Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+57
Mir
Firebird
Lennox
thegopnik
ALAMO
Broski
Russian_Patriot_
Lurk83
Kiko
jhelb
AlexDineley
11E
owais.usmani
flamming_python
arbataach
limb
walle83
RTN
JohninMK
dino00
lyle6
magnumcromagnon
TMA1
Backman
lancelot
Isos
SeigSoloyvov
PhSt
Tai Hai Chen
LMFS
Tsavo Lion
Arrow
kvs
The-thing-next-door
william.boutros
George1
ultimatewarrior
kumbor
mnztr
Regular
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
medo
Gazputin
andalusia
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
GarryB
ATLASCUB
GunshipDemocracy
Swede55
wilhelm
Hole
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
AlfaT8
61 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Nov 21, 2020 4:10 pm

    This is like eating insects and tofu and living on a 30 sqm flat is the new cool... when I see bankers doing it I will believe it. Same applies to carriers, when I see all great navies of the world renouncing to them, I mean actually stopping construction and decommissioning them, then I will assume it is for real. In the meantime it is BS and the way the public discussion is oriented towards questioning the Russian need while avoiding to discuss the expediency for other countries, it just makes it plainly obvious that this is just another attempt to contain Russia by undermining public consent for the development of the oceanic capabilities of the VMF.

    For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero. But you will only read praise to their renewed naval might. France? Japan, Korea, Turkey, Spain? India? All second rate military powers are entitled to their carriers, even toy carriers of almost zero real military value in high intensity conflicts, because the lapdogs must be left unimpeded to loot their own countries to support the imperial efforts of the West. In the meantime Russia which is maybe the most powerful military in this world cannot have carriers? To hell with that....

    Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.

    Russian zone of interest is anywhere, as it is obvious by the developments in Africa, ME, Latin America, Indian Ocean etc. This ridiculous colonial mindset according to which the interests of the West are the whole world but Russian ones are confined to its borders and immediate surroundings is pure delusion on its way to be crushed by the reality. Wait and see.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1569
    Points : 1563
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:13 pm

    LMFS wrote:. In the meantime Russia which is maybe the most powerful military in this world cannot have carriers? To hell with that....
    .

    LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:40 pm


    For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero.

    UK still believes Honk Kong is its problem. They had those carriers ready during the protests. Why didn't they send them there tobprotect their interests ?

    China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.

    Same for US. North korea and Iran don't have carriers. Why don't they attack them with their 20 carriers ?

    Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.

    Back in time it was canons, then destroyers, then carrier wings and now its missiles.

    Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic


    Posts : 1687
    Points : 1671
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Sat Nov 21, 2020 5:56 pm

    Isos wrote:

    For instance, what are the needs of UK for its carriers? Zero.

    UK still believes Honk Kong is its problem. They had those carriers ready during the protests. Why didn't they send them there tobprotect their interests ?

    China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.

    Same for US. North korea and Iran don't have carriers. Why don't they attack them with their 20 carriers ?

    Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.

    Back in time it was canons, then destroyers, then carrier wings and now its missiles.

    Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.
    They are useful, however, to provide a better radar coverage with their AWACS and to protect the fleet with their air wing.

    Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...

    Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Nov 21, 2020 6:13 pm

    Arrow wrote:LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.

    "Maybe" as in it is arguable, and based in the type of conflicts that actually may happen. For instance in a conventional confrontation NATO - Russia in the European theater, I would not be sure the Western side wins, at all. Russia does not try to conquer CONUS so no point in comparing power projection capacities to such extent.

    Bottomline is that RF is a military superpower with enormous potential to export strategic stability to partners all around the world, so pretending it must keep quiet and contained within is borders is just wishful thinking from the West.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 13371
    Points : 13516
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Kanada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  kvs Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:16 pm

    It is hard to see how carriers are useful aside from operations in the "3rd world". I do not see Russia engaging in such activity
    in the coming 20 years at the very least. There are plenty of limitrophe issues on its borders and it can access the Middle East
    rather effectively already. So all of Russia's security issues are land based and not on remote shores.

    Even though Russia has been helping Venezuela keep the yanqui wolves at bay, it is not going to go to war with America
    on its behalf. If it was going to secure itself for a war with the US in Latin America and Africa, then it would have been
    making more effort to build up some sort of carrier fleet.

    Of course, it is possible that Russia is making a strategic mistake. Having large carrier fleets which it can afford since costs
    are not insane like in the corrupt USA, would be a useful deterrent to the yanquis in their conventional colonial adventures.
    But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.



    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:51 pm

    Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
    They are useful, however, to provide a better radar coverage with their AWACS and to protect the fleet with their air wing.

    Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...

    Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.

    Yeah I agree they have their advantages but thinking because you have 2 or 3 carriers you can rule anything but unarmed countries is beyond stupidity.

    In open seas they add the advantage of having an aiborne AWACS and fighters that can do anti ship mission but they will also attract more enemy ships and submarines.

    If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.

    IMO the light carrier of 40kt presented few years ago is a perfect carrier. Just need 2 nuks reactors and one catapult for AWACS. Supercarriers are useless and will eat the money for frigates and destroyers.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5684
    Points : 5668
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Nov 21, 2020 8:56 pm

    But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.
    she now has/will have bombers/subs, supported by tankers, satellites & MPA/UAVs, with long range hypersonic conventional AShMs that can neutralize any Western naval groups in any sea/ocean. No need for floating airfields. in contrast, China has more vulnerable coast, SC Sea claims, citizens, overseas interests & SLOCs to protect, besides outflanking India & Japan- therefore, she needs 5-6 CBGs.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3144
    Points : 3126
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:37 pm

    Isos wrote:Chinese zone of interest for the next 20 years is the hot chinese sea and its sea roads.

    Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.

    There is no need for carriers for Russia. That's quite simple to understand. Modernized Kuznetsov with why not some su-57 and future heli carriers with some VTOL aircraft will be enough.

    Stupid remark on multiple levels, the Kuz even when it was built was nothing more than a stop-gap measure.

    The Kuz also will not be able to keep up air cover against modern CV's.

    If you want a blue water navy you need carriers to protect it, carriers offer flexibility other ships do not have. Good luck protecting your trade routes with CVs.

    Also, your remark about VTOL's, tell me is Russia building any? You also know the two Helio carriers they are making would only be able to house less than 10.

    Russia has many needs for a carrier, your simple view of naval matters however just limits your view.

    GarryB and LMFS like this post

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3144
    Points : 3126
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:42 pm

    LMFS wrote:The carriers are supposedly disappearing and Russia should retire the Kuznetsov and not think about further carriers, we are told. Meanwhile in the real world:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 EnBxEg2W4AAJ3Kl?format=jpg&name=900x900

    Chinese developing the J-15 to launch it with catapults, prototypes already developed.

    https://twitter.com/RupprechtDeino/status/1328686245694885890/photo/2

    Now now, don't be hard on the Surpeme Admirals Experts we have on this forum they clearly know better than the entire defense agencies of Russia, US, China and every other major power in the world.

    Why these countries haven't hired these expects is beyond me....Not like they have no experience or knowledge in the field they speak about sides crap they read online....because you know reading stuff online clearly means you know better than anyone else.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sat Nov 21, 2020 9:47 pm

    Sorry for repeating myself, but I am genuinely puzzled about why it is so hard to get this point through: naval power at sea has essentially the same advantages than at land so it should be obvious why you want to count on it. In fact the vulnerabilities at sea are even worse than at land, due to factors like:

    - The practical impossibility to conceal surface assets in the sea
    - The concentration of military capabilities on few, highly valuable platforms.

    So as discussed before, a vessel at sea has a ridiculously low awareness of what is approaching at low level. There is not going to be an IADS with dozens of radars of all kind, among them OTH, and hidden SAM sites ready to intercept some attack, the ship is alone or protected only by a reduced amount of other ships that are in turn essentially as vulnerable and limited themselves, no wonder that Russian and Soviet ships of big displacement have enormous amounts of SAMs and raise their air surveillance radars as high as possible in their superstructures, trying to compensate for such implicit weaknesses.

    To summarize:

    > Carriers are not tools of imperialism but simply tools for the use of air power at sea, that is, with missions of naval strike, ASW and AD of the fleet.
    > Current paradigm of the use of carriers as per US practice:
    - Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack
    - Is a doctrinal aberration caused by US imperialism and an overwhelming international supremacy, and should never be used as a reference for the development of the VMF

    Tsavo Lion wrote:she now has/will have bombers/subs, supported by tankers, satellites & MPA/UAVs, with long range hypersonic conventional AShMs that can neutralize any Western naval groups in any sea/ocean. No need for floating airfields. in contrast, China has more vulnerable coast, SC Sea claims, citizens, overseas interests & SLOCs to protect, besides outflanking India & Japan- therefore, she needs 5-6 CBGs.

    You keep repeating this nonsense despite VMF doing absolutely the opposite:

    - Yo cannot perform "self sustained" air operations on the other side of the world in the "Arcade" mode you propose, it is simply ridiculous, sorry, that you even propose this. This is magical thinking, totally closing eyes to any sort of hard facts. Not the first time you do this I have to say.
    - VMF is developing surface fleet, modernizing the Kuznetsov, keeping their naval fighters and pilots fit, renewing training installations in Crimea, have PAK-KA and future carrier plans ongoing. So what you say is simply contradicted by known facts.

    Isos wrote:Yeah I agree they have their advantages but thinking because you have 2 or 3 carriers you can rule anything but unarmed countries is beyond stupidity.

    Warships are intended to battle at sea, what is so difficult to understand? Can't you imagine a carrier being used against other fleets and not against countries? I really don't know if we are speaking in Chinese or what dunno

    If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.

    Again the same misconception... you don't use the carriers against land forces.

    kvs wrote:It is hard to see how carriers are useful aside from operations in the "3rd world".

    Think the piracy activities US is mulling, one further step and those tankers sailing to Venezuela will need an escort. Think Russian presence in the Indian Ocean. Any presence that you have abroad needs to be ensured with the navy, otherwise it can be left blocked by US. This is standard naval doctrine, has been so for centuries. So if Russia wants to reinforce ties with any country in Latin America or Africa, which are main development areas in the world, they need an ocean going navy.

    If it was going to secure itself for a war with the US in Latin America and Africa, then it would have been
    making more effort to build up some sort of carrier fleet.

    The fact is that they keep saying exactly that, both in strategic development documents and in individual statements. Russia is developing their international presence at the same pace that they can support it, first in the immediate abroad, then further as they keep creating the ocean going fleet. No incoherence here.

    Of course, it is possible that Russia is making a strategic mistake. Having large carrier fleets which it can afford since costs
    are not insane like in the corrupt USA, would be a useful deterrent to the yanquis in their conventional colonial adventures.
    But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.

    Exactly, USN carriers are focussed in achieving sortie generation rates and firepower to compete with land based forces, which is an absurd proposition to start with, while they don't even have a decent AShM, which would be the first step for a naval strike carrier. Offering a prime asset for aggression to the imperial establishment, they can allow themselves to cash it insanely. A Russian carrier would be smaller, much better defended and more practical, and even better, created by a rational MIC. As said above, the carrier program for the VMF is long term but it is live and well, and they have said left and right that they plan to do exactly what you are mentioning.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sat Nov 21, 2020 10:35 pm

    Warships are intended to battle at sea, what is so difficult to understand? Can't you imagine a carrier being used against other fleets and not against countries? I really don't know if we are speaking in Chinese or what dunno

    Exercice and pictures taken by soviet subs showed multiple times that carriers are nothing more than simple targets for a well equiped force.

    With modern missiles reaching 1000km range at hypersonic speed that won't change.

    Sure if you face Somalian navy or Iranian navy ir north korean navy in the Pacific they may have their use.

    But if you face a powerfull country like Israel, France or Russia near their border your carriers are dead meat.

    You seem to overestimate a carrier. It's just a a floating airport that need 1 hit to stop its operations. It's easy to spot with long range radars and its aircraft have nothing more than ground based aircraft. It carries around 48 fighters.

    With 48 su-35, an A-100 and a 12 su-34 for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country.

    If you have Yasen, Tupolevs, kinzhal and other kirovs it becomes just a practice target.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5684
    Points : 5668
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Nov 21, 2020 11:24 pm

    Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack.. you don't use the carriers against land forces.
    they were also used against Pearl Harbor naval/AAF bases & Japanese held islands. 
    If the VMF get new CV/Ns, they may be pressed for that role as there's isn't much else they'll be used for, & to justify their upkeep. To get that experience, the Adm. K was deployed to the Syria campaign. 

    VMF is developing surface fleet, modernizing the Kuznetsov, keeping their naval fighters and pilots fit, renewing training installations in Crimea, have PAK-KA and future carrier plans ongoing. So what you say is simply contradicted by known facts.
    it's very possible that these plans may change, & the # of carriers they'll get may be reduced, if not cancelled. Why duplicate the effort with China which for decades to come will be their close ally in the Indo-Pacific? 

    So if Russia wants to reinforce ties with any country in Latin America or Africa, which are main development areas in the world, they need an ocean going navy.
    they already have it, adding more CVNs won't make it any more so. CGNs with S-400/500 supported by A-50/100s, MPA & UAVs will have the same or bigger defensive bubble around a surface group as any USN CSG.   

    With 48 su-35s, an A-100 and 12 su-34s for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country. 
    or any country Russia chooses to defend.

    If you have Yasens, Tupolevs, kinzhals and other Kirovs it becomes just a practice target.
    indeed, they took the A2D potency to a new orgasmic level, denying sleep to the Pentagon top brass- this isn't the Cold War era sea denial force. If all else fails, a few Poseidons can explode underneath CVNs/LHD/LHAs, detonating all their ordinance on board & sending them to the bottom.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:05 am

    @Isos:

    yet you keep applying the same arguments and logic of CVN vs land forces... definitely I must be writing in Chinese  scratch

    Tsavo Lion wrote:If the VMF get new CV/Ns, they may be pressed for that role as there's isn't much else they'll be used for, & to justify their upkeep.

    Maybe they are, that does not mean that they are developed for the purpose and forget the real goal, which is the protection of the fleet.

    it's very possible that these plans may change, & the # of carriers they'll get may be reduced, if not cancelled

    Because you say it. If you moved you ass a little and actually read Russian relevant documents and interviews with the actual professionals we would not be discussing this. They are not doing or saying anything that contradicts their plans for the further development of the blue water navy, which obviously includes carriers.

    Why duplicate the effort with China which for decades to come will be their close ally in the Indo-Pacific?

    Yeah, why going to bed with your wife when your neighbour is already taking care? Really... lol1 lol1 lol1

    they already have it, adding more CVNs won't make it any more so.

    Russia does not go beyond the involvement they can actually defend, it is purely logical, that does no mean that should not change in the future. They will not be capable of challenging Monroe doctrine just with righteous statements. You justifying they don't need blue water navy because they don't use it is like saying somebody without legs has no need for them because he was never seen running...

    CGNs with S-400/500 supported by A-50/100s, MPA & UAVs will have the same or bigger defensive bubble around a surface group as any USN CSG.

    Where are those A-100 in the middle of the ocean going to be operating from, are they repairing, refuelling and manning themselves magically, are they beamed to Russia after their missions? What use does any asset have on a foreign land if you cannot keep it operational because of a naval blockade? Sorry, but these speculations of yours are nothing but fairy tales...
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:20 am

    yet you keep applying the same arguments and logic of CVN vs land forces... definitely I must be writing in Chinese  scratch

    And what do you want to apply them for ?

    Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?

    Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.

    They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:29 am

    Isos wrote:And what do you want to apply them for ?

    Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?

    Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.

    They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.

    What part of the surface oceanic fleet is also superfluous in your opinion? I mean, a golden rule is that if you don't see a logic to what military professionals do, you should be more concerned about yourself than about them.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3144
    Points : 3126
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:52 am

    Iso your logic is based on one what silly idea, On the Russian coast. This is why people say your mindset is simple.

    You do realize Russian interests go beyond the coastline? You do realize submarines cannot power project the way ships do right?. Seriously you do not understand naval matters at all, reading what you type shows that.

    The fact you do not seem to understand this is silly

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:53 am

    Any ship coming close to a well armed country is dead meat.

    Navy is good to protect your coast and SSBN or attack weak countries.

    Only good ships to have are subs and ships that can launch cruise missiles more than 2500km away.

    The rest is useless when you see weapons they will face.

    You just need an airforce which is much cheaper to have than a large navy and some 20 SSGN of yaseb class.

    Carrier's aviation already made useless surface ships during WW2. Now missiles make pretty much all surface ships including carriers outdated and defenceless when fighting far away from their country.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9861
    Points : 9847
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:55 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Iso your logic is based on one what silly idea, On the Russian coast. This is why people say your mindset is simple.

    You do realize Russian interests go beyond the coastline? You do realize submarines cannot power project the way ships do right?. Seriously you do not understand naval matters at all, reading what you type shows that.

    The fact you do not seem to understand this is silly


    Even US and its 20 carriers can't protect its interest 24/7.

    When you attack you choose and when and how.

    But then against who are they going to protect their interest from ? US, Ukraine, China or some Somalian pirates ?

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5684
    Points : 5668
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:09 am

    If you moved you ass a little and actually read Russian relevant documents and interviews with the actual professionals we would not be discussing this.
    keep it civil; don't know about u, but I use my eyes & brains to read. 
    They are not doing or saying anything that contradicts their plans for the further development of the blue water navy, which obviously includes carriers.
    the USSR had plans for them before 1941 too. In the 1960s ASW TAKRs appeared, & they were enough for A2D; by all indications, they won't built new CVNs w/o heavy missile & defensive armaments, i.e. they'll be multirole. Now, what will make them so indispensable to the otherwise blue water VMF? The ability to carry AWACS & fighters? EW&C/ASW helos, tiltrotors, UAVs & UCAVs can fly off CGNs, DD/FFGs & UDK/LHAs, while their AD is provided by S-300/500/500s. If they have plans for 4 CVNs, it'll be overkill & overspending. 
    Yeah, why going to bed with your wife when your neighbour is already taking care?
    the size & skills matter in the economy too. The RF economy= Spain's; at best, PRC's is 2nd only to the US now. Spain has 2 small LHAs & is allied to the US. Russia better follow her example or ruin her other developmental plans. 
    You justifying they don't need blue water navy because they don't use it ..
    they had such VMF before 1991, & now it's as blue water as it'll be even with 10 more CVNs. I agree that it's not well rounded yet- what they really need r more corvettes, DDG/FFGs & UDKs in their surface fleet. 
    Where are those A-100 in the middle of the ocean going to be operating from, ..
    What use does any asset have on a foreign land if you cannot keep it operational because of a naval blockade? 
    they have IRPs, IL-78s & MiG-31s as escorts to cover mid-oceans from Russia & overseas bases; Zircon armed FF/DDGs, CGNs & SSGNs &/ MiG-31Ks/Tu-22M3s/160Ms with Kinzhals just need to show their flag/presence to prevent/lift any blockade. 
    Besides, bases in Vietnam, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, & Nicaragua will have forward deployed units & ensure permanent presence in/above all warm oceans. In the Arctic, no1 can beat the Russian icebreaker fleet that also allows them to avoid chokepoints, while saving time & $ on fleet transfers.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Nov 23, 2020 8:27 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)

    x_54_u43 dislikes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4917
    Points : 4917
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:20 am

    Isos wrote:Any ship coming close to a well armed country is dead meat.

    Navy is good to protect your coast and SSBN or attack weak countries.

    Only good ships to have are subs and ships that can launch cruise missiles more than 2500km away.

    The rest is useless when you see weapons they will face.

    You just need an airforce which is much cheaper to have than a large navy and some 20 SSGN of yaseb class.

    Carrier's aviation already made useless surface ships during WW2. Now missiles make pretty much all surface ships including carriers outdated and defenceless when fighting far away from their country.

    Ok understood... no more questions respekt

    Tsavo Lion wrote:keep it civil; don't know about u, but I use my eyes & brains to read.


    Yes, 100% civil, but have you read those documents that we have been discussing? I mean 2030 and 2050 strategic development roadmaps? What do you think of them, are they lying, they cannot count or what is your take?

    by all indications, they won't built new CVNs w/o heavy missile & defensive armaments, i.e. they'll be multirole.

    Most probably they will have serious AD capacities on their own. As to offensive weapons, it remains to be seen. Design bureaus do not favour such solution.

    EW&C/ASW helos, tiltrotors, UAVs & UCAVs can fly off CGNs, DD/FFGs & UDK/LHAs, while their AD is provided by S-300/500/500s

    So you accept air power is needed. But oddly you seem to think that the fleet can be defended vs. a CVN air wing with UAVs and helos, single units of them per hull BTW. Do you equally advocate for VKS to renounce to Sukhois and substitute them with Orlans? And of course no Voronezh, no Konteyner and no Nebo-M, those are overkill too.

    Also, why do you think a LHA is a great idea and a carrier is not? I mean, a LHA is a tool for amphibious operations but people here keep confusing them with "no bullshit" carriers, when they don't even have the speed to keep up with the rest of the fleet at sea. And if you develop them to he point of matching carriers' capability, well, they will most probably cost like carriers... dunno

    The RF economy= Spain's; at best, PRC's is 2nd only to the US now. Spain has 2 small LHAs & is allied to the US. Russia better follow her example or ruin her other developmental plans.

    Oh boy the GDP... I will not even start the comparison between Spain and the RF in terms of military potential, should I?

    As to what Russia can and cannot allow itself to do, I proved you already in the past that you could not be actually bothered with facts. What are the concrete costs inherent form the carriers that VMF cannot pay? If you don't have them, you should consider stopping your trolling.

    they had such VMF before 1991, & now it's as blue water as it'll be even with 10 more CVNs.

    They never had a complete blue fleet navy, their plans were scraped with the fall of the USSR. And today's VMF is just a shy attempt of rebuilding a decent navy, they don't even have frigates...

    they have IRPs, IL-78s & MiG-31s as escorts to cover mid-oceans from Russia & overseas bases; Shocked

    No

    just need to show their flag/presence to prevent/lift any blockade.

    No, those can be shot down trivially once an enemy fleet is in place and cannot defend themselves in the way to the deployment, plus have no way of actually reaching that far with any combat potential or sustain operations there. A fleet has a presence at a theater of months, do you plan to keep the Tupolev in the air waiting for something to happen? Do you plan to have 20 exchange crews living on onboard or what? How many hundreds of Il-78 are necessary and how you avoid all of them crashing? I mean, it is so absurd I don't know if you are even being serious.

    Besides, bases in Vietnam, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, & Nicaragua will have forward deployed units & ensure permanent presence in/above all warm oceans

    Don't you understand that without a serious navy you cannot ensure the safety and operability of those bases?? Don't you see that the navy is the basis of the US network of bases?
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3144
    Points : 3126
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:01 am

    Geeezzzzzzz....I mean its almost like ships will have to sail away from the protection of a coastline.....and out of range of land-based weapons.

    I didn't realize Russian planes and missiles have infinite range.....and can supply themselves magically.....oh and appear instantly. I didn't realize russian bases can magically grow supplies out of the air.

    I didn't realize Russian merchant and transport ships are completely immune to damage.

    If a navy ran its self as you think, it would be worthless.


    "Navy is good to protect your coast and SSBN or attack weak countries."

    lol! Okay this confirms it you don't have a single goddam clue about Naval matters at all.

    Go propose your ideas to actual admirals and watch as they laugh at the stupidity that was just displayed because I am finding this funny.


    I am going to ask you this question one time Iso, what experience do you have, sides little articles on the web or playing some video game?. Why do you know better than all the major powers in the world combined?. Literally, thousands of men who live and breathe these matters, explain to me why you know better than EVERYONE.

    Fact is you don't fact is you are some guy on the web who has never served in a navy and has ZERO clue about how navies function. But I'll humor you, explain to me why you know best.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1694
    Points : 1736
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Sun Nov 22, 2020 6:18 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote: If they have plans for 4 CVNs, it'll be overkill & overspending. 

    USN operates on a 3:1 ratio. ie you need 3 carriers to have 1 operating at all times. With their huge fleet they can surge to 6-8 maybe even as many as 10 carriers in some operational windows.
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1569
    Points : 1563
    Join date : 2012-02-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:55 pm

    Before Russia begins building aircraft carriers, it must rebuild its fleet. Even the amount they are building now is very little. The Pacific Fleet needs a lot of corvettes and frigates to offset the enormous advantages of China, Japan, and South Korea at least a little. The single-class 22350 ships cannot make up for this, where Japan itself has much greater forces than the Russian VMF in the Pacific. Russia has the weakest navy among the other major players in the Pacific region.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34297
    Points : 34815
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Nov 22, 2020 1:39 pm

    Russian zone of interest for the next 20 years is the arctic.

    There is no need for carriers for Russia.

    So Russia is only allowed to look at areas near its borders?

    It would not need helicopter carrier and destroyers and cruisers if it is focusing on the arctic for the next 20 years... why are they upgrading the Kuznetsov and two Kirovs and Slavas if their only interest is the Arctic?

    Why bother with port facilities in the Sudan if they are focused on the Arctic?

    LMFS Why do you think Russia may be the most powerful military in this world? What arguments speak for Russia and not the US or China? Russia has the most modern nuclear power, but the US has more air force, power projection beyond CONUS, etc.

    Possibly the fact that Russian missiles currently in service can't be stopped by western defences and the new missiles on the way are five times faster...

    China doesn't have nuclear powered carriers right now. It would be so easy for UK to destroy China.

    How?

    A British task force going to Hong Kong is going to be well within reach of land based air power from Hong Kong and the Chinese mainland... how would the UK destroy China exactly?


    Reality is that long range missiles dominate the seas today.

    Based on what?

    And even assuming they do... ships on their own are terribly vulnerable to surprise attack... having a carrier with AWACS means you are much better protected... not less protected.


    Carriers are only good against unarmed countries or CIA invebtion like ISIS.

    Carries are not much good for WWIII, but if you want to operate surface ships in international waters they will be much much safer with the air support provided by a fixed wing carrier.

    Russia does not need to use them as US uses theirs, also because they do not need to attack and destroy a third world country every few years just to show that they mean business...

    Russia needs more global access to the world than the Soviet Union did because most of the Soviet trade partners were eastern europe and therefore on Soviet borders. For the rest of the world access and trade was limited by its naval focus on dealing with US carrier groups.

    Currently Russia has most of these lethal long range missiles you say make carriers obsolete, but even they are continuing to upgrade the K.


    Nevertheless they can also have an important use for deterrence (e.g. sending one off the coast of Venezuela) and also to show that the military industry and shipbuilding of Russia is not inferior to what the Soviet union had.

    They are going to be spending large amounts of money on oil tankers and gas transports not to mention destroyers and cruisers... all of which will be much better protected and safe if there are aircraft nearby to offer support and protection.

    Russia does not try to conquer CONUS so no point in comparing power projection capacities to such extent.

    Indeed for all Americas superiority in carrier numbers it is intended for land strikes that will bring those ships within the attack range of some very capable anti ship missiles and air defence systems which will largely negate and even defeat such forces.

    In comparison Russian carrier groups will be for defending Russia and will likely be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleets essentially operating in the arctic ocean countering US ABM cruisers trying to intercept Russian ICBMs... Ironic because their new ones will be heading over the south pole rather than the north pole anyway...

    So all of Russia's security issues are land based and not on remote shores.

    Agree regarding current security issues, but tell me... if Russia decides to improve relations with countries around the world and Biden out of spite decides to start a regime change campaign to over throw all the countries that try to improve relations with Russia... up to and including mercenary invasions and overthrows... and even naval blockades... is Russia going to make speeches in the UN... will they send a strongly worded letter to the US government?

    If you want to have international trade partners you need to be able to get to them with force... not to invade them, but to support them and help them... even just exercise with them so they know someone has their back.

    Even though Russia has been helping Venezuela keep the yanqui wolves at bay, it is not going to go to war with America
    on its behalf. If it was going to secure itself for a war with the US in Latin America and Africa, then it would have been
    making more effort to build up some sort of carrier fleet.

    The purpose is not war with the US, but having carriers operating with cruisers and destroyers makes them much more capable and effective in almost every role they might perform.

    Of course, it is possible that Russia is making a strategic mistake. Having large carrier fleets which it can afford since costs
    are not insane like in the corrupt USA, would be a useful deterrent to the yanquis in their conventional colonial adventures.
    But there must be a reason why Russia is not willing to counter the yanquis this way.

    Russia is not the worlds police and it does not want the costs or responsibility to counter the evil US influence in the world, but then some countries want the kool aide and don't want to be saved from US culture. there are however, some countries around the world that don't want to be oppressed by a 1% that robs and steals from the public to make themselves richer while the majority slowly go backwards trying keep up the payments to the banks and credit card companies...

    Russia needs carriers for Russia... not to look as cool as the US and certainly not to have the biggest ship or whatever bullshit.

    The aircraft need to be the best they can make... ie right now Su-57s for fighters, but also an AWACS platform that can be land based for smaller countries or to fill gaps in big countries like detecting targets in mountains etc and manage smaller fighter groups to make them more effective...

    They should both sell rather well internationally too.

    In open seas they add the advantage of having an aiborne AWACS and fighters that can do anti ship mission but they will also attract more enemy ships and submarines.

    Actually with AWACS aircraft your surface ships will be harder to find because that AWACS aircraft can send its target information to the ships so they have a live airborne view of the airspace around the ships down to sea level which together with long range lower wave OTH radar on the larger ships that wont be detected by enemy aircraft can give information on targets 400km to 5,000km away the way the land based versions do...

    If your opponent is USA or Russia, then carriers have a timelife of some hours. They will probavly not see action.

    You can move them anywhere you want... if Russia is in conflict with the US then a Russian carrier with Su-57s amongst Cruisers and Destroyers effectively with the equivalent of S-500, S-400, S-350, plus BUK, TOR, and Pantsir means a pretty tough air defence to deal with... of course along with mach 9 missiles that fly at over 40km altitude in a manouvering and non ballistic flight mode with ranges of over 1,000km... they might not last more than a few hours in a shooting war but I would think the west is going to lose more men in a couple of hours than they have lost in the post WWII period.

    More important during peace time an aircraft carrier means targets that appear low and fast from any direction can have a fighter scrambled to investigate... instead of the surface action group commander making a decision as to whether it is civilian or military... threat or non threat...


    IMO the light carrier of 40kt presented few years ago is a perfect carrier. Just need 2 nuks reactors and one catapult for AWACS. Supercarriers are useless and will eat the money for frigates and destroyers.

    Light carriers cost a large fraction of a real carrier without the benefits...

    Also, your remark about VTOL's, tell me is Russia building any? You also know the two Helio carriers they are making would only be able to house less than 10.

    VSTOL fighters are fools gold.... the F-35 would be a much better aircraft without the requirement for VSTOL performance in one version.

    I understand the idea of standardisation... but because of the US Marines the F-35 is not the stealthy F-16 it could have been.

    > Carriers are not tools of imperialism but simply tools for the use of air power at sea, that is, with missions of naval strike, ASW and AD of the fleet.
    > Current paradigm of the use of carriers as per US practice:
    - Is not "WWII style" since back then the carriers were used for sea control and not for land attack
    - Is a doctrinal aberration caused by US imperialism and an overwhelming international supremacy, and should never be used as a reference for the development of the VMF

    Carriers don't have to be tools of imperialism, they can just be there to protect the ships they operate with who perform the missions and roles you want them to perform.

    The misuse by the west should not cloud your judgement of their use and function.

    Exactly, USN carriers are focussed in achieving sortie generation rates and firepower to compete with land based forces, which is an absurd proposition to start with, while they don't even have a decent AShM, which would be the first step for a naval strike carrier.

    Their focus on land attack means getting heavily laiden bombers airborne and then fighter and jammer escorts and AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft as well.

    The Russians just need cats to get AWACS in the air and its fighters can take off without them to operate in flights around the ships using radar information from the AWACS and their own IRST and passive radar use...

    But if you face a powerfull country like Israel, France or Russia near their border your carriers are dead meat.

    Bullshit. A Russian surface ship group would have an excellent IADS.... any country trying to sink them would seriously suffer rather badly... and with an aircraft carrier supporting those surface ships those countries will pay even more because the AWACS platforms will allow better managed air defence... not to mention missions to attack land targets with cruise missiles could defeat airbases from which enemy aircraft are coming from...

    You seem to overestimate a carrier. It's just a a floating airport that need 1 hit to stop its operations. It's easy to spot with long range radars and its aircraft have nothing more than ground based aircraft. It carries around 48 fighters.

    With the Kuznetsov it has the equivalent of 8 Pantsir air defence vehicles with gatling guns instead of twin barrel guns, plus the equivalent of about 18 TOR vehicles able to shoot down on its own 16 targets at a time.

    Long range radars can be detected and targeted if an attack develops... 48 fighters operating within a Russian IADS that includes S-500, S-400, S-350, BUK, TOR, Pantsir, Tunguska, as well as jammers and EW and of course fighter aircraft and their AAMs.

    With 48 su-35, an A-100 and a 12 su-34 for anti shipping supported by 3 gorshkov class in defensive position and 2 kilo subs in advance position, it won't touch your country.

    If you have Yasen, Tupolevs, kinzhal and other kirovs it becomes just a practice target.

    A US carrier trying to attack Russian territory would be a waste of time, but a US carrier in the Southern Atlantic or South Pacific is a huge force multiplier than increases the fire power needed to take on any group of ships.

    Russia does not want Carriers to invade the US, but to keep their cruisers and destroyers safe no matter where they are around the world...

    It needs that capacity so it can create solid trade links against the wishes of the west who have proven they will try all sorts of dirty shit to stop and contain Russia and China.

    Having 10 billion $ carrier with 3 billion $ worth of aircraft on it to protect water of Pacific and Atlantic from US carriers ?

    Except a Russian carrier might be a multi hull design of 40K tons with the capacity of an 80K ton ship.... nobody is suggesting Russia build Ford class white elephants...

    Yasen are enough for that. Find and destroy instead of 24/7 defence is the answer. With the crew of 1 carrier you could man 10-15 yasen and for the price of 1 carrier + 40 aircraft you could buy some 10-15 Yasen.

    How is a Yasen going to take and secure air control over a group of surface ships... how much early warning will a Yasen provide of a low altitude attack on a group of ships away from Russian airspace?


    They can attack undetected from hundreds of km. Cruise missiles are the answer.

    Every Russian ship will have launch tubes for cruise missiles... the Kalibr M will have 4,500km range missiles...

    You do realize Russian interests go beyond the coastline?

    Russian interests have to go beyond their coastline... EU and US sanctions and pressure mean business with them will never be normal... they have to look elsewhere and there is the rest of the world to trade with who don't have massive chips on their shoulders...

    Any ship coming close to a well armed country is dead meat.

    During times of open war.... which will be about 0.001 percent of its operational life span...

    Besides with hypersonic and long range subsonic missiles... Russian ships don't need to go anywhere near enemy countries coastlines unless they want to.

    Only good ships to have are subs and ships that can launch cruise missiles more than 2500km away.

    Which is all Russian ships... and if they replace the Granit launchers with UKSK then that also includes the Kuznetsov.

    In fact what you are describing is the Russian Navy... it is the US Navy that needs to get close so its planes can enter enemy territory and attack ground targets supported by inflight refuelling aircraft and jammer and fighter escorts.

    The Russian carrier remains with the ships and offers air borne early warning and also air defence of the ships.

    If it wants to the Russian ships can launch 4,500km range land attack cruise missiles to hit targets from 2,000km offshore to reach targets 2,500km inland.... any enemy air force going 2,000km offshore to engage those ships will then have to take on enemy fighters operating over their own airbase with full SAM support with full AAM loadouts with no external fuel tanks needed...

    I would say the only air forces that could challenge such a Russian force would be HATO forces in which case those missiles would be nuclear armed.

    Even US and its 20 carriers can't protect its interest 24/7.

    That is true, but US ships around the world are much safer when operating within flight range of a nearby US land air base or US aircraft carrier...

    The Israelis attacked the USS Liberty for hours after misidentifying it as an Egyptian freighter... but when they intercepted a call from a nearby US carrier saying Tomcats were inbound they suddenly realised the stars and stripes flag on the main deck...

    Carriers and carrier aircraft support greatly increase identification performance all round...

    If the AEGIS cruiser that shot down that Iranian Airbus had asked for Fighter support an F-14 could have flown over and visually identified the target as an Airbus and not another F-14 and just under 300 people would not have been murdered in cold blood.

    the size & skills matter in the economy too. The RF economy= Spain's; at best, PRC's is 2nd only to the US now. Spain has 2 small LHAs & is allied to the US. Russia better follow her example or ruin her other developmental plans.

    Russias economy will not grow if she is land locked in terms of trade partners, she needs international trade to sell her products and buy goods she can use.

    they have IRPs, IL-78s & MiG-31s as escorts to cover mid-oceans from Russia & overseas bases;

    All of their MiG-31s will be defending Russian airspace... not pissing away fuel operating over empty sea that is just stupid.

    USN operates on a 3:1 ratio. ie you need 3 carriers to have 1 operating at all times. With their huge fleet they can surge to 6-8 maybe even as many as 10 carriers in some operational windows.

    They also have plans to dominate every ocean area on the planet so they need 10-12 carriers to ensure they can have 6-7 carriers always available.

    Russia does not need that... she has two main naval bases... Pacific and Northern so having 2-3 new carriers... CVNs along with an upgraded Kuznetsov would be fine...

    Before Russia begins building aircraft carriers, it must rebuild its fleet. Even the amount they are building now is very little. The Pacific Fleet needs a lot of corvettes and frigates to offset the enormous advantages of China, Japan, and South Korea at least a little. The single-class 22350 ships cannot make up for this, where Japan itself has much greater forces than the Russian VMF in the Pacific.

    Very true, but before they start mass producing enormous numbers of corvettes and Frigates they need to make sure the designs work in the different locations all year round and for a variety of different roles and missions.... the designs themselves are modular and use standardised weapons and sensors and systems and equipment... so once the layouts and designs are finalised they should be able to mass produce them rather rapidly and in decent numbers... and once that is achieved then scaling up the design to make destroyers and cruisers is the next obvious step.

    Obviously destroyers and cruisers are not simply scaled up vessels, they need larger volumes of defensive and offensive weapons and they need to operate much further from port for much longer periods...

    Plus all the infrastructure in home ports to support all these ships and the support ships they need to operate with them.

    I must say that I am pleased they are getting the basics right and making mine sweeper ships and other types many modern navies neglect.... without them a navy can be trapped in port till the enemy mines are dealt with....[/quote]


    Last edited by GarryB on Mon Nov 23, 2020 7:31 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 11 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Sep 29, 2022 8:07 pm