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


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:14 pm

    There is however another enormous difference between IT's and brits pocket carriers and it lies in the different developmental path they stemmed off from,

    While Invincible were conceived as a substitute for regular aircraft carrier, Garibaldi was the last of a series of Helicopter Cruisers but differently from them it came with a flat top and a sky jump to operate with AV-8B+, probably the better reception it received stemmed also from the fact that it was in any case a big step ahead.

    It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
    Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

    British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.
    Only other model adopted was a twin derivation of an american design called Sea Control Ship than became the basis from both the Spanish Principe de Asturias than of the Thai Shocked Chakri Naruebet.
    Result was discouraging in both cases: Chakri was a ship without a mission, completely avulse from the rest of the Thai Navy.
    Principe de Asturias had the opposite problem:it weighted too much on the balance of the fleet at the time made of just six Oliver Perry frigates (read Ocean Escorts with a changed name).
    They were at least useful to demonstrate, through the combined use of his main sponsored designs, how much Admiral Zumwalt's ideas were flawed: Principe de Asturias needed about all the other assets of the fleet around it to operate safely, leaving none to operate outside outside the (limited) range of its air assets .

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5411
    Points : 5405
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:34 am

    it might be the sort of thing to sell to Indonesia so they could use it as a remote landing spot for patroling their enormous number of islands without needing to build a large number of airfields around the place and maintain them.
    they r getting V-22s that can use make shift helipads on beaches & other open spaces; some planes with STOL ability can also be used for patrolling.
    in keeping with the trend, I'm sure there will be a few more designs unveiled before any1 of them materializes.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:05 am

    Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible.

    Every time there is a military conflict that involves the UK they seem to think when it is over that the military was over funded and just too well equipped so money has to be saved.

    That led to them retiring perfectly good carriers for pocket carriers that were largely inadequate.

    Britain has pinched and occupied land around the planet that they seem keen to hang on to.... if they didn't give a shit and could take it or leave it then they could get away with little carriers.

    But they objected to Argentina threatening to take over islands that might have a lot of oil in the seas around them... and oil means money.

    British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.

    A totally unwarranted boost, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar but was essentially armed with Sidewinders only, which makes it a terribly weak and vulnerable ship based fighter. If Argentina had MiG-23s or MiG-29s the British would have lost.

    The MiG-23s had ordinary AAMs but being able to load up four BVRs with two being SARH and two being IR guided the Harrier would have been in serious trouble.

    The side mounted engine nozzles means an IR guided missile can get a lock on the Harrier from an enormous range of angles especially from the side, so the need to get onto the tail for a lock becomes redundant.. as the MiG-23 approaches it can launch its R-23Rs at 35-30km range with a chance of a kill, and is fast enough to be able to turn away and retreat a good distance before coming around again and having another go.. on the second attempt as the aircraft close it can launch an IR guided missile attack with a very good chance of a kill and then turn and head home... never getting within Sidewinder range and therefore never really coming under threat.

    If they had MiG-29s they would be even more potent with R-27Rs and R-60s being more capable weapons...

    Having said that with proper carriers having Phantoms with Skyflash missiles they could have used AWACS support to essentially ambush the Argentine aircraft using their speed and BVR missiles to engage them from safe distances.

    The perimeter they could have set up to stop enemy aircraft would have meant their aircraft with Exocets would never have gotten close enough to any British ships to launch an attack, and the bomb attacks flying low over the islands in the radar shadow of the land would not have worked either with proper air based radar...

    It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
    Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

    Those were anti sub helicopter carriers.... the fighters on board the Kievs were worse than useless because they were not cheap and had no real redeeming features other than pride.

    Converting one to carry MiG-29s was an enormous boost to potential performance but a bigger ship would be better and more use despite costing more.

    they r getting V-22s that can use make shift helipads on beaches & other open spaces; some planes with STOL ability can also be used for patrolling.
    in keeping with the trend, I'm sure there will be a few more designs unveiled before any1 of them materializes.

    A carrier is a fully equipped and defended fully stocked airfield. A patch on the ground is a place where something can land, but unless there is fuel or food or equipment there you might as well use amphibious aircraft and just land in the water.

    Be-200 is probably cheaper than V-22 and likely more useful too.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 4171
    Points : 4253
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  flamming_python Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:26 am

    I honestly hate this thread more than any other on the forum

    For every tiny piece of news there's 10 pages of pointless regurgitated discussion

    owais.usmani and TMA1 like this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7236
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:03 pm

    Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible

    "Worked" is big word... they still lost couple of ships against an airforce that was using outdated jets and 4 or 5 super etandard with a stock of 3 or 4 exocet... and mostly operating at the limits of their max ranges.

    If german made Argentinian subs worked as advertized they would have sunk one of the two carriers.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2285
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:47 pm

    Isos wrote:
    Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible

    "Worked" is big word... they still lost couple of ships against an airforce that was using outdated jets and 4 or 5 super etandard with a stock of 3 or 4 exocet... and mostly operating at the limits of their max ranges.

    If german made Argentinian subs worked as advertized they would have sunk one of the two carriers.

    The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

    They damaged some ships to but the actual losses for the brits were hardly bad. They were very good considering the situations.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7236
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:07 pm

    The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

    The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2285
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:24 pm

    Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

    The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

    What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

    You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7236
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:57 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

    The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

    What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

    You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.


    I said carrier's defence zone covered by its jets which covers the escort ships.

    Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

    Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

    One argentinian sub also tried to attack them but its german torpedoes didn't work.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2303
    Points : 2285
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm

    Isos wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    Isos wrote:The situation was bad for Argentina, not for UK.

    The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that.

    What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range. They tried but they fell for British return tactics and attacked an escort group over 40 miles away and lost the Skyhawks in the process.

    You really don't know history that well, You are talking about the May 30th attack, and yeah that never got anywhere near the carriers.


    I said carrier's defence zone covered by its jets which covers the escort ships.

    Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

    Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

    One argentinian sub also tried to attack them but its german torpedoes didn't work.

    and you are wrong, the attack never got close to the carrier group, they fell for British tricks and attacked an separate fleet over 40 miles away from the CV's,
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:39 am

    The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

    The Sheffield class ship was the best equipped in their navy and had both Sea Dart and Sea Wolf surface to air missiles... they didn't take any trawlers with them.

    They damaged some ships to but the actual losses for the brits were hardly bad. They were very good considering the situations.

    They were actually made worse because their mini carrier lacked decent AWACS capability to offer decent air defence and their lack of strike capacity also limited their usefulness too.

    Not having enough anti sub helicopters meant the carriers spent lots of time sitting back from the conflict covering their own arses and spend less time covering the ships and troops of the naval force.

    [qutoe]The super etandard should have never been able to enter a carrier zone of defence. Their exocet had 40 or 50km range. A real carrier wing would intercept them way before that. [/quote]

    Indeed, with the mini carriers sitting back and subsonic interceptor aircraft with helicopter based AEW, their ability to protect the ships they were operating with was weak.

    What bullshit are you making up now? Argen never got to attack the carriers lol or get in range.

    The UK carriers remained outside of range of Argentine land based aircraft as a self defence measure.

    The cost was ships lost and bugger all air support for ground forces.

    Btw it is said that one of the exocet was launch at one of carrier but was fooled by EW and chaffs and then locked on one of the merchand ship used as transport ship. Or meybe it was dma destroyer I don't remember.

    The Carriers never got close enough to be engaged, which is why they were not that effective.

    Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

    With the carriers sitting so far back and the radar on their helicopter AEW not that long ranged the Argentines were able to perform sneak attacks by flying in low below the level of the hills on the Islands so they could roll over into the bays on the other side and attack British ships landing forces...

    Very brave.

    and you are wrong, the attack never got close to the carrier group, they fell for British tricks and attacked an separate fleet over 40 miles away from the CV's,

    They never got near the carriers because the carriers were kept hidden and safe.... the loss of one carrier and the conflict would be over.

    Of course if it had been an older bigger carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers it all might have been much much easier...
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Thu Jan 28, 2021 10:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Surely, Uk had not acquired its own pocket carriers thinking about using them at the Falklands, still they worked and without them (and no, given the budget constraint of post-Suez crisis era, no other solution were possible then) not any action would have been possible.

    Every time there is a military conflict that involves the UK they seem to think when it is over that the military was over funded and just too well equipped so money has to be saved.

    That led to them retiring perfectly good carriers for pocket carriers that were largely inadequate.

    Britain has pinched and occupied land around the planet that they seem keen to hang on to.... if they didn't give a shit and could take it or leave it then they could get away with little carriers.

    But they objected to Argentina threatening to take over islands that might have a lot of oil in the seas around them... and oil means money.

    British victory in the Falkland war spurred however an imitation wave that made the V/STOL carrier a popular concept but that didn't translate in a widespread adoption of such ships.

    A totally unwarranted boost, the Sea Harrier had an excellent radar but was essentially armed with Sidewinders only, which makes it a terribly weak and vulnerable ship based fighter.  If Argentina had MiG-23s or MiG-29s the British would have lost.

    The MiG-23s had ordinary AAMs but being able to load up four BVRs with two being SARH and two being IR guided the Harrier would have been in serious trouble.

    The side mounted engine nozzles means an IR guided missile can get a lock on the Harrier from an enormous range of angles especially from the side, so the need to get onto the tail for a lock becomes redundant.. as the MiG-23 approaches it can launch its R-23Rs at 35-30km range with a chance of a kill, and is fast enough to be able to turn away and retreat a good distance before coming around again and having another go.. on the second attempt as the aircraft close it can launch an IR guided missile attack with a very good chance of a kill and then turn and head home... never getting within Sidewinder range and therefore never really coming under threat.

    If they had MiG-29s they would be even more potent with R-27Rs and R-60s being more capable weapons...

    Having said that with proper carriers having Phantoms with Skyflash missiles they could have used AWACS support to essentially ambush the Argentine aircraft using their speed and BVR missiles to engage them from safe distances.

    The perimeter they could have set up to stop enemy aircraft would have meant their aircraft with Exocets would never have gotten close enough to any British ships to launch an attack, and the bomb attacks flying low over the islands in the radar shadow of the land would not have worked either with proper air based radar...

    It however worth to note how while we tend to concentrate ourself on the aircraft part, helicopters were always considered as an essential asset of such ships.
    Same happened in SU with Leningrad and Kiev classes that sported however also a very heavy AA and ASuW armament.

    Those were anti sub helicopter carriers.... the fighters on board the Kievs were worse than useless because they were not cheap and had no real redeeming features other than pride.

    Converting one to carry MiG-29s was an enormous boost to potential performance but a bigger ship would be better and more use despite costing more.


    Armed with Sidewinder only ? It was 1982 and they were L/M all aspect models i.e. the only efficient AAM NATO had at these times, the same that permitted IAF their spectacular kill ratio over Lebanon later same year.

    I was only 14 teen then but I remember well the shockwave of enthusiasm of the period, not just in specialist but also in generalist press over the newfound effectiveness of western weaponries.

    Believe me, young ones: Harriers, Exocet, UAV,Hawkeyes and Mervaka really made headlines that year!

    Yes, pocket carriers were an evolution of helicopter cruiser, more than a degraded conventional one.

    And ASW warfare was a major concern of such period, both for NATO than for SU/WP: it was not just Leningrad but also Kara and later Udaloj classes, all built to deal specifically against such treat.

    Over Kiev however I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU, just noting how, for Russia as for my country, it was an evolutionary path from bottom to top not a falling down one.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5411
    Points : 5405
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:34 pm

    Read the article below the video, it's a transcript. Use Yandex or Google to translate. 46 trillion rubles, or 609 billion dollars - this is exactly how much Putin's geopolitical failures cost the Russians, which brought nothing but the illusion of opposition to the West for Russia itself. : https: http://novyny.24tv.ua/skilki-kremlyu

    For that much $, Russia could get her VMF at least 1.5-2x bigger & more powerful than the PLAN. No wonder there r no $ for CVNs!
    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 100
    Points : 102
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  TMA1 Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:43 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Read the article below the video, it's a transcript. Use Yandex or Google to translate. 46 trillion rubles, or 609 billion dollars - this is exactly how much Putin's geopolitical failures cost the Russians, which brought nothing but the illusion of opposition to the West for Russia itself. : https: http://novyny.24tv.ua/skilki-kremlyu

    For that much $, Russia could get her VMF at least 1.5-2x bigger & more powerful than the PLAN. No wonder there r no $ for CVNs!  


    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html

    it is more complicated than that. ffs

    just look thru the beginning index and scan thru afterwords. they are not hiding anything. the conflict in Armenia was planned beforehand. same with similar other shit that has been going down. from the politics in Ukraine down to them trying to build a pipeline thru Syria to destroy Russian fossil fuel dominance, down to their shenanigans in Libya. Putin is a nasty fellow but at least he isn't a western puppet. everything ruskies have been doing geopolitically has been pretty wise imo. clearly the western world does NOT want Russia to be a player even at a regional level. they will either be a western puppet state or sink to destitution. this is wrong. we are not policemen of the world. we have no right stepping over the sovereignty of others.

    frankly that is why many with populist sentiments like me want this neolib/neocon horseshit to end. they kiss chicom ass while blaming everything on Russia. America is led by transnational elites with no patriotic bone in their bodies. yet these scumbags call the riots in DC on Jan 6th "sedition", "treachery", etc... it is so infuriating. how can you be treacherous to a nation ran by internationalists and their cliques/cartels?

    anyways back on topic, I dont think it has been a waste of money, for many reasons. you should be asking why Russia has done what it has done, and why nations o natosphere are fucking with them.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:17 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The frigates they sunk had notoriously bad AA, so that's not all that impressive aside from that they sunk some cargo ships and trawler.

    The Sheffield class ship was the best equipped in their navy and had both Sea Dart and Sea Wolf surface to air missiles...  they  didn't take any trawlers with them.

    Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked
    WHAT?
    Sorry GarryB but no one could write Type 42 and equipped in the same sentence. They were absolute jokes in 1982, a destroyer having a twin launcher but being able to engage just a target having just an illumination radar, a main gun with an abysmally low rof and two manually operated 20mm guns...

    From wiki
    These guns proved to be less reliable than the older 4.5 inch Mark V gun (redesignated Mark 6 gun mounting) during the Falklands War, being forced to cease fire on several occasions due to faults
    Certainly they were still better than the bulk of their frigates, equipped with ludicrous Sea Cat but they were still a perfect example HOW NOT to build a military ship.

    Not any trawlers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War

    Civilian trawlers converted to Extra-Deep Armed Team Sweep (EDATS) with some extempore acoustic and sonar equipment. They were manned by Royal Naval personnel, mainly from 1st MCM Squadron based at Rosyth. All five minesweepers were involved in clearing two minefields off Port Stanley.

    HMS Cordella 1,238 GRT[5]
    Lieutenant-Commander M. Holloway
    HMS Farnella 1,207 GRT[5]
    Lieutenant R. Bishop
    HMS Junella 1,615 GRT[5]
    Lieutenant-Commander M. Rowledge
    HMS Northella 1,238 GRT[5]
    Lieutenant-Commander J. Greenop
    HMS Pict 1,478 GRT[5]
    Lieutenant-Commander D. Garwood

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_naval_forces_in_the_Falklands_War





    Skyhawks managed to use dumb bombs against their frigates. That tell a lot about their air defence systems. Normally even the 76mm guns should be able to destroy such aircraft at close range.

    More than capable, a Compatto was credited of an effective range of 8km against sea skimmer missiles while Sea Wolf's maximum range was 10km





    They never got near the carriers because the carriers were kept hidden and safe.... the loss of one carrier and the conflict would be over.

    Of course if it had been an older bigger carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers it all might have been much much easier...

    So distant and safe that one was engaged with an Exocet, was able to deceive it with chaffs but it keep on running and sank Atlantic Conveyor instead (meaning it was an engagement well inside its maximum range).
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:56 am


    Armed with Sidewinder only ? It was 1982 and they were L/M all aspect models i.e. the only efficient AAM NATO had at these times, the same that permitted IAF their spectacular kill ratio over Lebanon later same year.

    The Lima and Mike model Sidewinders finally had decent seekers that allowed head on launches, but the British pilots still tried to get on the tails of the enemy aircraft before launching their missiles.

    Lack of range would make them horribly vulnerable to any enemy using BVR missiles.


    I was only 14 teen then but I remember well the shockwave of enthusiasm of the period, not just in specialist but also in generalist press over the newfound effectiveness of western weaponries.

    It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

    Short range AAMs always performed better than their bigger longer ranged equivalents... mostly because the short range AAMs were for turning dogfights against fighter sized targets with 5-10kg warheads, while BVR missiles generally had warheads of 40kgs or more and were intended to be used against bombers and large heavy aircraft.

    Believe me, young ones: Harriers, Exocet, UAV,Hawkeyes and Mervaka really made headlines that year!

    Exocet and Harriers... and the Shieffield became famous... like the Scud and the Patriot did a few years later... or should I say in the case of Exocet and Scud infamous.


    Yes, pocket carriers were an evolution of helicopter cruiser, more than a degraded conventional one.

    It is what you get when the bean counters win...

    @Tsavo Lion....
    http://novyny. 24 tv.ua/skilki-kremlyu

    A Ukrainian website... not even going to click the link...

    Sorry GarryB but no one could write Type 42 and equipped in the same sentence.

    On paper should have been able to deal with Exocet missiles...

    Certainly they were still better than the bulk of their frigates, equipped with ludicrous Sea Cat but they were still a perfect example HOW NOT to build a military ship.

    Have you read about the Sea Slug SAM... possibly the most appropriate name for it...

    The Sheffield wasn't their worst...

    Not any trawlers?

    How much fish did they catch then?

    You say yourself converted... what does that mean exactly?

    Does it mean changed and no longer a trawler?


    So distant and safe that one was engaged with an Exocet, was able to deceive it with chaffs but it keep on running and sank Atlantic Conveyor instead (meaning it was an engagement well inside its maximum range).

    Which probably led to them pulling it back and rendering it ineffective.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Lima and Mike model Sidewinders finally had decent seekers that allowed head on launches, but the British pilots still tried to get on the tails of the enemy aircraft before launching their missiles.

    Lack of range would make them horribly vulnerable to any enemy using BVR missiles.
    I'm glad to inform you that even today fighter pilots try to gain an advantage position before launching their own ordnances.

    For the horribly vulnerable part, let me reply using a DIRECT CITATION: It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

    Because it is perfectly possible and understandable to made two self contradictory statements over the years.
    In a same post quite less... Rolling Eyes

    It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

    Short range AAMs always performed better than their bigger longer ranged equivalents... mostly because the short range AAMs were for turning dogfights against fighter sized targets with 5-10kg warheads, while BVR missiles generally had warheads of 40kgs or more and were intended to be used against bombers and large heavy aircraft.

    About this, actually we cannot say it for certain as the numbers or post- Cold war A2A engagements were way too few, too distant one another (and too unbalanced in most cases) to provide a reliable answer.
    Hence because lesson learned in Falkland,  Lebanon (and Iraq/Iran conflict) are still of extreme importance.
    Sarh missiles have however been completely phased out in the west.


    Exocet and Harriers... and the Shieffield became famous... like the Scud and the Patriot did a few years later... or should I say in the case of Exocet and Scud infamous.
    No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

    Scud? AGAIN, GarryB? It was 1982, not 1991.

    On paper should have been able to deal with Exocet missiles...



    Have you read about the Sea Slug SAM... possibly the most appropriate name for it...

    The Sheffield wasn't their worst...
    To cite Shakespeare: the best p.o.s around is still a p.o.s.
    And Type 42 were huge ones.



    How much fish did they catch then?

    You say yourself converted... what does that mean exactly?

    Does it mean changed and no longer a trawler?

    A lot of them, before and after the war, during it they catch them also but of just one type: round, metallic and with spikes all around.
    They are akin to Medusas: easy to catch when the proper net is used but quite dangerous to handle.

    Yes: Minesweepers and Trawlers both use a net laying device to operate so it is possible to convert one in another.
    Still, the Trawler would not move faster, being more comfortable or survive better to hits and to cite the same poet again: even with another name, it would retain the same, sweet scent. Twisted Evil
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7250
    Points : 7236
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:12 pm

    Put all that into context first.

    Argentinians advanced jets and missiles could be counted on one hand's fingers and brits were familiar with all their stuff.

    UK navy was supposed to be armed to face USSR within NATO.

    Argentinians just FUCKED brits. No matter how you turn the story. You can even re-write the story it won't change.

    A guy with 9mm and 4 rounds faced a brigade full of machine guns, snipers and tanks and inflicted huge losses.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:10 am

    For the horribly vulnerable part, let me reply using a DIRECT CITATION: It was a heady time because after the experience in Vietnam these missiles lived up to their name as MISSiles.

    There were no BVR IR guided missiles used in the Vietnam conflict.

    Short of operating F-4 Phantoms on the Argentine side the main alternative aircraft with BVR missiles would have been a MiG-23 which has R-23 air to air BVR missiles which come in SARH missiles of the type (of guidance) that were used and failed in Vietnam, but also in an IR model for which the design of the Harrier made it horribly vulnerable.

    As far as I remember the only Harrier show down in the conflict was hit by an Ancient SA-7 which has a rather decidedly average IR seeker. In comparison the R-23T would have been very effective from distances the Sidewinder would not have been effective from.

    The Lima and Mike Sidewinders were some of the first IR guided weapons that were all aspect, but an aircraft like the Sea Harrier had IR emissions along its side rather than poking out the rear and hidden by the rest of the aircraft.

    The direct result was the Harrier was horribly vulnerable to IR guided missiles from any angle including the front... even IR guided weapons that were not all aspect.

    They took the trouble to get on the tails of the Argentine aircraft because they were afraid that the older sidewinders would still lock head on on a Harrier because it has hot bits sticking out sideways that are visible from the front even in normal flight.

    Because it is perfectly possible and understandable to made two self contradictory statements over the years.
    In a same post quite less...

    The short effective range of the Sidewinders made them vulnerable to any aircraft with BVR missiles as there is little they could do about that because they were the slowest fighters in service at the time.

    Sarh missiles have however been completely phased out in the west.

    Not true at all. The US Navy still uses the Sparrow missile as a ship launched anti aircraft missile and in the current block one model in service it uses SARH.

    The next gen block two version is expected to enter service shortly but current ESSM missiles are SARH.

    Scud? AGAIN, GarryB? It was 1982, not 1991.

    If you read what I said I compared the BS regarding Exocets from the Falklands conflict with the further BS about Scud and Patriot A FEW YEARS LATER.

    Still bullshit though. Scud was ordinary and inaccurate and Patriot was pathetic and expensive.

    No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

    Suspect the difference in impression comes from me living in a commonwealth country... but even then it shows western culture and morality when a French missile kills British Sailors it becomes "loved".

    To cite Shakespeare: the best p.o.s around is still a p.o.s.
    And Type 42 were huge ones.

    But it is OK because as the British said... Exocet is a sea skimming missile and the Soviets don't have any sea skimming missiles.... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    Argentinians advanced jets and missiles could be counted on one hand's fingers and brits were familiar with all their stuff.

    Both sides had Exocets and Sea Dart and Sea Cat naval SAMs in service... the Brits had no excuse to be so surprised.

    Argentinians just FUCKED brits. No matter how you turn the story. You can even re-write the story it won't change.

    On the islands the Brits won hands down, but on the sea and in the air it was very much touch and go...

    the British bean counters made it very much harder for Britain than it should have been.... it is pretty clear their ships expected to have air control of the sea they would be operating in...

    Their wonder missile, the Sea Wolf was actually rather ordinary in practise because so few ships even carried it and it was brand new and buggy.

    For the Russians, the lesson of arming their ships better is meaningless because they arm their ships like they are on their own, but also that dinky little carriers with toy fighter planes might save money during peace time but when you actually have to use it in combat you will find you pay the cost then in blood.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Sun Feb 07, 2021 12:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    There were no BVR IR guided missiles used in the Vietnam conflict.

    Short of operating F-4 Phantoms on the Argentine side the main alternative aircraft with BVR missiles would have been a MiG-23 which has R-23 air to air BVR missiles which come in SARH missiles of the type (of guidance) that were used and failed in Vietnam, but also in an IR model for which the design of the Harrier made it horribly vulnerable.

    As far as I remember the only Harrier show down in the conflict was hit by an Ancient SA-7 which has a rather decidedly average IR seeker. In comparison the R-23T would have been very effective from distances the Sidewinder would not have been effective from.
    The short effective range of the Sidewinders made them vulnerable to any aircraft with BVR missiles as there is little they could do about that because they were the slowest fighters in service at the time.

    So the best alternative for Argentina, a far right dictatorship at time, notorious for mass killings of leftist militants would have been to buy weapon from Soviet Union? affraid affraid affraid

    Let's be real: neither Argentina nor UK planned the war in advance, it just happened and they had to adapt what they had to it.

    Sea Harrier had obvious limitations but they worked and validated the V/STOL carrier concept, all successive carriers however used second gen Harriers with long range missiles.
    British surface fleet sucked great time instead (but a great kudo to auxiliary one unshaven ).










    Not true at all. The US Navy still uses the Sparrow missile as a ship launched anti aircraft missile and in the current block one model in service it uses SARH.

    The next gen block two version is expected to enter service shortly but current ESSM missiles are SARH.
    It should have been obvious that I was referring to A2A ones, also because MMI still uses Aspide a lot and it is still an excellent System..



    Still bullshit though. Scud was ordinary and inaccurate and Patriot was pathetic and expensive.
    Exocet was then and still is a good system, for an average navy is still a good choice.

    No, everyone (except Brits) loved them:they were french i.e. western.

    Suspect the difference in impression comes from me living in a commonwealth country... but even then it shows western culture and morality when a French missile kills British Sailors it becomes "loved".
    Given this sensibility I wouldn't cite you the longest running joke in Italian Navy...




    On the islands the Brits won hands down, but on the sea and in the air it was very much touch and go...

    the British bean counters made it very much harder for Britain than it should have been.... it is pretty clear their ships expected to have air control of the sea they would be operating in...

    Their wonder missile, the Sea Wolf was actually rather ordinary in practise because so few ships even carried it and it was brand new and buggy.

    For the Russians,  the lesson of arming their ships better is meaningless because they arm their ships like they are on their own, but also that dinky little carriers with toy fighter planes might save money during peace time but when you actually have to use it in combat you will find you pay the cost then in blood.

    Russians and even more Italians arm their ships like they are on their own because they expect (with full reason) they would be used that way.
    Infact they still both spend a lot of efforts into naval guns.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Feb 07, 2021 1:03 pm

    So the best alternative for Argentina, a far right dictatorship at time, notorious for mass killings of leftist militants would have been to buy weapon from Soviet Union?

    Turkey... HATO member... buys S-400s from Russia.

    If the Soviets knew the Argentinians intended to seize back the Malvinas they might have gifted them a few aircraft and some missiles to test.

    AFAIK the Harrier shot down was shot down with an SA-7 Grail, so it is not like they didn't have any Soviet weapons.

    Let's be real: neither Argentina nor UK planned the war in advance, it just happened and they had to adapt what they had to it.

    The Argentines didn't plan well, but they didn't just accidentaly find they had stumbled into the islands and then made a snap decision to pretend they invaded on purpose.

    I rather suspect the Argentinians looked at the situation... the big carriers are gone... only little unproven carriers with little unproven Harriers... and a woman in charge... what are the chances they will sail 10,000km for a few farmers and a few sheep on those wind swept rocks...


    Sea Harrier had obvious limitations but they worked and validated the V/STOL carrier concept, all successive carriers however used second gen Harriers with long range missiles.

    I don't agree. If the Island in question was off the coast of a Russian ally they would have been stuffed.

    Harrier was stuck with sidewinders till the 1990s when AMRAAM became ready... so facing MiG-29s and Su-27s they would be dead.

    Even against MiG-23s they would be dead and against MiG-21s they would have struggled.

    It should have been obvious that I was referring to A2A ones, also because MMI still uses Aspide a lot and it is still an excellent System..

    Completely phased out means not used at all. In any capacity.

    Exocet was then and still is a good system, for an average navy is still a good choice.

    I really don't think it would have been a threat to Soviet ships of the period... unless you had thousands and used them in concentrated attacks... but trying to assemble enough to defeat the defences would alert those defences and make them harder to defeat...

    Given this sensibility I wouldn't cite you the longest running joke in Italian Navy...

    Just out of good taste I wont mention the things they say in commonwealth military circles about the French and Italian allies... they are ridiculous and degrading of countries that are supposed to be our allies...

    Russians and even more Italians arm their ships like they are on their own because they expect (with full reason) they would be used that way.
    Infact they still both spend a lot of efforts into naval guns.

    And their ship design is so much the better for that.
    marcellogo
    marcellogo

    Posts : 415
    Points : 421
    Join date : 2012-08-02

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  marcellogo Sun Feb 07, 2021 7:03 pm

    I think the WORST of Erdogan but comparing him with the maniac monsters that ruled Argentina at time is just unconceivable and offensive.
    Same comparing actual Russia with SU, the former was a real enemy and the forebearer of a worldwide ideological system of oppression, the actual one I love you I love you I love you instead.

    It was also notorious for don't gave their best weaponries neither to its more obedient thralls, let's figure a sworn enemy.

    Argentina made a whole series of political errors, worst one was however to act too fast without a minimum of military preparation.
    Some air tankers and some more Super Etandards would have dramatically changed the income.

    Falkland was a test, Harrier passed it and was deemed worth of an ulterior evolution.

    And it also showed how our own ships, weapon systems and ABOVE ALL the integration between them were of immensely superior design than the one of rosbif's.
    Lesson learned and passed into Jokes.

    TMA1 likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 918
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:43 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    I rather suspect the Argentinians looked at the situation... the big carriers are gone... only little unproven carriers with little unproven Harriers... and a woman in charge... what are the chances they will sail 10,000km for a few farmers and a few sheep on those wind swept rocks...


    No one was there for the farmers, windswept rocks or nationalism. They were there for the 60B barrels of oil in the surrounding waters. (3-6T dollars)

    If the one Argentine sub had maintained its torpedos properly and the Argies had sorted out the fusing of their dumb bombs, the carnage on the Brits would have been 3-4 x and they very well may have lost. If they had enough Excets to ripple fire them - carnage. If they had taken delivery of the 14 they ordered and had ample Exocets they could have fired 7 at a time and that would have been impossible for the Brits to deal with.

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28085
    Points : 28615
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:59 am

    Falkland was a test, Harrier passed it and was deemed worth of an ulterior evolution.

    I agree, but it was rigged and the result cost the Brits in the long term... and the Americans.

    The AV-8II was a vast improvement but they would all be horribly vulnerable to MANPADS of any kind or model, and the added disadvantage that most Soviet AAMs in the BVR range had an IR guided example... all of which would be terribly effective against the Harrier and similar types.

    The Harrier was supposed to be the only plane flying on day two of the third world war in Europe, and honestly that was just bullshit.

    And it also showed how our own ships, weapon systems and ABOVE ALL the integration between them were of immensely superior design than the one of rosbif's.

    A case where tradition and pride transcends reality and the old codger thinks he is still 18 years old when he can barely walk on his own.


    No one was there for the farmers, windswept rocks or nationalism. They were there for the 60B barrels of oil in the surrounding waters. (3-6T dollars)

    Except the promise of oil is not the same as the real thing...

    It is probably not financially viable to recover at current oil prices and promises to curb carbon emissions by 2050 suggest it wont be that much more promising in the near future either.


    If the one Argentine sub had maintained its torpedos properly and the Argies had sorted out the fusing of their dumb bombs, the carnage on the Brits would have been 3-4 x and they very well may have lost. If they had enough Excets to ripple fire them - carnage. If they had taken delivery of the 14 they ordered and had ample Exocets they could have fired 7 at a time and that would have been impossible for the Brits to deal with.

    Buying Phantoms from the Americans and extending the runway on the islands to allow fighters to operate from there...

    But the real difference was in the troop training... the Brits used HATO training where the troops are trained to kill. The Argentines were trained like troops from WWII and essentially were not the ruthless killers the brits were on the ground.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5411
    Points : 5405
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:49 pm

    IMO, if the Argentines were better armed, a USN CBG/MEU &/ AF would get involved "to help liberate them from the junta that attacked our NATO & British ally & prevent Soviet influence from increasing there". After the war, access to bases in the S. Atlantic with rich fishing grounds & next to Antarctic Peninsula wouldn't hurt.

    TMA1 likes this post


    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 22 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:19 pm