Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Isos1500 is not bad wheb they get food and sleeping for free. They don't spend everyday as much as a normal guy. That's all kept in bank. And most are young and still don't have family to spend money on.
+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
Isos- Posts : 10612
Points : 10598
Join date : 2015-11-06
miketheterrible likes this post
miketheterrible- Posts : 7403
Points : 7377
Join date : 2016-11-06
- Post n°427
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
miketheterrible Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:04 pm
Isos wrote:1500 is not bad wheb they get food and sleeping for free. They don't spend everyday as much as a normal guy. That's all kept in bank. And most are young and still don't have family to spend money on.
Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.
I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills. So there is that.
If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.
Some have, walked out rather wealthy. But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.
LMFS- Posts : 5022
Points : 5022
Join date : 2018-03-03
RTN wrote:
Surface fleet can be protected with unmanned surface combatants even in the absence of air power.
I don't think it can, an USN demanding to have 15 CSG plus turning LHDs in LHAs to carry additional fighters is the proof. So I will believe it when I see USN ditching their carriers and LHAs. The same I will believe air power is not necessary when I see countries renouncing to having air forces.
The U.S Navy is already deploying Unmanned Surface Combatants.
First of all, their carriers are not going anywhere. Second, they have more carriers than the rest of the world combined. Third, USN has requirements which have nothing to do with those of the VMF. Trying to police the world ocean and any hot spot, including waging war on entire countries, means an absurd amount of resources need to be available. Besides, the structure of the USN is totally carrier-centric, meaning they are vulnerable to any technology that focuses on neutralizing them. So it is only logical that they try, on the one hand, to increase the number of hulls in the most effective way they see possible, and on the other, to decentralize their operations to reduce the risk the carriers will need to incur.
The VMF on the other hand:
> Has no interest in policing the whole world ocean
> Has already implemented the "distributed lethality" concept and is further reinforcing it with Tsirkon
> Does not suffer the severe doctrinal confusion USN does in thinking that carriers are land attack tools
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20437261-navy-large-unmanned-surface-and-undersea-vehicles-background-and-issues-for-congress-dec-23-2020
Thanks for the document, I admit I have not read it yet
You can also...like if I have finite missiles and I need to salvo them to get a good hit/kill at range, I really want to save those for a worthy target like a carrier. If I have to swarm and overcome the unmanned VLS ships first, that's going to dilute my killing blows and give a lot more advanced warning at the absolute worst to the human filled ships.
USN should develop a proper AShM instead of relying on such way of thinking, a missile is always way cheaper than a hull. And missiles like Tsirkon mean one unit equals one mission kill for almost any size of vessel, even if it does not sink a carrier for instance, it will create fires and damage toe deck to the point it will be removed from the fight for enough time to not make a big difference in the outcome of a conflict.
In general I don't see any combat capability of the unmanned ships that manned don't have, and in fact they appear to be a cheap approach to military capacities, since there will be no one to repair potential failures or combat damage. They will be more compact for sure, but steel is not the most expensive component of ships.
Now China is following the U.S Navy's concept of Unmanned Ships.
All navies will adopt unmanned vehicles
Backman- Posts : 2037
Points : 2045
Join date : 2020-11-11
- Post n°429
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
Backman Sun Jan 10, 2021 8:45 pm
mnztr wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, there is a thing called purchasing power parity
US soldiers are paid like shit compared to living standards.
US PPP GDP per capita is 65K, Russia 29K So whatever. 1514/month vs 360? No PPP is gonna bridge that gulf. Yes 1500 sucks, but they get board and lodging as well so its just spending money.
I read Russian pilots get $2000 USD a month. Canadian air force pilots get $4500 USD. PPP adjusted , it's about the same.
kvs- Posts : 13965
Points : 14110
Join date : 2014-09-10
Location : Turdope's Kanada
The claims of wealthy Americans is hilarious. If every American actually made $50,000 per year that would mean that every
family with a child would be making $150,000 per year. GDP per capita =/= income per worker.
Then we have the total discounting by assorted know-it-alls of monthly living costs in the USA compared to Russia.
In spite of accounting dirty tricks that utterly ignore house prices and their rise and the resulting impact on US
standards of living, in the real world we have many Americans walking away from mortages and the houses the "own".
The median US mortgage payment is $1,500 and that does not include the property tax. The median US rent is
for a single bedroom apartment is about $1,100 and for a two bedroom unit it is $1,400. The median US family
income is $64,000 (not $150,000). The median yearly US food cost is about $5,000 (the average is around $9,000
due to skew from spending by the rich).
So we have 64,000 - 12 * (1,400) = 47,200 family median income which can be used to compare to Russia. In
Russia, people spend about three times less on food in dollar terms. They also do not have to spend over $10,000
per year on health care, pension investments and insurance. So we have a more apples to apples comparison
reference point of $37,200. Then we consider the costs for food and consumer goods. Note that I am not
accounting for property tax and utilities in the above discount. Russians pay much less for those too. But
I removed all the money that US families never really see as disposable income unless they want to move to a tent
under some bridge.
The average US household is two parents and a child (three people). So we have a $1,033 per month income per
member or $1,550 per the two workers averaged. Hardly the usual BS of $4,200 per month.
family with a child would be making $150,000 per year. GDP per capita =/= income per worker.
Then we have the total discounting by assorted know-it-alls of monthly living costs in the USA compared to Russia.
In spite of accounting dirty tricks that utterly ignore house prices and their rise and the resulting impact on US
standards of living, in the real world we have many Americans walking away from mortages and the houses the "own".
The median US mortgage payment is $1,500 and that does not include the property tax. The median US rent is
for a single bedroom apartment is about $1,100 and for a two bedroom unit it is $1,400. The median US family
income is $64,000 (not $150,000). The median yearly US food cost is about $5,000 (the average is around $9,000
due to skew from spending by the rich).
So we have 64,000 - 12 * (1,400) = 47,200 family median income which can be used to compare to Russia. In
Russia, people spend about three times less on food in dollar terms. They also do not have to spend over $10,000
per year on health care, pension investments and insurance. So we have a more apples to apples comparison
reference point of $37,200. Then we consider the costs for food and consumer goods. Note that I am not
accounting for property tax and utilities in the above discount. Russians pay much less for those too. But
I removed all the money that US families never really see as disposable income unless they want to move to a tent
under some bridge.
The average US household is two parents and a child (three people). So we have a $1,033 per month income per
member or $1,550 per the two workers averaged. Hardly the usual BS of $4,200 per month.
miketheterrible likes this post
mnztr- Posts : 1994
Points : 2038
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°431
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
mnztr Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:16 am
miketheterrible wrote:mnztr wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, there is a thing called purchasing power parity
US soldiers are paid like shit compared to living standards.
US PPP GDP per capita is 65K, Russia 29K So whatever. 1514/month vs 360? No PPP is gonna bridge that gulf. Yes 1500 sucks, but they get board and lodging as well so its just spending money.
Actually, yes it does bridge the gap. I think KVS figured out by a measure of 6.
You are too stupid to even know the difference between PPP and Nominal. I'll give you a hint - valuation based upon costs within the nation and how far it's currency takes you. Big Mac index is a good indicator.
And they also get a lot more than you claim.
That link you share is around 4x, but based on first had info from people I know it Moscow its not peachy. Pensions are horrible. Yes I know what PPP is. But my original point is, very little of the 800B the US spends on "defence" actually translates to warfighting capacity. So what you say actually support this.
I think it's time you sit down child. You know not what you talk about
It was Awara group that figured out that what one makes in Moscow let's say is equivalent to one who makes in Chicago.
https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russia-vs-america-real-income-comparison/
LMFS- Posts : 5022
Points : 5022
Join date : 2018-03-03
kvs wrote:Having a couple of full sized carriers would be nice. But Russia needs to focus on deploying both missile and attack submarines.
Being able to hit key targets on US soil is by far the most important defense asset for Russia. A carrier is a 3rd world policing
tool. In that function, Russia needs to be able to counteract yanqui aggression against 3rd countries.
I think the priorities are crystal-clear for Russia, they have taken care of the SSBN first of all, now they are slowly bringing the old SS(G)N back online and creating more, then they will expand the oceanic fleet. That this is a long term, perfectly conscious plan is clear from the fact that some subs have been more than a decade waiting for modernization and have only started recently, when the SSBN had been processed. They know this is necessary but is a multi-decade work, that is why there are strategic development documents for the navy to 2030 and 2050.
Backman- Posts : 2037
Points : 2045
Join date : 2020-11-11
- Post n°433
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
Backman Mon Jan 11, 2021 3:35 pm
Russia has a bigger sub fleet than China still I think. Russia has tons of subs and always has. Its overkill.
Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.
They say that the cost of the Project 23000E or Shtorm super carrier would be 5.5 billion which is a bit much. But the Lamantin (project 11430E) is smaller and should be cheaper.
Lamatin pictured here
Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.
They say that the cost of the Project 23000E or Shtorm super carrier would be 5.5 billion which is a bit much. But the Lamantin (project 11430E) is smaller and should be cheaper.
Lamatin pictured here
LMFS- Posts : 5022
Points : 5022
Join date : 2018-03-03
Well it is not clear what Lamantin is, the model they displayed is directly an old Ulyanovsk scale model with another superstructure and another label, and that's it. But they said it would be 350 m long and what not. The point of it was for Nevskoe to make a stand and say "we are here, we developed Ulyanovsk and we have all the know-how needed to create a modern carried based on it" IMHO that may be low technical risk but high risk of opportunity, when Krylov manages to have an air wing just a bit smaller with a ship half the size, or a carrier with more aircraft and significantly smaller, like the third, intermediate version they talked about at the Army 2019 IIRC but either did not show publicly or shared the hull with the Shtorm-KM.
Isos- Posts : 10612
Points : 10598
Join date : 2015-11-06
Those carriers are only designs made quickly by some engineers to sell the idea of a carrier.
If they go for a carrier they will first tell them what they want about its specs and then the design bureau will make few designs to show them what they can create.
As of now those designs are only fiction.
Most are talking here about a 70kt carrier but you must be aware that it would need 70 su-57K and that can't happen just like that. The air force will get its 76 su-57 in about 10 years. So the carrier will cost 5 billion but the sukhois on it will add another couple of billion. Then the developement of an AWACS will also add another few billions and buy 4 of them will easily cost 400 millions more. Electromagnetic catapults decelopement will also cost some millions too.
That's a challenging project for which IMO they are not ready at all. They need to see first how their shipyards handle a 40kt helicopter carrier first. They won't sign any contract for a carrier before they finish the heli carrier for sure which could take 12 years max.
If they go for a carrier they will first tell them what they want about its specs and then the design bureau will make few designs to show them what they can create.
As of now those designs are only fiction.
Most are talking here about a 70kt carrier but you must be aware that it would need 70 su-57K and that can't happen just like that. The air force will get its 76 su-57 in about 10 years. So the carrier will cost 5 billion but the sukhois on it will add another couple of billion. Then the developement of an AWACS will also add another few billions and buy 4 of them will easily cost 400 millions more. Electromagnetic catapults decelopement will also cost some millions too.
That's a challenging project for which IMO they are not ready at all. They need to see first how their shipyards handle a 40kt helicopter carrier first. They won't sign any contract for a carrier before they finish the heli carrier for sure which could take 12 years max.
walle83- Posts : 929
Points : 941
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Sweden
- Post n°436
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
walle83 Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:21 pm
Backman wrote:Russia has a bigger sub fleet than China still I think. Russia has tons of subs and always has. Its overkill.
Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.
They say that the cost of the Project 23000E or Shtorm super carrier would be 5.5 billion which is a bit much. But the Lamantin (project 11430E) is smaller and should be cheaper.
Lamatin pictured here
Russia and China has about the same number of subs today, ~60.
And Russia needs all new subs it can build, not less. Alot of older Sovet era types need to be replaced.
Isos- Posts : 10612
Points : 10598
Join date : 2015-11-06
Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.
A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.
China can't compete.
A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.
China can't compete.
mnztr- Posts : 1994
Points : 2038
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°438
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
mnztr Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:08 pm
miketheterrible wrote:
Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.
I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills. So there is that.
If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.
Some have, walked out rather wealthy. But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.
Canada promotes very quickly and has the highest percentage of officers in any military. I once inquired about joning the pilot program and you start at around 60K a year and are making 90 within a year if you have a university education. Problem with being a pilot in Canada is all bases are in places you would not want to live...except maybe Comox BC.
mnztr- Posts : 1994
Points : 2038
Join date : 2018-01-21
- Post n°439
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
mnztr Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:21 pm
kvs wrote:
The average US household is two parents and a child (three people). So we have a $1,033 per month income per
member or $1,550 per the two workers averaged. Hardly the usual BS of $4,200 per month.
I get that the average may be skewed by very high income earners, so if you look at the mean, that is 68K. Yes there are poor areas in the USA and poor people, lots of them. There are poor people everywhere, even in Norway.
If you look at the PPP median income (2010 PPP dollars) for individuals, in the USA its 35600 and in Russia its 16800. Yes things are more costly but PPP takes that into account. I know enough Russians to know how things are there from people in the Russian upper classes to know people in the West are better of in terms of material wealth. Including people that send money to their loved ones. Also loans in Russia are EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. Auto loans over 10%!!! OMG.
LMFS- Posts : 5022
Points : 5022
Join date : 2018-03-03
Isos wrote:Those carriers are only designs made quickly by some engineers to sell the idea of a carrier.
They are a concept, the cheap dismissal as "fictions" is out of place. In the case of the Krylov bureau they include a breakthrough hull design that implies thousands of hours of design and testing, they are not done by the PR department of the company the day before the fair trade.
Most are talking here about a 70kt carrier but you must be aware that it would need 70 su-57K and that can't happen just like that.
Even an USN supercarrier has just 48 fighters max, a Russian CVN of that size would probably carry three sqd or roughly half of the amount you said. But of course, the plane needs to be developed and KnAAZ needs to grow production to the point where they can attend both VKS and VMF, and the priority is clear by the first as of now. As said, for the new carriers they have given themselves time so all the pieces can fall into place.
walle83 wrote:And Russia needs all new subs it can build, not less. Alot of older Sovet era types need to be replaced.
Russia is now maybe struggling to build and modernize subs fast enough to avoid their numbers from falling due to the ageing of old Soviet units. Middle of this decade the situation may improve, as new classes get produced reliably and the numbers start to actually increase, plus old hulls get modernized. So from 2030 onwards it is perfectly possible that Russia does not need to produce subs full steam. But in any case, the productive capacities at Sevmash are probably not going to be challenged if they start building a carrier too. Also not the VMF budget, since in past years the actual problem was to spend the money that had been assigned, due to the lack of productive capacities in the industry. Thee is a lot of people making assumptions about what VMF cannot do, but few if any have provided any shred of proof until now.
Backman- Posts : 2037
Points : 2045
Join date : 2020-11-11
- Post n°441
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
Backman Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:43 pm
Isos wrote:Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.
A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.
China can't compete.
Yeah. The popular YT channel Sub Brief , says the same. He even says that Russian subs have things that US subs still doesn't have. Like auto loaders and foam fire suppression systems, better crew amenities ect This is why i keep saying Russia should treat the carrier, even the Kuznetsov, the way it treats the subs.
Most are talking here about a 70kt carrier but you must be aware that it would need 70 su-57K and that can't happen just like that. The air force will get its 76 su-57 in about 10 years. So the carrier will cost 5 billion but the sukhois on it will add another couple of billion. Then the developement of an AWACS will also add another few billions and buy 4 of them will easily cost 400 millions more. Electromagnetic catapults decelopement will also cost some millions too.
Fair points. Im probably getting ahead of myself. Maybe the carrier should have half Mig 29's and half su 57's. But there's zero reason that the Kuznetsov should be an embarrassment. It should look no different than its Chinese sisters.
Isos likes this post
Backman- Posts : 2037
Points : 2045
Join date : 2020-11-11
- Post n°442
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
Backman Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:55 pm
mnztr wrote:miketheterrible wrote:
Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.
I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills. So there is that.
If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.
Some have, walked out rather wealthy. But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.
Canada promotes very quickly and has the highest percentage of officers in any military. I once inquired about joning the pilot program and you start at around 60K a year and are making 90 within a year if you have a university education. Problem with being a pilot in Canada is all bases are in places you would not want to live...except maybe Comox BC.
Im from Vancouver but had an oilfield career in Edmonton. Edmonton isn't as bad as it looks. I loved it there.
90k is great except taxes. You'd be paying 20- 25% income tax all in. Russia's income tax is a flat 13%. 9% for business owners.
miketheterrible likes this post
GarryB- Posts : 35733
Points : 36259
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°443
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
GarryB Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:53 am
A carrier is a 3rd world policing
tool.
The west have used carriers to impliment imperial ambitions... but also to secure their own sea lines of communication and commerce.... otherwise why would UK and France need their own carriers? They have them for situations where they can't get the US to join in... in other words when their interests require action but their other allies are not interested.
Russia has no real allies with aircraft carriers that they can rely on, so they need their own carriers.
The alternative is for Russia to rely on others to protect Russian interests around the world and you and I know that isn't going to happen... in fact the US Navy will actively work against Russian interests just to be bastards... the US is in Syria just to be assholes to Russia... they could care less about the Syrian people and what they want or need.... they are supporting terrorists and murderers and criminals in Syria...
In that function, Russia needs to be able to counteract yanqui aggression against 3rd countries.
Russia does not need carriers to become the new world policeman to save the day and foil the evil plans of the US. Russia needs to be able to help allies and maintain contacts with countries otherwise out of reach from other Russian assets and forces.
Why would Venezuela maintain good relations with Russia if the result is going to be crushing pressure inflicted by the US... Russia does not need to be able to defeat the US Navy, but it needs to be able to send ships to support Venezuela and other countries around the planet to relieve any pressure the US puts on them.
Sending them food or medicine or equipment to process their own oil into fuel they can sell on the market... sending them farm equipment so they can develop their own food production capacity... their climate is different enough from Russia that Russia could sell certain types of food that don't grow well there and buy foods from Venezuela that don't grow well or are expensive to grow in Russia...ie mutually beneficial trade and cooperation.
Russia has a bigger sub fleet than China still I think. Russia has tons of subs and always has. Its overkill.
Russia is making excellent progress and is making new subs that are second to none... they seem to have the corvette and frigate designs that they want so now they need to start producing them in significant numbers and to start looking at destroyers and some cruisers.
The upgrades of the old ships... old destroyers and old cruisers should be an opportunity to test new large radar arrays and new large sonar arrays that simply wont fit on smaller ships... on the upgraded ships they can bug test and refine the designs so that when they are ready to lay down new destroyers and new cruisers the sensors and some subsystems will be mature which will reduce risk and make designs easier and less likely to have serious problems.
They need to have destroyers in production and be laying down a cruiser before they consider laying down a new CVN in my opinion.
New equipment tested in the CV Kuznetsov will be interesting and will help in finalising the new design but they need to get the K back in the water and operating for those tests to be done... a couple of years to test in different ports and different climates/seasons and then they can apply what they have learned to perhaps a redesign/upgrade, or prototypes for production which can be integrated into the new designs.
Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.
Would look better with the escort of some brand new destroyers and brand new cruisers. The Kuznetsov will look good with two Kirovs and some upgraded Slavas and Udaloys in escort too.
They won't sign any contract for a carrier before they finish the heli carrier for sure which could take 12 years max.
Assuming no cockups the 2 helicopter carriers currently in production will likely be followed by two more the same, so your 12 year estimate is probably rather accurate.... but the fact is that in 12 years time they will have completed production and have about 40-50 Corvettes spread across 5 fleets, and probably about 36 Frigates spread across five fleets and will be in the middle of producing 24-26 destroyers for spreading across four fleets and likely laid down at least one new cruiser of which they will probably produce 8-12 with 2 or three in each of the four fleets and a lot of the cold war boats will be entering the reserve or scrapyard... so by then a new CVN would be a good idea to lay down... but that will take at the very least 6 years... they should be good at the modular production of big ships by then and by the time it is finished there should be a variety of manned and unmanned aircraft to operate from them.
And Russia needs all new subs it can build, not less. Alot of older Sovet era types need to be replaced.
Production is increasing and the new types are very capable. Most subs however have a very specific role and many are only of actual use during WWIII, whereas aircraft carriers will be more useful in both peace time as well as during limited conflicts.
China can't compete.
Fortunately China does not have to compete. Russia is not their enemy and China is not an enemy of Russia... it is the US that is adopting that role, which will be a real challenge for China... though made simpler because for now China is only interested in a fairly limited region but later will expand, while the US has to cover all the worlds oceans... much harder and very distracting.
Even an USN supercarrier has just 48 fighters max,
That is because they also carry strike aircraft... which also require fighters to support which further reduces the number of fighters available to support operations defending the ships.
A good rule of thumb is that for every 1,000 tons of ship weight should equal one fighter aircraft... so for instance the CharlesDG it carries about 30 Rafales and is 40K ton... a 100K ton carrier should be able to operate about 90 fighters...
Obviously most of the time they wont operate with that many fighters on board, but with stores and accommodation for 90 fighters it means 50 fighters can operate for much longer and have more weapons at their disposal and you can always fly extra fighters to an area and out to the carrier to boost numbers.
When the full compliment is on board the deck is usually full so to take planes down into the hangar deck for maintenance or inspection you often have to shift around the other planes to make space... a massive game of 3D tetris... and pain in the ass...
LMFS- Posts : 5022
Points : 5022
Join date : 2018-03-03
GarryB wrote:That is because they also carry strike aircraft... which also require fighters to support which further reduces the number of fighters available to support operations defending the ships
No, I mean 4 sqd strike/fighter aircraft. There are also a lot of helos, AWACS, tankers, ASW planes, COD, jamming aircraft depending on the age and mission. But not more than 44 combat aircraft like F-18 or F-35 as far as I know.
A good rule of thumb is that for every 1,000 tons of ship weight should equal one fighter aircraft... so for instance the CharlesDG it carries about 30 Rafales and is 40K ton... a 100K ton carrier should be able to operate about 90 fighters...
It is one aircraft, not fighter, per kt, but it is also not exact. Is far less on the Kuznetsov, also less on the USN CVN, but it would be more in the semicatamaran designs proposed by Krylov.
When the full compliment is on board the deck is usually full so to take planes down into the hangar deck for maintenance or inspection you often have to shift around the other planes to make space... a massive game of 3D tetris... and pain in the ass...
Yes, totally, with more than 20-30 fighters in the deck you cannot really sustain operations.
GarryB- Posts : 35733
Points : 36259
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°445
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
GarryB Tue Jan 12, 2021 6:38 am
According to wiki... yeah, I know... not the best source:
So typical would be 36 Hornets plus 12 Hornets... which is 48 hornets, plus 6 Hornets plus say 6 AWACS and transport and 8 helicopters.... which is about 68 aircraft in total... but that is typical... full load would be more fighters for various purposes... they would keep most on the deck, but would be operational...
Yes, one aircraft, but also US carriers carry rather less helicopters than the Russians do too...
Launching strike aircraft makes no sense if you are not launching fighter escorts and jammer aircraft to help them penetrate enemy air defences...
Not so much an issue for a Russian carrier because they wont be carrying strike aircraft and the fighters and AWACS are there to protect the fleet, not invade some country.
A typical carrier air wing can include 24–36 F/A-18E or F Super Hornets as strike fighters; two squadrons of 10–12 F/A-18C Hornets, with one of these often provided by the U.S. Marine Corps (VMFA), also as strike fighters; 4–6 EA-18G Growlers for electronic warfare; 4–6 E-2C or D Hawkeyes for airborne early warning (AEW), C-2 Greyhounds used for logistics (to be replaced by MV-22 Ospreys); and a Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron of 6–8 SH-60F and HH-60H Seahawks.
So typical would be 36 Hornets plus 12 Hornets... which is 48 hornets, plus 6 Hornets plus say 6 AWACS and transport and 8 helicopters.... which is about 68 aircraft in total... but that is typical... full load would be more fighters for various purposes... they would keep most on the deck, but would be operational...
It is one aircraft, not fighter, per kt, but it is also not exact. Is far less on the Kuznetsov, also less on the USN CVN, but it would be more in the semicatamaran designs proposed by Krylov.
Yes, one aircraft, but also US carriers carry rather less helicopters than the Russians do too...
Yes, totally, with more than 20-30 fighters in the deck you cannot really sustain operations.
Launching strike aircraft makes no sense if you are not launching fighter escorts and jammer aircraft to help them penetrate enemy air defences...
Not so much an issue for a Russian carrier because they wont be carrying strike aircraft and the fighters and AWACS are there to protect the fleet, not invade some country.
walle83- Posts : 929
Points : 941
Join date : 2016-11-12
Location : Sweden
- Post n°446
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
walle83 Tue Jan 12, 2021 11:37 am
Isos wrote:Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.
A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.
China can't compete.
Russia might still have an edge in submarine technology but to say that China cant compete in any way is pushing it.
Since 1995 (21 years) Russia has recivied 8 Kilos, 1 Lada, 1 Yasen, 4 Boreis for its Navy (total=15). Compare that to China with 12 Kilos, 12 Songs, 20 Yuans, 6 Jins (SSN), and 6 Shang (SSBN) (Total=56).
China has basicly replaced all of its cold war era subs with new generations, Russia is still relying mostly on Soviet era class submarines.
Does this mean that China has reached the same level as Russia in capabilities? Probobly not, but they have catched up quite a bit. Will this trend continue for 5 to 10 years i would say they have surpassed them.
RTN- Posts : 697
Points : 676
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT
China already is competing. They are manufacturing far more ships and submarines than Russia or even the US. Re Chinese submarine technology not much is known about their sophistication. Wrong to suggest it is not cutting edge.Isos wrote:Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.
A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.
China can't compete.
Isos- Posts : 10612
Points : 10598
Join date : 2015-11-06
- Post n°448
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2
Isos Tue Jan 12, 2021 12:45 pm
Does this mean that China has reached the same level as Russia in capabilities? Probobly not, but they have catched up quite a bit. Will this trend continue for 5 to 10 years i would say they have surpassed them.
What are smoking. Russia has upgraded its soviet era SSN and is building Yasen in decent number while the design bureau are working on Husky class. In 5 years the gap will be even bigger since they will get state of art Yasen M.
China already is competing. They are manufacturing far more ships and submarines than Russia or even the US. Re Chinese submarine technology not much is known about their sophistication. Wrong to suggest it is not cutting edge.
No they aren't. Lot of ships doesn't mean good navy.
Japan easily tracks their subs just like russian or US sub are tracking them unnoticed to fill their database with recordings.
Their area of deployement is mostly their port or chinese coast. Lack of training. And if they go outside their usual area of deployement they will be at disadvantage of terrain because US, Japan and Russia have mapped the sea much better than them over the years.
RTN- Posts : 697
Points : 676
Join date : 2014-03-24
Location : Fairfield, CT
It's not about lots of ships. Obviously lots of ships do give you an advantage but technology wise too China has made great progress. They are now fielding carrier based AWACS like the KJ-600 something that till date only the US Navy managed to do. Their Type 055 destroyer is superior to most Russian destroyers.Isos wrote:No they aren't. Lot of ships doesn't mean good navy.
Similarly, China is also tracking Japanese, Russian and American subs.Isos wrote:Japan easily tracks their subs just like russian or US sub are tracking them unnoticed to fill their database with recordings.
Why would you think that China is not doing the same? They have enough time on hand to achieve terrain mapping. Moreover, their allies in Asia and Africa like Pakistan, Iran, Dijibouti are allowing them to create Naval bases apart from providing them with real time information.Isos wrote:And if they go outside their usual area of deployement they will be at disadvantage of terrain because US, Japan and Russia have mapped the sea much better than them over the years.
As you can see Japan,Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines are all struggling against the Chinese. India was recently defeated.
Isos- Posts : 10612
Points : 10598
Join date : 2015-11-06
China already is competing. They are manufacturing far more ships and submarines than Russia or even the US. Re Chinese submarine technology not much is known about their sophistication. Wrong to suggest it is not cutting edge.
They still need to prove to be good plateforms. SAA isn't happy with chinese radars at all. Their j-15 isn't better than su-33 even if its newer.
They proved nothing against Indians.
US, Japan, Russia knows everything about their subs. Thry track them easily which means they are shitty.
Similarly, China is also tracking Japanese, Russian and American subs.
No. There is no proof of tgat. Since Japan tracks their subs easily they know how to evade them with their own subs.
Why would you think that China is not doing the same? They have enough time on hand to achieve terrain mapping. Moreover, their allies in Asia and Africa like Pakistan, Iran, Dijibouti are allowing them to create Naval bases apart from providing them with real time information.
They aren't. Western media reports russian or chinese military ship mouvement near their waters. Have you ever seen an article about their ships sailing in Atlantic or around US coast ?
They operate mainly at port. Paper tigr navy.
As you can see Japan,Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines are all struggling against the Chinese. India was recently defeated.
No they are not. Japan answers to all their moves and make fun of their subs by chassing them away with a helicopter carrier.
India has no problem facing chinese navy which never comes close to India anyway.
Sponsored content
|
|
|