first Russia has long way to grow on internal market to be able to build and maintain CSGs.
She wont grow by importing Chinese ships... even if they are cheap.
Here in New Zealand the rail network has been terribly neglected, and then the government said.... lets rebuild it because it is a green way to move things and it will solve congestion problems with all these trucks on the roads. There is an engineering workshop here in Dunedin that put in an offer to build new trains and carriages... it is what they used to do. But some asshole in government realised it would save a few million dollars to buy them from China.
Now apart from the fact that there is a huge difference between spending millions of dollars on your own companies making stuff they could later export and could provide ongoing support for their products in your market, and pissing away money to a foreign company to make stuff for you, there was a small issue that when these slightly cheaper rail cars arrived... they had asbestos insulation in them and had to be completely rebuilt... so they are not cheaper anymore and the engineering workshop here is gone now.
So no, I don't think buying ships from China is a good idea for Russia or anyone.... except China of course and any country who can't make them for themselves.
Secondly to task you mentioned you dont need any mega carrier. Small one does its job as good. You down one ship is like you attack Russia. why in Syria nobody dared to attack Russian troops?
A bigger carrier can carry more planes and larger AWACS types and better support the Russian fleet... they will need two... whether they are 70K ton or 35K ton, so while 70K ton will cost more you get a better product for the money.
Most normal countries would not try to sink any Russian vessel, but some are fucked up and will even attack allies ships... look at the attack on the USS Liberty...
If the carrier that finally came to help was closer there might not have been a torpedo attack that killed so many Americans...
A minimum knowledge about the nature of every plan helps to preview what parts can change and what parts not.
Not strictly true.... a change of government in Russia and the plans could change quite radically in any direction... once carriers are laid down however so many other things are set in motion that stopping it would be almost impossible without incurring more costs than you save...
The list of fanboys is plagued of zionists that only want low armed small ships for Russia.
Actually, while I am in fact anti zionist, I think corvettes and light ships... which a navy needs anyway... so why not use them this way... plus land based naval aviation with Backfires and Foxhounds with Kh-32 and Kinzhal and Zircon and other interesting weapons would be the most efficient way to beat off a carrier based attack on Russia.
Of course that is not good enough if the US is trying to bully Russian ships from going to central or south america or anywhere else they have every right to go... for which they need bigger longer ranged ship like destroyers and cruisers and carriers to protect those larger ships.
Simply just to grow their economy and diversify their trade and political partners.
But the size of the fleet can be kept contained at the same time
And that is important... they can't afford an enormous fleet... every ship needs to be able to defend itself... poliment redut and UKSK launchers for everyone.... including carriers.
When every ship is an AEGIS cruiser able to shoot down aircraft 600km away or even satellites in low orbit as well as subs and ships and land targets thousands of kms away then you don't need hundreds of ships...
Afghanistan was a failure because it was not.
That was in the 1980s... I would expect a new intervention would be rather more successful but would likely be coordinated with Iran and Pakistan this time around.
Whatever you want to see it, cost is THE essential issue.
I disagree... there is a saying... throwing the baby out with the bath water... if 10 billion is too much spending 5 billion on something that most of the time wont do the job is just stupid... if you don't want to spend 10 billion then don't spend any at all... but remember in 20 years time when you lose some very expensive ships and miss out on trillions of dollars in deals because the US or UK or even French navy stopped you... you could have had a say... without a strong navy you don't get a say, and how could you have a strong navy with no AWACS or air power?
Defending is cheap, attacking with impunity is expensive, it is a matter of life. And innovation is the key. Known standards need to be constantly reviewed in light of new technical possibilities.
I am not talking about invasion carriers... I am actually talking about AWACS aircraft... NATO has them and therefore can go to different countries and operate an airforce with full command and control and intel... Russia with mostly defensive ground based radar network can't move like NATO has... the use of A-50s in Syria is new and is paying dividends, but their navy does not have that luxury.
Hell if you want to be bloody cheap how about a big container ship with multiple tethers on it and an enormous airship that sits on top of the deck. The airship gets its power through the tether cables and the airship itself has enormous antenna arrays down each side, front and back... the new type of radar they are talking about that can take photo like images of distant targets... when you send out a Russian surface action group you send this ship too and raise the airship to 20-30km altitude and with its radar it can spot any and all targets and threats for thousands of kms in every direction 24/7. The cargo ship can have its deck covered in UKSK and redut/poliment launch tubes... thousands of each... Air to air Missile packs can also be part of the airship so it can defend itself.
You don't need fighters... as long as you are sure all your missiles will work and the enemy has no way to defeat them... because that airship will not dogfight... and it can certainly see cruise missiles but it can't chase them down.
> Smaller size of vessel, since deck surface can be proportionally bigger and take-off and landing spaces do not interfere with each other. Say 250 m long. Take off from the stern on one side of the ship (no take-off assistance most of the time), landing on the other side of the ship. Due to independent areas, deck can be configured for different missions
You don't mention it but I am assuming you mean a double hull vessel.
Dare I ask if you have ever been on one?
When there is anything but very flat water multi hull boats really rock... and I mean that literally... the hull on one side goes down and the hull on the other side goes up a wave... from a passenger perspective one second you are looking at sea, and the next blue sky... sure it was not a big ship, but it was not even a rough sea either...
> Increased internal volume allows to dedicate more space to ASW, AD, land attack, ordnance, fuel etc., reducing the need for support of additional ships and increasing endurance.
Hang on... increased internal volume means bigger mass, which means more expensive to operate and move around...
Nothing against EMALS, I find the concept great, since it allows reducing stress to the airframe and needs no plumbing. Just thinking of an alternative, since I only read about the costs and problems of existing systems. Going further into the future though, the take-off assistant could also develop into landing assistant and that would be also very cool and have further advantages xD
Sorry, but I don't think the rocket sled idea has wheels... EMALS ticks all the boxes, and includes technologies like super magnets and super conductors and power generation and storage that has enormous potential in other areas... even potentially for rail guns and electric power propulsion systems... for land, sea, and aircraft.
Why? They can be made effective IMHO, that is exactly what I mean.
Small carriers are limiting... when a Russian surface action group is in the South Atlantic or south pacific you don't want to need 50 supply ships running constantly to keep the carrier in aviation fuel and bombs, not to mention replacement aircraft... if you are only going to make two then why make two piddling little ones with pathetic performance VSTOL fighters and VTOL Ka-31 AWACS because you can't operate anything bigger... hell they can already operate Ka-31s from destroyers if they want to give up capability against subs...
Yes, those planes have typically much less powerful propulsion than fighters. But since Russia has essentially no operating fixed wing AWACS etc, no loss in designing the appropriate airframes. You have many possible designs to cover those missions. Not going in detail now but consider the Hawkeye has 2700 km range and 6 hour endurance, even a fighter can achieve that.
A fighter probably could match the range and endurance, but can it carry a 360 degree radar and the 2-6 people needed to turn the flying radar from AEW to AWACS... it is not just supposed to see targets but to coordinate the defence using fighters and ships missiles.
The AWACS is important, but a Tanker perhaps based on the same airframe is just as useful for extending the operational time of all aircraft operating from the carrier too.
Maybe the extended take-off run proposed above would allow doing away with assistance, cannot now without doing intensive research.
With a cat you can operate tanker aircraft so fighters with full weapon load for air to air could take off with a quarter fuel load and top up after launch on the way to the targets...
I do not know enough about deck operations to discuss this but I understand that operating the catapult is also a complex task that needs to be taken care of.
EM cats are much more forgiving.... for a steam cat you set it for the aircraft type and its current payload and fuel weight situation... when you push the button to launch the cat then throws the plane... if you got the setting wrong it might rip off the front undercarriage and the planes nose will hit the deck, or it might not pull hard enough at all and the aircraft will leave the deck too slow and slowly descend into the water.
An EM cat can start to pull the aircraft but detect that it is either going to fast or too slow and adjust to compensate... ie increase or decrease energy setting...
In other words it does not apply constant fixed level of force.
The F-135 is capable of 180 kN for hover if I am not wrong, weight of the engine (without lifting fan) is 1700 kg. We would be talking about less than half of the lift so I think weight would be significantly less. I will try to make a estimation of fuel consumption, that is an important point.
Except it can't lift the aircraft vertically... these aircraft are not VTOL... if you lift them up 5m into the air they are in the air, but you have just created a problem not solved one... the problem is moving them horizontally in the space available to get the air flowing over their wings fast enough to support their own weight... with their engines running to maintain and increase that horizontal speed.
If you just use force to lift them then all that is holding them in the air is the engine on your lift device... now what are you going to do?
If that engine shuts down or stalls then the plane it was lifting drops like a rock and will be destroyed in a fireball.
If you try to move the aircraft it will have to be forward to generate any wing lift.... and be careful where you point those very powerful engines because exhaust blast kills deck crew...
Like I said... it would be easier and simpler and cheaper to use a catapult.
What you are suggesting is pretty much just JATO bottles... which has been tried... they are expensive and pretty soon you end up spending more money on expensive and dangerous solid rocket fuel than cats would have cost.
Would be no doubt an expensive design but one with lots of potential in many areas.
A cat system could also launch UAVs as well as manned aircraft, so I really don't see what this launcher UAV might do that a cat can't do...
They are developing an EM cat system... they are also developing rail guns and working with all sorts of related technologies like electromagnets and superconductors and plasma generators and storage systems... all of which feed into each other and further our understanding and practical applications of physics...
The developments in high temperature plasmas and magnetic containment systems can be applied to supercolliders and even fusion reactors...
Don't u curse at me again
I didn't curse you, I swore at the pathetic suggestion you made....
Get China to make ships for Russia... why not give France another go... maybe they will play nice this time.... if you are going to say fucking stupid things I will tell you you are making fucking stupid suggestions.
There is nothing in the rules about ignoring or accepting the ridiculous.
allow Eenie use red colored text & insulting all of us who disagree with him.
Eehnie gets rather more personal abuse than he dishes out, and normally only insults in response to an insult.
"Direct correlation" isn't automatic: Germany has no need for a big blue water navy, she is allied with France & UK with larger navies, & lost taste for wars.
Direct correlation, means when this is the case then that is the case.... it means when this is true... that is true... when you piss on the ground the ground gets wet... doesn't matter if the ground is sand or concrete brick... it has to be generally true in most cases to make sense, but of course there can be exceptions... for example when the ground is already wet when you piss it does not become wet...
There is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her naval shipbuilding. In China, 5 FFGs are made per year, while in the RF only 1/10th of a frigate:
Which basically means for all countries, big economies have large ship building industries, and conversely small economies have small or no ship building industries.
So how many ships did Singapore build last year? Or Hong Kong? Or UAE? ...actually Finland does not have a very big economy I guess they can't make ships at all...
Your statement was that economy and ship production capacity were related, but now you say there are other factors.... Germany doesn't make hundreds of ships because it doesn't need them.
Guess what buddy... Russia does not need them... as I have been saying repeatedly and you have been ignoring. China does need them and that is why they are making them. Go figure.
RF is still Ukraine's biggest trading/investment partner.
Dear god... did you even read it? Russia sells them gas and oil... they buy it because it is the cheapest they can get. It also proves nobody is trading with the Ukraine... boy... sucks to be them.
Pretty much all economic ties have been severed from the Ukrainian end... military first so products made in the Ukraine for Russia that were paid for have not been delivered, but most trade between these two countries collapsed in 2014 and has not recovered... they continue to buy energy from Russia and that is about all.
Even w/o much trade with the rest, there's large # of ethnic Russians/mixed Russians with ties to Russia in the former Soviet republics & E. European states.
So what? The US is full of black people originally from various parts of Africa... how does that effect trade between say Angola and the US?
If Russian people in new and old EU friendly countries like Kosovo or the Ukraine or even Georgia get into trouble they should not expect the Russian army to invade to save them... they can move to Russia if they want Russia to protect them...
Don't assume they'll let it become a bigger problem for them later with NATO/EU next door sticking its noses/already there.
What makes you think NATO or EU will stop being NATO or EU?
They were born with their noses in other peoples business.
Don't you know... the Americans are complaining that Russia might have interfered in a US election... when they get told America interfered in Russian elections they say that is OK they are allowed to...
Events in Crimea & Donbass r just a prelude.
It is rather unlikely that the result in Crimea will be repeated.
The people in the Crimea are basically Russians who didn't want to be part of the Ukraine... even less part of a Ukraine with an illegally occupied Kiev...
The people in the Donbass are Ukrainians that are not happy with a west looking government they didn't vote for in Kiev... they don't want Moscow to be in charge, they just want different people in Kiev... preferably someone they got a choice in picking... ie elected by ballot, not bullet.
Disaster relief is less important than saving its own citizens; such missions r secondary to it & don't justify spending $Bs on CVNs.
Disaster relief is the secret code for mobile independent landing force... CVNs have nothing to do with disaster relief and everything to do with protecting Russian navy surface groups away from Russian waters.
Also, Severodvinsk/Oscar SSGNs escorted by SSNs can get to remote areas faster & make any naval blockade very costly.
And how does it break that blockade? Sink an enemy ship?
A carrier can escort transports past the blockading vessels... no shots fired... subs on the other hand are snipers and can either kill or stay hidden.
Subs are very useful but they have to kill to intimidate... not much use during peacetime... except when international law does not apply, so for instance Israeli snipers can shoot dead children behind a fence in their own ghetto... you know the story.
Planes don't have such strong points for being swung by chains & launched before they fall apart, otherwise some1 would already done it!
The main wing spars are the strength of the wings and hold the aircraft in the air... transferring the lift of the wings to the fuselage and should be plenty able to hold the weight of the aircraft. They don't need to reach supersonic speeds... when you extend the chain the size of the circle increases so the number of circuits per minute reduces to get past stall speed...
Are you suggesting that the only way to do things is the way it is already done because no one is doing it any other way?
Everything that can be invented has been invented?
Finally, they could outfit the Type-054A hulls with their existing armaments & systems a lot faster than building them from scratch, even if modified.
Why? Do you think Russian shipyards can't build hulls? Look at the Mistrals... Russian shipyards built half those hulls in the same time the French shipyards built their halves.
The problem is that there are no orders... they are not ready for them yet... no matter who made them.
India & PRC bought many Russian & French ships & subs before because they were available or ordered new while it would take too long to build them domestically in need #s. Do they all still have only Soviet/Russian/French armaments & systems? If so, pl. show me!
Show me the list of duties the Russian Navy was tasked to do but could not because they didn't have enough ships available...
Russia wont get China to build them destroyers... they have destroyers.
They are spending enormous amounts of money upgrading and expanding several shipyards... why would they give production contracts to China?
I realise you are impatient, but they have more pressing concerns and issues than getting destroyers and cruisers into service right now... because that is what people on the internet want.
BTW when I do look close at Chinese ships all I see is ex Soviet equipment and systems... and looks are not everything... even the almighty AEGIS system had enormous flaws revealed in the late 1980s when they murdered some Iranians in a civilian airliner...
At the end of the day even if they spent trillions and built 20 destroyers and 8 cruisers in the next five years... what would they be doing with them?
Do you think all those Russian diplomats would get to go back to their posts and all those silly sanctions would be dropped and the west would treat Russia as a partner instead of a naughty child that occasionally needs a slap... nikky haley needs a good slap... the bitch.
In 2015, the Czech president said that "commercial ties to Russia are vital for the Czech economy"
He might have said that... but what he says makes no difference when the EU as a group applies sanctions against Russia.
In the link you provided it says:
The Czech government, rather than the president, controls most levers in foreign policy, and it has stuck closely to the European line on how to deal with Russia, according to diplomats in Prague and Brussels.
So the Czech president can say anything he likes, but the Czech republic is sanctioning Russia just like the rest of the EU.