LMFS wrote:Awesome, don't forget to include that in your CVOh no no no I am just his trusted VSTOL adviser
I thought that you as my intellectual sparring partner to refine concept
Bad phrasing from my side. You were following PapaDragon's logic of using the aerospace industry (and concretely STVOL fighters) to compensate / hedge against potential shortcomings in shipbuilding. What I mean is that in the long term Russia MUST set itself to the task and solve such shortcomings, not build expensive excuses for failing to do so.
How could they use their prowess in aerospace industry? By developing the shipborne Su-57. With its extreme capability gap to rest of potential naval fighters in the world it could more than compensate for less vessels of smaller size than US CSGs. Put two squadrons of them in a light carrier and arm them with Kinzhals... and watch the seas empty almost 2000 km around you
Kizhal too heavy indeed but why not shipborne Zircons? 1000km range. Way beyond reach of any fighter ot their AShM. Either you add 2x8 UKSK-M or use Husky below or Gorskhov next to you. .
have to my knowledge a missile capable of matching the R-37M.
yup you're right AIM-152 was cancelled I ' ve missed that
it was to have almost 2x Phoenix range
The roles I mean are air defence and strike, of course. It is clear that if you go for the classic CV you will need additional forces for the rest of roles.
That's the rationale behind this you can send LHA to Arctic ASW/CV role. Amphibious/transport: to kick some terrorists/rebels' butts during personnel evacuation. Also humanitarian humanitarian situation.
But unless you create the safety conditions you can be harassed as we saw in Syria before deployment of S-400, Su-35s etc.
Why you think that covered with smaller fighters they would be harassed? BTW were there ever more then 8 fighters same time?
S-400 - That's why you need Something like 2 Gorskhovs with Redut group.
or xtra (my speculation) use own 2xUKSK-M with wit 64 Redut AAD (S-350)
. But conversely to the point above, if the kinematics of both aircraft are similar, the missiles will need to make the difference. For instance if both sides have planes that do 20 km altitude, 2+ M dash speed, then I would bet on the one carrying the longer stick (R-37M) instead of the one with the shorter one (AMRAAM)
and what if they send simple drones with AMRAAM?
1) option one - you dont shoot them they kill you. Result: you're dead
2) You shoot them all. But spent all rockets. Then fighters are coming. Result: you're dead
3) alternative 2 : even after fighters you survived (not all though). Do you have time to land -reload- return? is for how many cycles can you perform? Result: you're dead
Its simply a game of numbers not thrones. Unlike Danerys you cannot count on magic and dragons
It is about creating safety conditions for you fleet to operate in, that is the reason for CVs. See above one proposal to ensure deterrence without needing to outspend USN.If Russia would build 2 very expensive CSGs they can 4 more CSGs just to extr cover them. Tsi is a game costly for you that you cannot win.
Extra cover? of course but why smaller fighters cannot perform this task?!
destructionFreedom took 5 CSGs same time you know. That is bombing foreign lands Conflict with Nigerian pirates or Syria is say " coloniallow insensitivity war " category.
Ok I see. Yes, Russia should not need to bomb countries that way and as discussed for a Syrian type operation 2-3 squadrons are enough.[/quote]
glad we agree again