Perfectly correct, but they have already been down the road of VSTOL aircraft and they have been serious failures... before they had no choice because their carriers were rather small and they had no catapults. They clearly are building bigger carriers and they are going to have catapults.
Also if you look at the darwing it attaches to the underside of the aircraft and would be designed to fit the same aircraft as an EM or steam equivilant.
The point is that with an internal system you set the power level according to the weight and load out of the aircraft. With an external system... a solid rocket you have no control... once it starts burning it will keep burning until it has burned out and you have no throttle control. With a liquid rocket engine you have more control but liquid rocket fuels are dangerous and toxic. With another jet engine it would have to be bloody enormous and would work for very very short periods which would not be very good for it.
All things considered it makes more sense to just look at catapults... and seeing as how EM cats offer many benefits over steam cats it makes sense to focus on EM cats.
It will still take for ever.
There is no reason why aircraft could not take off conventionally from the carrier as well, and more importantly while airborne the airship itself has enormous radar arrays and heavy long range AAMs so for many threats like a mass anti ship missile attack against the carrier it could deal with a lot of the threats on its own using high altitude launched very high speed missiles... perhaps S-400 and S-500 based.
Equally with 20 aircraft on the airship that is rather more than any other carrier can launch in 5 minutes anyway... with a few more taking off from the carrier itself you could fill the sky rapidly with interceptors.
In fact you could have two or three dozen fighter drones carrying loads of AAMs that could fly out with your fighters and operate at very high altitudes and launch missiles on targets and then return and land on the carrier and get boxed up and lifted back onto the airship the next time it comes down.
And what might I ask will it do when there are strong winds?
in open ocean the carrier could sail with the wind at the wind speed so the wind speed over the deck is zero... or just safe.
When weather conditions are no suitable the aircraft can simply take off and land on the carrier conventionally.
For emergencies that can occur any time, 2 isn't enough, u need 3 CV/Ns with adequate # of aircraft, escorts, subs, & supply ships.
They already have the K which they could modify over time to improve its performance and capabilities... unifying the electronics etc would also be good.
With two and a half ships they should be OK as most ships go through a three phase cycle... operational, training, overhaul/refit.
If one got damaged and the other was in the middle of a refit they would still have something they could use... they would never schedule two vessels to be in refit at one time, so most of the time they would have two carriers available.
And they have a good economy base and it continues to grow... but what will limit its growth is the actions of the west... naval power will make her more immune to such actions.
Regarding multi hull vessels... have you been on one at sea?
I have been on a multi hull vessel and it rolled like a bitch in not very heavy sea.
When the sea was flat it moved like a rocket, but the second things got a bit wobbly one hull goes up while the other hull is going down so you get the normal up and down of the sea but with a side to side rocking motion added... not pleasant... and not good for naval operations.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
:D:D
, you have not idea about how do a decent estimation, in technical terms.