My point as: there is the whole asia and Europe reachable via land.
No it isn't.
If the EU bans Russian exports to itself it is hardly going to let such deliveries travel over its territories... any country can be strong armed into stopping transfers across their country... was Kosovo reachable for Russian deliveries?
You know better than anyone we are talking about spineless bastards who jump when Washington says jump... except for the ones that ask how high to jump...
This is enough big market to grow.
It is a non existent market... the west sanctions Russia and blocks sales of high tech western stuff... do you think they will buy your stuff?
Hardly a Russian product friendly market to begin with... heard the term pissing in the wind?
Not tomention growing Russian level of life to say Germany makes Russia GDP like 8trillions nominative
Of course... the only way for Russia to improve quality of life it buying and selling shit to rich people... I am sure that is what the rich people want you to think... How about picking a poor country and trading with them... you both make money... you both develop... you don't need to sell your Soul... you both grow and benefit and make money... without the west.
So you had mines and steel mills on NZ? I've found a documentary about it
Yes, that is the video from the Wellington site...
Very true, times changed though. In vital places Husky/Yasen or Belgorods/Poseidon will be around not ot mention PAK-DA or Avangards from Russia. Time of mega carriers is gone I believe. Small one with 20-30 airwing is as good fo colonial war or and costs 1/4 of mega . Her fighters still can use GZUR rockets with 1500kms range to keep enemy ships at bay.
If carriers wont survive then smaller carriers will be even easier to take out and of rather less use... is a corvette better able to survive where an AEGIS cruiser it too expensive? Any attack against either and I would put my money on the cruiser to survive better than the Corvette...
A ship of the size of the old Gorshkov (Baku), which they sold to India. With nuclear propulsion.
If you can only have 2-4 SSBNs would they be armed with 4-6 SLBM launchers each, or 50?
4-6 SLBMs would be so much cheaper... and with new technology SSBNs are dead anyway...
Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.
But ability is not the same actual production rate... plus you ignore the fact that there are vastly more factors involved.. big economy does not mean big navy...
As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner.
They don't know what they want... if they were really desperate for large ships they could easily apply a minor overhaul to cold war destroyers they have and use them... who is going to fire on them anyway?
France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?
You ask why they should not buy Chinese ships... they have plenty of shipyards of their own... why would they not just build their own?
If they don't think they need them at the moment then there is no problem anyway.
If they think they need them but their shipyards can't build them then they have a problem with their shipyards... that wont be fixed by buying ships from Chinese shipyards.
Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years!
Ethnic Russians are non citizens in the Baltic states and most of the rest of eastern europe and have even less power than the blacks do in the US... the only difference is that European police don't use them for target practise.
The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.
Hahahaha... short of making them wear pink stars on their shirts I don't know what else the Baltic states could do to further alienate their Russian minorities... they make them non citizens... not eligible for benefits or positions within government... would not be accepted against any other group except Russians in Europe... everyone else has support... homos, blacks, I rather suspect child molesters would probably be better protected as a group than Russians sadly.
Not a reflection of Russian, but of superior european values and morals...
SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982:
Even an SSK could fire a torpedo that way and sink a ship, but what are the rest of the ships going to be doing when you launch torpedos... fire depth charges?
A carrier group will likely end the embargo without firing a shot and escalating to stupid directions.
A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.
A warning will only alert them to the threat and they might try to sink your sub before it can attack...
By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.
They are already working on railguns able to accelerate 100 gramme projectiles to over 7km/s... with such a gun you could shoot down satellites in orbit... and the best way to deal with hypersonic threats will likely be weapons with enormous muzzle velocities... ie lasers... which need enormous supplies of energy... like a carrier?
They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,
The MiG-35 is fully carrier capable now... there is no reason why they could not do the same to the new 5th gen small fighter...
New Zealand operated the A-4 skyhawk without a carrier... so did Argentina... the USAF also used the F-4 phantom too...
They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships
And yet a bigger CVN offers more flexibility to change roles or adopt new ones...
If you want a carrier you need to buy all the planes before the end of the construction of the carrier to exploit it from the begining at its max capacity.
Why?
Most carriers during fitting out don't have anything like a full aircraft compliment for the first few years... it would only be in combat you would use them and as you say they are expensive items to just have sitting there in the salt air... at risk of damage, but not at risk of being used...
It's the same story with the mig. Mig-35 is the best cost-effective solution for now. But 70 plane per cariier makes it very expensive even with only mig-35.
More expensive planes have better chances of survival... you going to spend 10 billion on a carrier and another 20 billion on the support and infrastructure and other capital and support ships and then pike on the aircraft component?
When the carrier is not at sea those MiG-35s can operate from land... those MiG-35s are full dual capable land and sea based aircraft so it would make sense to have a few of them anyway...
And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...
Gonna take 15 years to built a carrier and get her fitted out to become operational... plenty of time to finish upgrading the Kirovs and build a dozen or so destroyers and start construction of some new cruisers...
Author somehow forgets that China is economy by almost order of magnitude bigger then Russia.
Not to mention that China does not have Russia under economic sanction...
But russian carrier should be able to fight alone because it will have uksk, anti sub weapons and air defences. Escort should not be as big as in the us navy. But still they lack it too.
It would be nice if every ship could hold its own in a fight but they should never be actually put in that situation...
Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS. From time to market or economy perhaps you have right but her comes political risk management into play.
They have spent a small fortune to upgrade their shipyards... why would they then give major ship building contracts to another country?
2008 was a shock and they realised they needed a helicopter carrier as fast as possible, so France was selected because the Mistral is a mature design... with a few minor modifications it would have been a good choice for Russia.
Problem is that they didn't realise how big a cowards the French are... I wasn't happy having a NATO country source for the Mistrals, but they are good ships that are mature designs... no 10 years planning and a bit of hit and miss in the design choices and then 4-5 years to decide how to make the damn things... in terms of urgency the Mistrals were an excellent choice... they probably would have had all four in service... two in the northern fleet and two in the Pacific fleet.
Of the NATO countries I thought the French could get the job done... they often pretend to follow their own interests first, but it turns out honour means nothing in France and you clearly can't trust them in anything.
and what makes Russia so rich trading with poorest stares of Africa and Latin America over seas? buying bananas and exchanging coffee for Renault Ladas?
Because I think most non western countries see what the west does and really want an alternative.
I think Russia is not rich and powerful and super perfect... there are plenty of areas they need to work on... that are very similar problems and issues for any non western country... I think they can help each other and both grow from the experience.
What banana republic doesn't want a publicity stunt where one of their people goes into space to a space station?
India alone has population close to Africa and Latin America together. Chine like wise and their economies grow 6-8% per annum.
Both those countries should also be engaged, but Russia needs to look at countries that will benefit from trade... good relations with China will generally mean them selling you lots of cheap products which generally immediately turns your domestic clothing industry into a fashion design industry... we design but made in China with Chinese fabrics...
That is the dead end for the west... Russia should try to avoid importing everything from countries with cheap labour and no labour laws to protect workers.
MiG-35 will be 70 in 2040s
Current systems will be placeholders... when the CVN hits the water, whatever is new and shiny will likely star on her deck.
The Kuznetsov model I remember seeing in the 90s had MiG-23s on it...
Just because it is in the model or artwork it is not set in stone... just like IOC dates for that matter....
True, but I meant & they reportedly mull buying Chinese FFGs which r not strategic by any stretch.
They are not going to pay China to make anything they can make themselves... there is no urgency... when they decide to make a CVN and lay it down there will be 12-15 years before it gets anything like operational... plenty of time to lay down larger ships or upgrade existing models.
Paying money to Chinese shipyards to build boats does not help Russian shipyards or the Russian Navy.
Ironically spending almost 1.5 billion on the Mistrals gave them intimate access to the mature design of a ship they wanted, and then they got most of their money back and sales to Egypt for the air group and electronics they produced for the vessels, so that turned out OK... except they didn't get the ships they wanted very fast.
Of course full access to the design and production of the Mistrals means they can make some more serious upgrades and changes and still get a pretty good vessel much much faster than would be possible by making it from scratch.
Now Egypt has them; later they may even be re-sold to Russia or some other 3rd country. Recall that Napoleon army raped Egypt ~200 years ago. In their 4K year history, it was like yesterday.
I suspect Russia will just build some new designs with Mistral origins... and Egypt should be happy... they probably got some very good ships at reduced price...
It is the French that came out smelling of shit.
Pretty straight to the point. Costs of all that fun are prohibitive unless smart optimizations are taken, and even then it will be a "poor's man approach" in the eyes of many.
The planning for the support infrastructure needed to operate these ships will already have started, and support ships... they will come anyway... they want a carrier because they want a blue water fleet... if they want a blue water fleet then they will need destroyers and cruisers anyway.
Just an example of interventionist (AFAIK), bloated super-power policy. Wrong policies are exceedingly expensive to make succeed.
You can have all the tools you like, but the result depends more on preparation and skill in the use of the tools than in anything else...
The skilful use of limited resources in Syria shows the Russians know what they are doing... a force a fraction of the size and cost of the western forces in the region turned a losing war into a win... for costs that would probably be rather less than your average NATO exercise...
Of course Russia could have 100.000 ton carriers with 90 aircraft and what not, but they do not do it since it is of no use to bankrupt the country just to have the best military solution available for one particular type of event.
A 100K ton carrier is a strike carrier... an invasion support carrier... Russia has no need for such a thing... it would be used to bully little countries... like carriers off the coast of Korea or Vietnam... Russia needs to defend its ships, if it needs to blow up a terrorist camp or weapon lab or CIA HQ in the middle of some poor african country then a cruise missile makes rather more sense than any air group...
You need a light payload (500 kg weight would AFAIK reasonable for an airship like 5 m radius), all equipment and structure would need to be very light. You need power and some engines to keep up with the speed of the ship and winds, this may be a limiting factor. The power could maybe (not completely sure this is feasible) transmitted from the ship as microwave, in case the operating height of the airship is very high and cables cannot be used. During the day solar cells over a dish of 5 m radius could generate some 40 kW but batteries for the whole night is a no-go. So power needs to come from somewhere. The radar horizon for 10 km height is like 400 km if I am not wrong, so not bad.
Russia already sold to china blimps intended for use in mountains... radar antennas that are also used for communications and navigation, but also looking for low flying threats... they operate for like 3 months at a time... at 5-10km altitude and are tethered to the ground station that provides power and processing etc.
A modern airship would benefit enormously from fuel cells.
Normally on an airship you use helium because it is "safer", but with modern fire proof materials it should be possible to not use any helium.
Hydrogen fuel cell plus a small NPP... the fuel cell allows you to turn hydrogen into water ballast and back... to go up run a current from the NPP to the fuel cell to turn the water into hydrogen and the whole thing rises... no need to vent... if you need to descend then run the fuel cell and use up some hydrogen and create water ballast and you descend.
Normal airships are expensive because venting helium is horribly expensive, but how do you go back up after venting lifting gas?
You drop more ballast... eventually you will run out of ballast/lifting gas... this new method is a closed system that can continue indefinitely... you could fly low and turn on a dehumidifier if you need to take on more water/hydrogen fuel cell fuel.
More importantly an airship has a structure with an outer cover and inner bags holding the lifting gas... with modern strong light materials that are fire resistent, you could pump nitrogen between the bags of hydrogen to eliminate any risk of fire... hydrogen needs oxygen to burn... that means even if you get hit by an air to air missile how many hydrogen bags will it damage?
A really big airship will have enormous numbers of lifting bags spread over a large area, so even a direct hit will likely not burst all the bags... all ballast could be dropped and it would likely slowly descend to the water... where it could be picked up and repaired or have the bags replaced.
Electric motors for station control or manouvering the radar to focus the full length of antenna on something of interest... perhaps even have two... one tethered from each end of the large ship pointing in different directions at different altitudes...
In fact have 10 backups on board...
Try that with an AWACs aircraft....
Actually I was thinking of a huuge trimaran. From the limited research I have made they are remarkably stable in rough seas and remarkably fast but if anybody can comment on that I would appreciate.
Went on a big cat to Stewart Island... smooth and very fast on the way over, but a little choppy on the way back... just lots of small waves... there was not even a roll on and the thing jumped and bucked like we had Spurs on and weren't afraid to use them... my friend spent the trip face down in the toilet...
Only to a limited extent, since most of the volume means "air" in this case!
So unused space... tell me again why that is useful?
The form factor in such a vessel is quite different to that of a single hull, the form is much more "boxy".
But if you were selling the idea instead of boxy you would say compact right?
Nevertheless this would not be smaller than 60-70 T tons by a very very rough estimation. Since you would spare the LHDs altogether you would have economies even having a relatively big ship.
So I thought the idea was a unified LHD and a CVN, so you buy, say, 6 platforms for 2 CVN and 4 LHD, and save money by buying 6 similar platforms.
I think that would be more like making the LHDs as expensive as CVN, which is sort of the opposite of what we want...
If they can be implemented at reasonable costs (which I don't see as fundamentally infeasible to achieve) then use EMALS!
they are not going to be cheap, but they will be the most sensible and efficient way of getting planes airborne on ships... and improvements in technology that are developed can be applied in many other areas... including space etc.
Why cannot seat that operators at the ship were space, weight and power/cooling are not a premium? Just an innocent question...
the main difference is that a Ka-31, which pretty much just captures raw data and transmits it all to a ship for processing... the ship then sends commands to the aircraft and other ships in the group to deal with threats or targets detected.
In other words it is really just an AEW aircraft.
An AWACS aircraft gathers data, but then processes it, and then this information is processed by operators who likely pass digital information and commands to aircraft and ships and even satellites for HQs to look at. The difference is that the aircraft does all the processing and therefore also much less data is transmitted.
Continuously transmitting data to a ship means the Ka-31 is not hard to spot... it is using its radar anyway so that is a given, but the ship it transmits data to then has to process that information and then send commands to other aircraft and platforms including the Ka-31... so the surface ships location will be compromised.
An enemy might be able to intercept the datalinks but they will likely be heavily encrypted so they wont benefit... for processing it will likely be a cruiser or a carrier that is receiving and processing the information.
With a well designed system the AWACS aircraft could largely do its job independent of the ships and aircraft so it can detect targets and pass information to aircraft and ships without those ships having to reveal their presence or location...
Of course an airship could pass the data down the tether and operate active and passive radar scanning...
Nothing against it, if it can be paid. Otherwise, buddy refuelling...
Launching one big aircraft to fuel 10 fighters makes more sense to launch 11 aircraft instead of 20... especially when the 10 fighters you launch to transfer fuel will have to take off unarmed to maximise fuel... so you have a take off and landing cycle with no weapons use...
Why would the fighters take-off with quarter tank if you have catapult?
Because you have one catapult and two ski jump take off positions... your priority is to get the AWACS up and operating for the first cat launch... and the next launch might be a fully fuelled an armed fighter, but while it is getting ready on the cat you have two fighters taking off from the ski jump... by the time the fully armed and fuelled fighter has taken off there will be at least four half fuel aircraft airborne, so next you launch a tanker to top up those four and the two taking off when the tanker is launched... the first guy is approaching the threat but the rest can catch up because they were fuelled in the air and can take more fuel on so they can go AB all the way... as they start to blunt the attack more aircraft are getting airborne... fighters and tankers... planes getting airborne from the cat can be fully armed and fuelled and can go engage the enemy straight away, planes from the ski jump might still be able to engage incoming threats... even operating at 5,000m they can see low flying anti ship missiles from huge ranges and engage them... when they run out of missiles they can return and land and rearm...
A tanker near the carrier to refuel aircraft as they take off that need it, plus another tanker flying towards the threat to refuel aircraft nearer the target so they can hang around there longer...
If the threat includes enemy aircraft then don't operate the tanker so far forward...
Hell a tanker would be a large aircraft put a couple of quad MANPADS launchers... it could take on low flying subsonic anti ship missiles, without too much weight or drag penalty.
Most subsonic anti ship missile attacks will be swarm mass attacks so the more platforms that can help the better.
I used the F135 as reference of thrust to weight ratio. Imagine two small turbojets, each moving two lift fans on each side of the plane. The turbojets propel the plane horizontally (though just marginally maybe) and the fans provide the needed lift for the operation. The aircraft takes off normally at full AB and when it reaches the end of the deck it does not fall because of the additional lift provided by the "sled" (or even because it goes also faster horizontally). Some hundred meters later it reaches enough speed for independent flight, the UAV detaches and returns to the ship.
Two things really... when it goes off the end of the deck if it does not have enough speed to fly when the deck drops away to the sea the entire aircraft and supporting UAV will also drop, because the lifting force near a surface is greater than the same force higher up.... it is called surface effect... WIG and hovercraft use it... so when the two platforms reach the end of the deck they will drop rapidly to a similar height above the water that they had above the deck... lets say 3 metres above the deck would be 3m above the water... but suddenly losing the support of the deck means it will drop 10-20 metres which means it will probably hit the water with its downwards momentum.
With such an explanation it is clear to me your idea would work best using small hovercraft like UAVs.
Think a large container ship with these hovercraft and aircraft... hovercraft attached to the aircraft... big crane picks up both and places them in the water beside the ship... hovercraft starts up and moves forward... aircraft starts up engines and deploys flaps etc for take off.... you have unlimited sea to get to takeoff speed... in any direction you want... when plane gets airborne hovercraft can turn around back to ship to have another plane put on its back.
Bigger hovercraft would allow more aircraft types to be launched.
Still need a carrier for recovery, though large container ship with half deck flat with arrester gear would do.
Not so good in rough seas though but really big hovercraft might solve that.
Not seen any sky-jump carrier with catapult. Since the rotation of the plane is done by the sky jump itself, I think it is a superior way of taking off, less reliant on complex systems and with less drop or fall of the plane from the deck. Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question
Ski jump is a way of giving aircraft an impulse upwards... works best with vectored thrust aircraft like Harrier, but can be used by conventional aircraft like Su-33 and mig-29, but could be further taken advantage of with vectored thrust engines which would help control yaw and and pitch angle on take off to prevent stalls or not enough lift angle.
AFAIK the cat system on the new carrier is intended to not go up the ski jump.
On the current K there are two short take off runs in line with the ski jump, but also a very long take off run near the waist of the carrier... it would be in the way of landing aircraft so cannot be used while landing planes but offers a much longer run up to the ski jump so fully loaded Su-33s can take off. (note they don't do ground attack so I am taking about full AA missile load and full internal fuel... they can't carry external fuel tanks)
On the new carrier I expect that waist launch position will go straight out over the deck where the landing aircraft take off again if they miss a cable... with the boost of a cat that should be plenty of length to get to speed...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
:D:D
