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. #2

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5594
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:29 am

    They could base it in lake Baikal with no risks at all... as mentioned... any threat in the Med can be covered by Kinzhal and soon Zircon and of course new generation ground and air launched IRBMs...
    "Risks" posed to inexperienced pilots/crews by the weather. Baikal is covered in thick ice most of the year & can be sailed on only in summer w/o an icebreaker. Even with it, a CV must move fast to get req'd wind over the deck, but the open water will get filled with ice fast, slowing it down.
    What has the Zaliv shipyard have to do with anything? It has only ever made Krivak Frigates for the Russian Navy..
    The drydock there can handle Adm. K & even a bigger ship. Experienced personnel can be sent there from other yards & out of retirement.
    It makes rather more sense basing large ships like CVNs in the large ports... Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet...
    Sevastopol & Novorossiisk area ports r large enough; Adm K was anchored in the former before the BSF was divided up with Kiev.
    ..if they are too afraid to send their navy through what chance will they have of getting commercial companies to go through..
    No need to unnecessarily expose aircraft to the Arctic conditions with it's severe weather, esp. since flight ops there better conducted from land bases.
    Why. If they need to send it somewhere they need to be able to fully load it with a range of state of the art equipment and munitions including naval weapons and aircraft carried weapons... how much of that will be just lying around in Syria?
    It'll spend most of the time in the Med. Sea, if they home port it in Syria. If more sailors/pilots need training, they could also be sent there, instead of waiting their turn on Adm. K or other training CV.
    CVs can also rotate between Med. & Black Seas, with both in the BSF & none home ported in the Med.
    Dredging out the area so large ships can be moored there is another thing... no point having a pier for a big ship if it can't operate at max weight there because the water is not deep enough... having to sail out into the harbour so they can continue to load fuel and aircraft and missiles is not a good thing...
    It can be done in a few months. Aircraft r flown in after leaving port. For safety, after some disasters, explosives r usually not loaded in port, but at sea via UN/VERTREP from the ammo ships. I've seen it being done myself.
    ..they are going to need to build a lot of big ships before they have enough spare for persistent presence is possible in the Med... and ultimately what benefit would they really achieve by having ships there?
    Not necessarily; 1 TAKR/CV forward deployed in the Med. is going to be worth 2-3 CVs in the North & Pac. Fleets, as it'll be spending more time at sea resulting in more sustainability/persistence & higher state of readiness. The Med. Sea has even better weather in winter months than the Black Sea, allowing more & safer training.
    Well in terms of Geography there is no point in using a carrier where Russian land based missiles will be able to do the job...
    Surface ships in trouble spots deter intervention/aggression & perform diplomatic function; TAKRs/CVs r needed for air cover, as u pointed out. Having them there sends a clear message, so there's no doubt that Russia will be defending her interests in far away areas- no submarine or land based bombers/missiles can do so as persistently & sustainable.
    If Russia can't deploy TAKRs/CV/Ns to Atlantic/Med./Red Seas regularly &/ when needed, China certainly will to fill that vacuum; as Alexander I said, "Russia has only 2 allies: her army & navy".


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3334
    Points : 3336
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:58 pm

    Gazputin wrote:why do you need carriers ?
    useless dinosaurs
    +

    anyway back to "super carriers" and "VTOL" ….
    this twaddle is exactly what the USA wants Russia to waste its money on ….
    to create civilian "discontent" … and start a "colours revolution"
    the USA wants control of the Russia arctic oil and gas  …. end  of story
    Well, actually what the West is "recommending" Russia is to give up their carriers and their blue water navy all together if possible. Like projecting power is a hard job Russia should not bother with, better leave the role of ruling the world to the colonial powers that have been doing that for 500 years. As usually, the West's stand can be summarized in "do what I say, but not what I do"

    VTOL …. seriously they are totally useless
    when you have a vertical lift engine behind the cockpit you need some "symmetry" re your rear jet engine
    so you need to move it forward in the fuselage ….
    then you have to stick your wings in between those …
    and wings not too wide as it is VTOL ….
    meanwhile you also want all your fuel around the COG of the plane too …
    oh … and lets not forget "stealth" … you need to stow your weapons internally ….
    in the same area ….
    what do you get ? something that looks like a constipated guinea pig … the F-35B
    with the aerodynamics of a housebrick ...
    This is more or less what I make out of the F-35B's layout myself too. But there is a twist here:
    an STOVL UCAV version of a STOL manned plane may substitute the space normally taken by the cockpit and place a lift fan there, allowing to bring the engine back to its normal and more optimal position, free space for the crucial dorsal fuel tanks and at the same time allow to put some weapon bays in a reasonable position close to the CoG. I hope I can send a drawing one of these days, but from the rough numbers I have done this looks fine in terms of weight distribution, reducing substantially the amount of thrust the fan should be responsible of generating, reducing its diameter / aero effects and power drain from engine's turbine. Many of the problems I see with other STOVL layouts are solved this way. The use of such STOVL drones would be normally restricted to LHDs in relatively low risk missions so the need for guidance should not be a big issue for some years until autonomous flight gains maturity.

    my "carriers" SSGNs …. hordes of them ….
    and with weird drones you can launch from them ….
    The thing with subs is that they should remain hidden until it is the time to attack, so they are not a good weapon of deterrence or to have airspace control, but to retaliate against surface and land targets. And if they launch and recover drones they will give away their position. I like the idea but the surface fleet will be developed, as for any other country. Despite all the complaints and innovative ideas, VMF seems to be keen on this and I think they are completely right.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:13 pm

    why do you need carriers ?
    useless dinosaurs

    Actually there are plenty of dinosaurs still around that survive just fine.

    Can you suggest an alternative to supplying air power for a surface group of ships?

    I'd be building a sort of drone you launch from a sub that just hangs up there like a "low satellite"
    as my AWACs ….

    just left it hover up there …. to cross reference with your satellites

    What sort of drone could operate for long periods and operate from a sub?

    Have discussed a nuclear powered airship in the past... you might want to look back on some older posts particularly on the VSTOL threads...

    VTOL …. seriously they are totally useless

    Totally agree... the Hermes 20K ton carriers and the Kiev class carriers prove they are worse than useless...

    anyway back to "super carriers" and "VTOL" ….
    this twaddle is exactly what the USA wants Russia to waste its money on ….

    I used to think that... but a carrier is not for WWIII, it is for peace time...

    Look at the US shootdown and murder of hundreds of civilians in Iranian waters in the 1980s... the US Ship that was supposed to be state of the art mistook a civilian airliner as an F-14 that was attacking it and open fire with the only weapon it had to deal with what it thought was the threat.

    If it had an aircraft carrier nearby (or indeed had not violated Iranian waters in the first place and had been somewhere else) then the situation could have been resolved in a much more civilised and less brutal and bloody way.

    In peace time you can send a few fighters out to investigate blips on a radar screen perhaps hundreds of kms away from your surface group.

    An airship AWACS makes a lot of sense but it lacks the flexibility of fixed wing fighter air power in terms of meeting and engaging an enemy threat... a detected attack by missiles or aircraft or a combination can be detected early by an AWACS platform but having fighters... especially conventional fighters unified in design with land based aircraft so they are not stupidly expensive and are capable against modern enemies, means you can go out and meet a threat further from your ships.

    Datalinks and modern communication means even if your fighters can only shoot down a dozen incoming threats it can also use its sensors to detect more stealthy objects from closer distances... information which the ships can use to engage them making them able to engage targets at greater range too.

    They enhance the sight and reach of any surface ship group... and they don't need to be enormous white elephants like the Americans make... clever design multi hull ships with wide hulls for large internal volume but reduced overall displacement... they have shown a model of ship with a displacement of 45K tons that has better internal volume and aircraft capacity than the 65K ton Kuznetsov...

    All they need is to carry a decent AWACS platform and some fixed wing fighter aircraft... and likely in the future more and more UAVs of various types.

    to create civilian "discontent" … and start a "colours revolution"
    the USA wants control of the Russia arctic oil and gas …. end of story

    They will be spending billions on new big ships so spending slightly more on maybe two new CVNs so those ships can operate safely beyond the reach of Russian land based aviation is only a minor cost.

    We are not talking about 11 carrier groups with 11 x 100Kton carriers.

    carriers …. VTOL ….. why do you think Yak helped Lockheed design the F-35
    its clearly based on the Yak-41 … itself an utterly useless piece of crap ….

    VTOL is a dead end street... a money pit, where the best you can hope for is a carrier that is too small to be useful for anything, and under performing fighters whose design is messed up so that it can hover even though in practise they never actually will because a rolling take off means more payload and more fuel, and a rolling landing means safer landing in the event of an engine failure or stall.

    so they want Russia to piss money up against the wall on useless crap …. to create civil unrest …

    But who cares what they think right?

    What Russia needs it to be able to trade with the countries of the world that are not the west, which means being able to sail their navy anywhere in the world without worry about blockades or sanctions etc... so they need a powerful navy... not a big one... but a powerful one... that means big ships for long trips and a couple of carriers to protect those ships while they are doing what they are doing.

    Having a carrier group right now sitting off the coast of Venezuela would be a useful thing for Russia and for Venezuela... not so good for the US and her henchmen wanting to plunder the country of its oil resources...

    The carrier group doesn't need to be attacking any one.... just normal exercises with ally Venezuelan Navy... or Cuba or Nicaragua... or any other country the US is currently bullying into cutting ties with Russia via economic extortion.

    Russia wont be using these carriers for WWIII, or for invading any one, but what country will trade with Russia if the US just goes in and removes Maduro from his legally election position because they trade too much with Russia and China?

    If Russia can't help potential trading partners then the US will bully everyone to not trade with them and Russia will become isolated and have to trade with the west... fuck the west.

    "Risks" posed to inexperienced pilots/crews by the weather. Baikal is covered in thick ice most of the year & can be sailed on only in summer w/o an icebreaker. Even with it, a CV must move fast to get req'd wind over the deck, but the open water will get filled with ice fast, slowing it down.

    How about the obvious... how would you get the Kuznetsov there?

    If you want to use carriers in the northern sea route... which they clearly do... how can having your only carrier in the black sea going to work and what value is there in training in the black sea for operations in the arctic?

    The drydock there can handle Adm. K & even a bigger ship. Experienced personnel can be sent there from other yards & out of retirement.

    It is not 100% Russian owned and has no experience with large military ships... the biggest military ships it has made are frigates. It mainly works on tankers...

    Sevastopol & Novorossiisk area ports r large enough; Adm K was anchored in the former before the BSF was divided up with Kiev.

    It is not a question of large enough... there is no point basing your only carrier 14,000km away from where you intend to operate it...

    No need to unnecessarily expose aircraft to the Arctic conditions with it's severe weather, esp. since flight ops there better conducted from land bases.

    Maybe they should send them up a canal to the Aral sea and beach them and that way they will be protected from sea water as well so they wont need to paint them so often...

    It'll spend most of the time in the Med. Sea, if they home port it in Syria.

    WTF would it be doing in the med? WTF would it do in Syria?

    If more sailors/pilots need training, they could also be sent there, instead of waiting their turn on Adm. K or other training CV.
    CVs can also rotate between Med. & Black Seas, with both in the BSF & none home ported in the Med.

    They only have one carrier.... it is the Admiral K.... WTF would they put any carrier in the Med for?

    During the cold war there were three sides in the Med... NATO, WARSAW PACT, and neutral... WP is gone and it is mostly hostile now... not some where that needs a Russian carrier at all.

    It can be done in a few months. Aircraft r flown in after leaving port. For safety, after some disasters, explosives r usually not loaded in port, but at sea via UN/VERTREP from the ammo ships. I've seen it being done myself.

    BUT WHY. You still haven't explained why they need a platform specifically designed to provide air cover for the Russian Navy in the Black sea or the Med?

    A carrier is not going to be sailing around all the time doing regular patrols... the carrier is a support vessel to support a surface action group that is doing something... more than half the carriers life will be in overhaul/upgrade, or just sitting in port doing nothing.

    It costs a lot of money to have them out doing things... there is a reason why only about 3 US carrier groups are operational at any one time and they have 11...

    Not necessarily; 1 TAKR/CV forward deployed in the Med. is going to be worth 2-3 CVs in the North & Pac. Fleets, as it'll be spending more time at sea resulting in more sustainability/persistence & higher state of readiness. The Med. Sea has even better weather in winter months than the Black Sea, allowing more & safer training.

    Get it through your head... Russian aircraft carriers are not for fighting NATO or for fighting the US because that means WWIII where aircraft carriers = Zero and are still expensive to buy and operate.

    What possible use is a Russian carrier in the Med?

    Surface ships in trouble spots deter intervention/aggression & perform diplomatic function;

    And in the med... why would they require air support?

    Which NATO country is stupid enough to try to sink a Russian ship?

    TAKRs/CVs r needed for air cover, as u pointed out. Having them there sends a clear message, so there's no doubt that Russia will be defending her interests in far away areas- no submarine or land based bombers/missiles can do so as persistently & sustainable.

    Air cover wont be needed in the Med... no NATO country will attack Russian surface ships because their own territory will be within range of direct missile counter attack... Air power would be redundant.

    At the bottom of the pacific or atlantic however things might be different.

    If Russia can't deploy TAKRs/CV/Ns to Atlantic/Med./Red Seas regularly &/ when needed, China certainly will to fill that vacuum; as Alexander I said, "Russia has only 2 allies: her army & navy".

    If China wants to send carriers to the Med then good luck to them.

    For Russia it makes more sense for her to expand her operations away from the west and towards Africa and Asia and Central and South America... no where near the black sea or the med.

    This is more or less what I make out of the F-35B's layout myself too. But there is a twist here:
    an STOVL UCAV version of a STOL manned plane may substitute the space normally taken by the cockpit and place a lift fan there, allowing to bring the engine back to its normal and more optimal position, free space for the crucial dorsal fuel tanks and at the same time allow to put some weapon bays in a reasonable position close to the CoG. I hope I can send a drawing one of these days, but from the rough numbers I have done this looks fine in terms of weight distribution, reducing substantially the amount of thrust the fan should be responsible of generating, reducing its diameter / aero effects and power drain from engine's turbine. Many of the problems I see with other STOVL layouts are solved this way. The use of such STOVL drones would be normally restricted to LHDs in relatively low risk missions so the need for guidance should not be a big issue for some years until autonomous flight gains maturity.

    There is no reason the front fan engine couldn't be put in front of the pilot and behind the nose mounted radar... it just makes it harder to power the fan from the main engine... or if you go with separate lift engines like the Yak-41 then you end up with hot engine exhaust ingestion stalls again...


       my "carriers" SSGNs …. hordes of them ….
       and with weird drones you can launch from them ….

    A future aircraft carrier could carry a wide range of all sorts of drones and special vehicles... a surface ship can carry bigger aircraft and not have to worry so much about surfacing or submerging...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:29 pm

    Russia sent ground troops to Syria for a low intensity war to help an ally.

    There was never any intention of going without the use of air power, so air power was critical to their plan of helping Syria.

    Where could their navy go where air power was of no use?

    Why would the navy not want to use air power to support their own operations.

    They are going to be spending big money on 20K ton cruisers... doens't it just make sense to build a ship that can provide air cover for those ships... I mean those ships will be well armed, but they sit on the sea surface and really don't have the ability to move hundreds of kms in a few hours to go out and check a blip on a radar, and it wont see enormous ranges down to sea level to spot incoming low flying threats like an AWACS aircraft would.

    The more I think about it the more I think don't bother with ship board AWACS.... go with nuclear powered airships... enormous volume for antenna of all shapes and sizes. Hang 3km long ULF cables that need to be hung vertically to communicate with Submarines at operational depths... that is hard with a Tu-142, but easy with an airship...

    A flat wing shaped airship could have enormous box shaped antennas scanning in all four cardinal points of the compass at once with enormous AESA arrays in a dozen different radar frequency ranges from Ku, X, S, L, and even longer bands...

    Nuclear power could power those radars for decades... most of the time they just listen anyway... and constant electrical supply means the easy conversion of ballast water to lifting hydrogen and back... you could optimise the airship to operate at over 20km altitude... it could have self defence missile and jamming systems... electric motors to move it around...

    You could have dozens of them operating in the border mountain areas around Russia.

    Scaled down diesel powered models for export... you could have a tethered version for border observation, or communications repeater in mountains...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5594
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:13 pm

    How about the obvious... how would you get the Kuznetsov there?
    As I said, they could built a small training CV there.
    If you want to use carriers in the northern sea route... which they clearly do... how can having your only carrier in the black sea going to work and what value is there in training in the black sea for operations in the arctic?
    I've seen no indications that they intend to do carrier flight ops there. They had trouble in the balmy Med., the suddenly changing Arctic weather will waste more planes & pilots, even if it's ice free in summer along the NSR. They can stop hostile ships, subs & aircraft from entering it & their EEZ w/o them.
    https://iz.ru/868182/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko-bogdan-stepovoi/severnyi-morskoi-pusk-arktiku-zashchitiat-s-400-i-sistemy-pantcir-s
    https://iz.ru/839212/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko/severnaia-migratciia-v-arktike-buden-sozdan-istrebitelnyi-aviapolk
    https://iz.ru/788383/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/tikhookeanskii-flot-poluchil-korabl-zvezdnykh-voin

    The Adm. K is not so good for power projection ashore ops anyway, but good enough as as a training platform.
    Maybe they should send them up a canal to the Aral sea and beach them and that way they will be protected from sea water as well so they wont need to paint them so often...
    don't be silly. There's no canal; that lake is outside of the RF & only Northern part has water now. If they annex surrounding lands, then perhaps they could build & use a small training UDK/CV there.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Naval_history
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25620-history-shows-that-parched-aral-sea-can-be-restored/

    It would be better to build a small training CV & use it in the Azov &/ Black Sea, were the NITKAs r; the Caspian is a poor choice as its N. part freezes in winter & the S. part has heavy ferry/fishing traffic & dozens oil wells.
    WTF would it be doing in the med? WTF would it do in Syria?
    if nothing else, train in realistic combat conditions & perhaps occasionally assist other forces.
    You still haven't explained why they need a platform specifically designed to provide air cover for the Russian Navy in the Black sea or the Med?
    I'm tired of repeating it: those r good training areas with plenty of room & showing the flag there won't hurt at all.
    What possible use is a Russian carrier in the Med?
    Ask Putin, Shoigu & the VMF that sent the Adm. K there. They wanted to learn write a book like NATOPS on how to use carriers in a different way the Soviet VMF was used to.
    Which NATO country is stupid enough to try to sink a Russian ship?
    They may want to just damage it to take it out of action. Turkey shot down their Su-24, & Israeli tactics caused the loss of the Il-22. Iran provided AshM to Hezbollah which used it to attack INS Hanit, & earlier the Egyptians sunk Eilat- their nukes weren't an effective deterrent. The USS Liberty was attacked by the IAF & EC-121 shot down by NKAF w/o any subsequent retaliation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit#Attack_on_14_July_2006
    http://www.egypttoday.com/Article/2/51097/Sinking-Eilat-destroyer-%E2%80%93-50-years-on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_EC-121_shootdown_incident#Interception_and_shoot-down
    Air cover wont be needed in the Med...
    It may be needed in the Red/Arabian Sea/Indian ocean where they can be sailing from the Med.:
    Let me refute it with ur own words:
    Look at the US shootdown and murder of hundreds of civilians in Iranian waters in the 1980s...
    If it had an aircraft carrier nearby.. then the situation could have been resolved in a much more civilised and less brutal and bloody way. In peace time you can send a few fighters out to investigate blips on a radar screen perhaps hundreds of kms away from your surface group.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:11 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:29 am

    As I said, they could built a small training CV there.

    Lake Baikal?

    Have you looked at a map of that lake and know where it is?


    https://yandex.com/maps/?ll=107.228302%2C53.141433&pt=107.672986%2C53.405214&source=entity_search&spn=6.264%2C4.393&z=4

    They had trouble in the balmy Med.,

    What trouble?

    The Adm. K is not so good for power projection ashore ops anyway, but good enough as as a training platform.

    They don't need power projection ashore they are not fucking nazis like the US or France.

    The purpose of the Admiral K is defending the surface ships from enemy air power and missile attack. That is what they expect from their carriers.


    It would be better to build a small training CV & use it in the Azov &/ Black Sea, were the NITKAs r; the Caspian is a poor choice as its N. part freezes in winter & the S. part has heavy ferry/fishing traffic & dozens oil wells.

    Why on earth would they waste money building a training CV... they have a CV they can use for training as much as they want and where they want.

    They also have two land based facilities... NITKA and the base they built in the sea of Azov when they lost access to NITKA due to hostility from Kiev.

    Now they should have two land based carrier training facilities... and one operational carrier... so why waste money making a training carrier?

    if nothing else, train in realistic combat conditions & perhaps occasionally assist other forces.

    In what way realistic?

    Wouldn't sailing down the GIUK gap to Venezuela or Cuba be just as realistic?

    Or from the Pacific fleet out into the largest ocean on the planet also realistic?

    Wouldn't it take a few years to get some modern big ships in to service and if that is the case WTF would they send them to the Black Sea for?

    They are spending a lot of money on the North Sea Route and expansion east into the Arctic and far east... and with that will grow a need to expand ties and communication with the non west rest of the world... which will require visits and exercises and the like...

    I'm tired of repeating it: those r good training areas with plenty of room & showing the flag there won't hurt at all.

    Why show the flag to HATO... they don't like the flag and don't want to see it.

    They don't want to play and they don't like Russia... they wont let you in their gang because you have a new carrier... they will just photoshop lots of smoke coming out of it and pretend it is sinking all the time...

    Russian carriers should spend more time visiting Cuba and Vietnam and Venezuela and Africa and India etc etc countries that want free and open trade relations with Russia.

    Reminds me of all those stupid teen moving in the 1980s where the nerd wants to win the hot chick who only seems to like rich good looking guys... and after some silly things they end up either winning the girl, or sometimes realising that the female nerdy friend who is helping them but secretly has a crush on them can with a makeover be much hotter than the hot girl he was so fixated with for most of the film.

    The west is not the future... it is eating itself with PC... Russia has a better future dealing with China and India and other smaller poorer countries than the corrupt and immoral west despite its riches.

    Ask Putin, Shoigu & the VMF that sent the Adm. K there. They wanted to learn write a book like NATOPS on how to use carriers in a different way the Soviet VMF was used to.

    They sent it for operational testing in Syria... if Syria had not happened and Venezuela had the Civil war they could just as easily have sent it there.

    They may want to just damage it to take it out of action.

    And what platform do they have that can do that?

    Turkey shot down their Su-24, & Israeli tactics caused the loss of the Il-22.

    Turkey opened fire in an Su-24 armed with iron bombs and no air to air weapons except a 23mm cannon... firing from behind without warning there was no risk to those aircraft at all.

    How is any NATO country going to even damage a Russian ship at no risk to itself?

    Even the Corvettes have the capacity to carry long range cruise missiles and supersonic anti ship missiles... bigger vessels will be even better defended.

    Iran provided AshM to Hezbollah which used it to attack INS Hanit, & earlier the Egyptians sunk Eilat- their nukes weren't an effective deterrent.

    The juice got revenge in both cases, though not directly at the time.

    The USS Liberty was attacked by the IAF

    Which just shows you who is in control in the US.

    EC-121 shot down by NKAF w/o any subsequent retaliation:

    And the Soviets shot down plenty of US recon aircraft entering their air space during the cold war... what is your point?

    Why do you think the presence of absence of a carrier would make any difference in that case...

    And BTW the so called case of mistaken identity in the USS Liberty case suddenly ended when the Israelis intercepted a communication from a nearby US carrier saying aircraft were on the way... but I don't see what that has to do with anything we are talking about.

    Russian ships have more than two 50 cal HMGs on their decks to protect themselves with and any NATO country... no matter which one including the US would get a seriously bloody nose trying to play with a Russian ship.

    Impressing Med countries is pointless because half of them are NATO and are not impressed no matter what.

    Most of the north african ones are broken... it would make more sense to send container ships and tankers for trade than cruisers and carriers.

    It may be needed in the Red/Arabian Sea/Indian ocean where they can be sailing from the Med.:
    Let me refute it with ur own words:

    Russian ships have no need to enter Iranian waters and shoot down Iranian commercial airliners...

    Using aircraft carriers in the med would be like buying a campervan to go for holidays in the local supermarkets carpark...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:34 am

    A Russian carrier is a support vessel intended to support a surface action group.

    A surface action group is not just one or two frigates travelling around the place on patrol, a surface action group is a collection of major capital ships that would sail to places beyond the reach of Russian land based air power... to show the flag and promote ties... trade ties, cultural ties, political ties, and military ties with Russia to places that have probably never seen very much about Russia except via western media that is pretty much all negative.

    Sell them stuff and buy some of their stuff and create a trade relationship that doesn't have tariffs or impose sanctions because of their laws on gender equality.

    Let them know there is a country out there ready to trade with them that will not bully them into accepting their rules and their moral code... they will be pleased to see a real alternative to the west, which is all they have seen for the last few hundred years.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5594
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:53 am

    Lake Baikal? Have you looked at a map of that lake and know where it is?
    I know it's location, don't lecture me on geography.
    What trouble?
    losing 2 fighters which forced its squadrons to operate from Syria.
    They don't need power projection ashore they are not fucking nazis like the US or France.
    The purpose of the Admiral K is defending the surface ships from enemy air power and missile attack. That is what they expect from their carriers.
    Then why they used NAF from the Adm. K to attack land targets in Syria? They want to be able to do just that, besides what TAKRs were designed for.
    Why on earth would they waste money building a training CV... they have a CV they can use for training as much as they want and where they want.
    Having 2 training CVs will make them last longer.  A smaller 1 can cruise in the shallow Azov Sea off NITKA  in Eisk in the warm months for le$$ than in the Black Sea. After refit, Adm. K will still be needing repairs & may be deployed to Med., etc, & it isn't going to last more than 20-25 years anyway. If it's in the NF, training there in winter is too dangerous & taxing on ships & aircraft.
    Wouldn't sailing down the GIUK gap to Venezuela or Cuba be just as realistic? Or from the Pacific fleet out into the largest ocean on the planet also realistic?
    The extra $ spent on that r better spent on other things; the Med. is a lot closer to the Black Sea & there r more immediate Russian interests to defend there.
    Why show the flag to HATO... they don't like the flag and don't want to see it. They don't want to play and they don't like Russia... they wont let you in their gang because you have a new carrier...
    Showing the flag isn't to win favors, but demonstrate presence & intent to defend 1's interests.
    They sent it for operational testing in Syria..
    which included attacking land targets; ur argument came a full circle.
    And what platform do they have that can do that?
    Any that will launch LRAShM they r now developing, besides subs firing them & torpedoes.
    How is any NATO country going to even damage a Russian ship at no risk to itself?
    In 1986 they got rammed & damaged off Crimea, which was not totally unexpected. For the elites, the military is expendable.
    And the Soviets shot down plenty of US recon aircraft entering their air space during the cold war... what is your point?
    This refutes the notion that superpowers + 3rd world countries r not going to shot at each other in anger.
    Why do you think the presence of absence of a carrier would make any difference in that case..
    The USN sends it CVNs whenever & wherever it's ordered to do so by the Pentagon; if Russia is to defend her interests, she better be able to do the same.
    Russian ships have no need to enter Iranian waters and shoot down Iranian commercial airliners...
    True, but there r many other situations, as u btw described, that better handled with fighters on hair trigger alert.
    Using aircraft carriers in the med would be like buying a campervan to go for holidays in the local supermarkets carpark...
    The Med. to Russia is what the SC Sea is to China & the Mexican Gulf/Caribbean r to the USA.
    The CV-16 trained in the SC Sea already & will go there again before other CV/Ns r built; the USN CVNs used & probably still use the Caribbean for final pre-deployment training as well.
    Black & Med. Seas can be used for different kinds & levels of training.
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 117
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty "carriers"

    Post  Gazputin Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:46 am

    last year I was in Jervis Bay and the new "ars-sum" RAN Canberra class "carriers" were there ….
    seriously they are sitting ducks … they are so big and slab sided ….

    I used to work for Toyota
    these "carriers" built in Spain
    look exactly like a Toyota car carrier with a flight deck on top …
    (the French Mistral looks exactly the same …)

    nobody in their right mind would send those sitting duck anywhere near a real war …
    so why do we have them ?
    because we were told by the USA to prevent any "failed states" in the Pacific
    for "terr-rists and commun-nusts" to thrarve …..

    point is any carrier is a sitting duck against a real enemy …. near any shoreline ….
    so they have to be in the middle of an ocean nowhere near shore … they are stand-off weapons
    and these days "stand-off" is near Hawaii …..

    what amazes me are those utterly ridiculous RN QE class "carriers"
    huge …. but they have utterly useless short-range S/VTOL F-35Bs on board ….
    in my opinion probably the dumbest ships ever built ….. daylight 2nd

    going back to "car carriers"
    they are a good investment as a multi-function regional support political and humanitarian type ship

    my honest opinion … Putin will not sign off on these ships if they are not modular/multi-function ….
    and Yantar can't do bigger than 150m x 25m ….. so I am personally 90% sure what they will build next

    I still think they are debating whether they need to be able to sail the Northern Route
    seems a no-brainer to me …. re linking Vladivostok and Murmansk …
    I can see an ice-class "car carrier"

    thing is … why does the west have carrier battle groups in the first place ?
    its to protect supplies of raw materials …. Russia has plenty of raw materials
    China does not ……

    what is a carrier group to Russia ?
    fn useless ….

    a total waste of money and resources …. that could be better spent on regional Russia ...







    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5594
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:14 am

    what amazes me are those utterly ridiculous RN QE class "carriers" huge …. but they have utterly useless short-range S/VTOL F-35Bs on board ….
    They r essentially oversized LHAs, to support marine landings & help retake the Falklands & other islands, if need be. Also to operate with USN, JMSDF & FN CV/Ns.
    thing is … why does the west have carrier battle groups in the first place? its to protect supplies of raw materials …. Russia has plenty of raw materials China does not…
    That & other SLOCs protection was before. Now, China consumes more raw materials as she's the world's factory. They cut coal use & import only oil, timber & gas, the rest they can obtain within their borders &/ from neighbors.
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 117
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty future "carriers"

    Post  Gazputin Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:01 am

    re "carriers" I see Russia is thinking of doing Borei class nuke subs armed with cruise missiles ….
    this is what I've been saying makes more sense - SSGNs …. they are the true "super carriers" of the modern era ….

    it wasn't carriers that bombarded Libya …. it was an SSGN ….. they fired 50 or so cruise missiles of 100 or so on board

    thing is re carriers vs SSGNs … SSGNs can send their missiles on "suicide" missions … they don't need to come back, so your strike range is effectively double any carrier with manned aircraft that have pilots wanting to come back alive …. ie fly both ways …. not one

    Russia will do some LHD type ships eventually …. that can do the Arctic Route ….
    but what do they need them for ? they are a land power always have been … there's no great rush ….





    Admin
    Admin

    Posts : 2934
    Points : 3808
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Admin Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:17 am

    Gazputin wrote:

    it wasn't carriers that bombarded Libya …. it was an SSGN ….. they fired 50 or so cruise missiles of 100 or so on board

    Actually there was two French carriers bombing Libya, they destroyed thousands of targets.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2354
    Points : 2336
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:21 am

    Gazputin wrote:re "carriers" I see Russia is thinking of doing Borei class nuke subs armed with cruise missiles ….
    this is what I've been saying makes more sense  - SSGNs …. they are the true "super carriers" of the modern era ….

    it wasn't carriers that bombarded Libya …. it was an SSGN ….. they fired 50 or so cruise missiles of 100 or so on board

    thing is re carriers vs SSGNs … SSGNs can send their missiles on "suicide" missions  … they don't need to come back, so your strike range is effectively double any carrier with manned aircraft that have pilots wanting to come back alive …. ie fly both ways …. not one

    Russia will do some LHD type ships eventually …. that can do the Arctic Route ….
    but what do they need them for ? they are a land power always have been … there's no great rush ….






    To be fair if Russia had a carrier capable of carrying out large scale airstrikes they would be using that over sub-launched cruise missiles

    They used the submarines because that's all they had, those cruise missiles are also much more expensive per unit then an aircrafts bombs. Aircraft launched from a carrier can strike targets more often.

    It was also to show the world "hey we can do this to"

    It's not like the rats in Syria have AA to threaten Russian Aircraft.

    No Submarine will ever replace an AC in terms of strike capability.

    assuming it's a decent sized CV of course.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 5594
    Points : 5588
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:11 am

    Exactly. Even Germans tried to get their own carriers in WWII, although they had the most advanced submarines at the time.
    The Japanese & Americans had both carriers & subs of different classes, including those capable of attacking targets on shore.
    The Soviet VMF used TAKRs to protect submarine bastions, & their SSGNs were tasked to destroy NATO CBGs.
    SSGNs r good at conducting surgical strikes; with nukes they can act as semi-strategic subs if nothing better is at hand.
    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 117
    Points : 117
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty WW2

    Post  Gazputin Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:40 am

    the reality is … there were no true "submarines" in WW2 …. they were in reality submersible torpedo boats
    the German type XXI … was the world's first true submarine … as we know them

    whereas WW2 aircraft carriers are quite recognisable … point being subs have advanced far more than aircraft carriers since WW2





    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7361
    Points : 7347
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:54 am

    They used the submarines because that's all they had, those cruise missiles are also much more expensive per unit then an aircrafts bombs. Aircraft launched from a carrier can strike targets more often.

    No they used them to test them and show they have the capability.

    Russia had 20 or so su-25-24 able to lunch kh-25 and kh-38 as well as kh-59 which is more cheaper against terrorist armed with ak-47s.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2354
    Points : 2336
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:37 am

    Isos wrote:
    They used the submarines because that's all they had, those cruise missiles are also much more expensive per unit then an aircrafts bombs. Aircraft launched from a carrier can strike targets more often.

    No they used them to test them and show they have the capability.

    Russia had 20 or so su-25-24 able to lunch kh-25 and kh-38 as well as kh-59 which is more cheaper against terrorist armed with ak-47s.

    Did you read my post dude?.

    I don't think you did.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:52 pm

    I know it's location, don't lecture me on geography.

    I specifically said Lake Baikal because it is an unreasonable place to put a carrier... how would you get an aircraft carrier there in the first place?

    When you didn't mention that first off, I kinda assumed you were thinking of some other lake.

    losing 2 fighters which forced its squadrons to operate from Syria.

    That was an arrester gear issue and had nothing to do with the weather...

    Then why they used NAF from the Adm. K to attack land targets in Syria?

    It was a realistic training opportunity, that is very unlikely to be available in 4-5 years time when the Kuznetsov is ready for deployments again.

    It was never going to be a long term deployment either...

    Having 2 training CVs will make them last longer.

    The cost of building a training CV and using the existing CV as a training ship would be a terrible waste of money that would better be spent building a couple of 20K ton destroyer/cruisers that could be sent world wide on operations on their own or in groups.

    A CVN or CV would make them safer and more effective but not critical to begin with.

    A smaller 1 can cruise in the shallow Azov Sea off NITKA  in Eisk in the warm months for le$$ than in the Black Sea.

    Two land based training centres should be plenty for maintaining basic skills and when the K enters the water again they can train off that too.

    A modern carrier spends its time doing three things... operational... training.... and overhauls and upgrades... there is nothing you can do about overhauls and upgrades, but having another training carrier doesn't mean you don't need to train on your primary carrier... having a training carrier doesn't mean the kuznetsov can just go straight from overhaul and upgrade directly to fully operational... the whole point of the training cycle is to test the upgrades and modifications and to potentially develop new tactics and training methods to suit any changes made before it is ready for operations.

    The reality is that two ships are enough because unless there is an accident you should have at least one ship in training or operational if something happens... much of the time you might have two ships ready because upgrades or overhauls can be delayed if the ship is needed.

    After refit, Adm. K will still be needing repairs & may be deployed to Med., etc, & it isn't going to last more than 20-25 years anyway. If it's in the NF, training there in winter is too dangerous & taxing on ships & aircraft.

    If it is based in the northern fleet then it can go on operational deployments during the winter period to Cuba or Venezuela or Vietnam or just around the place...

    It will be easier to support the ship and the other large ships it will be operating with in the Pacific or Northern fleets than in the Black sea.

    The extra $ spent on that r better spent on other things; the Med. is a lot closer to the Black Sea & there r more immediate Russian interests to defend there.

    Like what?

    There is Syria, but an aircraft carrier wont make much difference there at all. Libya would get Russia entangled in another conflict they would be better off avoiding all together to be honest... Russia isn't some sort of world policeman... righting all the wrongs of the west...

    Showing the flag isn't to win favors, but demonstrate presence & intent to defend 1's interests.

    Quite true, but where in the Med will Russia stick its flag?

    It is already in Syria. Egypt might become friendlier but who knows. Algeria can be reached from the Northern Fleet without having to run the gauntlet of NATO countries to the north and west.

    which included attacking land targets; ur argument came a full circle.

    Was an opportunity to test a capability that is all.

    Any that will launch LRAShM they r now developing, besides subs firing them & torpedoes.

    So you are suggesting a NATO country will attack a Russian ship with a anti ship missile or torpedoes "to damage it" or "take it out of action".

    Could that not be considered an act of war? Would the Russian ship captain perhaps think he is then justified to launch a 91ER1 anti sub torpedo missile (against a sub threat) or a Zircon or Onyx against the ship that launched it, or S-350 SAM against the aircraft that launched that attack?

    In 1986 they got rammed & damaged off Crimea, which was not totally unexpected. For the elites, the military is expendable.

    I assume you are referring to the US testing its rights under international law to sail in straight lines through Soviet waters... the soviets refrained from opening fire but did run into the US ship in question... and to be clear neither ship opened fire on the other.

    This refutes the notion that superpowers + 3rd world countries r not going to shot at each other in anger.

    It shows that the US is prepared to violate Soviet air and sea space and the Soviets were prepared to respond with minimum force when the enemy refused to comply with instructions.

    If a Russian ship entered NATO waters then their might be an incident but I doubt either side would open fire and I fail to see what difference Russia having a carrier on hand would make to the situation anyway.

    The USN sends it CVNs whenever & wherever it's ordered to do so by the Pentagon; if Russia is to defend her interests, she better be able to do the same.

    USN CVNs don't operate well in the Arctic and rarely venture there... their steam catapults tend to freeze which means they can't launch aircraft... which sort of makes them aircraft transport barges...

    Russia is interested in having air power in its northern and far eastern areas and from those places they can sail down the GIUK to the atlantic and past alaska to the pacific ocean and therefore access most of the world rather readily.

    True, but there r many other situations, as u btw described, that better handled with fighters on hair trigger alert.

    Being able to send aircraft in peace time to investigate something means a better picture of what is happening, which means the commander of the surface group is less likely to be surprised or overwhelmed and it gives him rather more options... a more flexible response in terms of detection and identification and attack and defence... but they wont have enough carriers for every fleet to have a carrier...

    The Med. to Russia is what the SC Sea is to China & the Mexican Gulf/Caribbean r to the USA.

    In a sense yes it is... but for Russia, its navy is for global reach, not close in protection... close in protection is much easier and cheaper with MiGs with Kinzhal missiles, or small boat and shore launched Zircon missiles... the idea of a carrier is to be able to expand Russia economically and politically around the world... not just reach into NATOs backyard... go for Americas back yard central and south america... and colonial europes backyard in asia and africa... start new trade relationships and build new transport ships to carry that trade back and forth.

    The CV-16 trained in the SC Sea already & will go there again before other CV/Ns r built; the USN CVNs used & probably still use the Caribbean for final pre-deployment training as well.
    Black & Med. Seas can be used for different kinds & levels of training.

    China expects to fight the US in the SC sea or over taiwan and the US will fight any one any where because they think they own the place... not a good way to decide where to base the Russian carriers...

    point is any carrier is a sitting duck against a real enemy ….

    But that is the point... they are not... they are an important part of the defence...

    Do you think a Russian air base in Syria is a  sitting duck with S-400 and Pantsir and TOR protecting it?

    A Russian carrier will have the equivalent of probably 30 S-400 batteries and probably the same number of S-350 batteries plus Pantsir and TOR, and not to mention the Su-57 based fighters operating on it that will also defend it... covered by its own custom made AWACS platforms and satellites and SSNs.

    Do you still think it is a sitting duck?

    More importantly if it wasn't there and there was no AWACS and no fighter cover how much easier would that make those ships to kill?


    what amazes me are those utterly ridiculous RN QE class "carriers"
    huge …. but they have utterly useless short-range S/VTOL F-35Bs on board ….

    I agree in that regard... spend billions on a ship and then buy really expensive but slow and short range VSTOL fighters is short sighted.

    going back to "car carriers"
    they are a good investment as a multi-function regional support political and humanitarian type ship

    I suspect they will go for slightly bigger Mistral type ships with nuclear power and better armament, but carrying helicopters and equipped for landing Russian naval infantry.

    They will also likely make CVNs with slightly more aircraft capacity than the Kuznetsov plus AWACS and EMALS... and a STOL 5th gen light fighter from MiG.


    and Yantar can't do bigger than 150m x 25m ….. so I am personally 90% sure what they will build next

    Zvezda in the far east is a brand new upgraded shipyard for tankers and gas ships and is intended for 350m long ships up to 350K ton.

    what is a carrier group to Russia ?
    fn useless ….

    Russia is surrounded by former neighbour clients that now look west for instruction... EU etc... Russia needs new trading partners and her options are not rail or road connected directly... Russia can be a road rail connection between asia and the EU, but I don't think the EU will tolerate Russia making much money from that for long... Russia needs to expand its infrastructure internally and internationally... internally that means lots of high speed rail networks... airfields and highways and roads, but internationally she needs a compact and powerful and highly mobile navy that can go anywhere with its own air cover... so that means aircraft carriers.

    If the US invaded Venezuela today there is not much Russia could actually directly do except support a guerilla war against them... in 10 years time they could send the Kuznetsov for a visit to deter such a stupid move from the US... which would piss the US off no end even if it did save them and the venezuelans from a nasty bloody war.

    Russia does not need a carrier to invade NATO or to attack Russia... they could do with one to stop Libya and the same thing happening in Venezuela or Nicaragua or Yemen or where ever... they need to be able to back up their words with something solid... a Kirov class or modern equivalent is good enough most of the time, but a modern cruiser with carrier support says it with flowers...

    a total waste of money and resources …. that could be better spent on regional Russia ...

    Russia without a capable navy that can project power and protect Russian interests is an isolated and economically crippled Russia that will always find potential customers rapidly put under sanction and then turned to trade with the west instead. do you think they wouldn't?

    Selling raw supplies and energy to China wont be enough... they need customers for their other goods...

    re "carriers" I see Russia is thinking of doing Borei class nuke subs armed with cruise missiles ….
    this is what I've been saying makes more sense - SSGNs …. they are the true "super carriers" of the modern era ….

    In terms of power projection and getting the confidence of countries to choose to trade with Russia... a SSGN is not so good... unless you are prepared to attack USN forces blockading a port... or intercepting and seizing material sent to or from the country to Russia...

    thing is re carriers vs SSGNs … SSGNs can send their missiles on "suicide" missions … they don't need to come back, so your strike range is effectively double any carrier with manned aircraft that have pilots wanting to come back alive …. ie fly both ways …. not one

    A Russian carrier group can launch large numbers of cruise missiles to take down enemy threats before the bombers are sent in...

    To be fair if Russia had a carrier capable of carrying out large scale airstrikes they would be using that over sub-launched cruise missiles

    Russian carriers are optimised as air defence carriers to protect the ships it operates with. Those fighters will have the capacity to fly missions into enemy air space and drop dumb bombs from safe altitudes to destroy targets relatively cheaply but only after cruise missiles and fighters have taken out radar, comms, HQs, and enemy air power before hand.

    A Russian carrier is primarily there to protect the fleet of ships and subs, the ships and subs will destroy any enemy fleet or today land based threat.

    They used the submarines because that's all they had, those cruise missiles are also much more expensive per unit then an aircrafts bombs. Aircraft launched from a carrier can strike targets more often.

    Well to be fair those land attack cruise missiles were excellent value for money because their nuclear warheads were devastating, but could only be used during WWIII as they had no conventionally armed versions.

    It was also to show the world "hey we can do this to"

    They mentioned quite some time before they had cruise missiles but western experts were pretty much in denial up until they were actually used and used effectively.

    Why not give a display as well as test some new weapons at the same time.

    It's not like the rats in Syria have AA to threaten Russian Aircraft.

    When you say rats I assume you don't include their airforce provided by NATO?

    SSGNs r good at conducting surgical strikes; with nukes they can act as semi-strategic subs if nothing better is at hand.

    Their SSGNs were for taking out US carrier groups which were perceived as a serious threat... at the time there was no interest in power projection or global reach in terms of naval power it was self defence first...


    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:45 am; edited 1 time in total
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1559
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  dino00 Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:34 pm

    Another point to my wishlist would be new generation EW, where Russia has a significant lead.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1559
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  dino00 Tue May 07, 2019 2:25 pm

    SOURCE: the development of the first Russian nuclear aircraft carrier will begin in 2023

    The displacement of the ship will be about 70 thousand tons, the source said.



    R & D on the new aircraft carrier is included in the current state armaments program until 2027 and will begin in 2023," the agency’s source said.

    He clarified that "the ship will have a nuclear power plant and a displacement of about 70 thousand tons."

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) told TASS that so far "they have not received any specific tactical-technical design specifications for this ship from the Russian Defense Ministry." At the same time, the corporation noted that they did not stop developing proposals for promising ships, including the aircraft carrier. "If such an order is received from the military department, the enterprises of the corporation will be ready to implement it," the USC added.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6407454
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1406
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Tue May 07, 2019 7:09 pm

    dino00 wrote:SOURCE: the development of the first Russian nuclear aircraft carrier will begin in 2023

    The displacement of the ship will be about 70 thousand tons, the source said.



    R & D on the new aircraft carrier is included in the current state armaments program until 2027 and will begin in 2023," the agency’s source said.

    He clarified that "the ship will have a nuclear power plant and a displacement of about 70 thousand tons."

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) told TASS that so far "they have not received any specific tactical-technical design specifications for this ship from the Russian Defense Ministry." At the same time, the corporation noted that they did not stop developing proposals for promising ships, including the aircraft carrier. "If such an order is received from the military department, the enterprises of the corporation will be ready to implement it," the USC added.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6407454


    well the size is the right one (and also about the same as Ulyanovsk. That means also that they will not start cutting steel before 2026 at least.

    For that time Nikolaev and its shipyards could have already returned to Russia, even if after so many years of neglect they would need quite a bit of time and investment before being able again to build carriers and cruisers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28663
    Points : 29193
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed May 08, 2019 9:52 am

    For that time Nikolaev and its shipyards could have already returned to Russia, even if after so many years of neglect they would need quite a bit of time and investment before being able again to build carriers and cruisers.

    Yeah, I would not hold my breath.... even if the Ukrainian government burst into tears and got down on one knee and begged for forgiveness I don't think Russia would fund their shipyards to get them to the point where they could make carriers again and give them the contract for their first CVN.

    And the thing is I don't think the current regime is pro Russia... it might be more pragmatic because its best chance of improving its own situation is better relations with Russia which it has systematically destroyed over the last few years with the full support and encouragement of the west.

    I am certain if the Urainians wanted better relations that Russia wants better relations, but it is going to be a while before they get close enough for that sort of thing, and by that time it will be Russian companies get Russian contracts first... and how could the Ukraine complain about that considering what has happened.

    BTW a 70K ton CVN does not preclude STOVL fighters, but I hope they realise they will not have thousands of carrier based fighters so they might as well make them as good as they can possibly make them... ie Su-35 and Su-57 based designs. 5th gen light fighters could be an option if it means they can carry a LOT more... just 25% more and I would rather see fewer bigger more capable aircraft.
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 302
    Points : 298
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kumbor Wed May 08, 2019 10:08 am

    GarryB wrote:
    For that time Nikolaev and its shipyards could have already returned to Russia, even if after so many years of neglect they would need quite a bit of time and investment before being able again to build carriers and cruisers.

    Yeah, I would not hold my breath.... even if the Ukrainian government burst into tears and got down on one knee and begged for forgiveness I don't think Russia would fund their shipyards to get them to the point where they could make carriers again and give them the contract for their first CVN.

    And the thing is I don't think the current regime is pro Russia... it might be more pragmatic because its best chance of improving its own situation is better relations with Russia which it has systematically destroyed over the last few years with the full support and encouragement of the west.

    I am certain if the Urainians wanted better relations that Russia wants better relations, but it is going to be a while before they get close enough for that sort of thing, and by that time it will be Russian companies get Russian contracts first... and how could the Ukraine complain about that considering what has happened.

    BTW a 70K ton CVN does not preclude STOVL fighters, but I hope they realise they will not have thousands of carrier based fighters so they might as well make them as good as they can possibly make them... ie Su-35 and Su-57 based designs.  5th gen light fighters could be an option if it means they can carry a LOT more... just 25% more and I would rather see fewer bigger more capable aircraft.

    But Nikolayev is very deep in the territory of Ukraine and i don`t see any chance of annexing it by Russia, unless there will be a major war between two countrys, which i find  rather impossible! Nikolayev was never part of Russia - if you don`t mean part of Russian empire. Also, Nikolayev shipyard is in the state of disrepair, they don`t work, as everything worth there is robbed and sold out out as scrap metal!
    Rodion_Romanovic
    Rodion_Romanovic

    Posts : 1406
    Points : 1396
    Join date : 2015-12-30
    Location : Merkelland

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Rodion_Romanovic Wed May 08, 2019 10:35 am

    kumbor wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    For that time Nikolaev and its shipyards could have already returned to Russia, even if after so many years of neglect they would need quite a bit of time and investment before being able again to build carriers and cruisers.

    Yeah, I would not hold my breath.... even if the Ukrainian government burst into tears and got down on one knee and begged for forgiveness I don't think Russia would fund their shipyards to get them to the point where they could make carriers again and give them the contract for their first CVN.

    And the thing is I don't think the current regime is pro Russia... it might be more pragmatic because its best chance of improving its own situation is better relations with Russia which it has systematically destroyed over the last few years with the full support and encouragement of the west.

    I am certain if the Urainians wanted better relations that Russia wants better relations, but it is going to be a while before they get close enough for that sort of thing, and by that time it will be Russian companies get Russian contracts first... and how could the Ukraine complain about that considering what has happened.

    BTW a 70K ton CVN does not preclude STOVL fighters, but I hope they realise they will not have thousands of carrier based fighters so they might as well make them as good as they can possibly make them... ie Su-35 and Su-57 based designs.  5th gen light fighters could be an option if it means they can carry a LOT more... just 25% more and I would rather see fewer bigger more capable aircraft.

    But Nikolayev is very deep in the territory of Ukraine and i don`t see any chance of annexing it by Russia, unless there will be a major war between two countrys, which i find  rather impossible! Nikolayev was never part of Russia - if you don`t mean part of Russian empire. Also, Nikolayev shipyard is in the state of disrepair, they don`t work, as everything worth there is robbed and sold out out as scrap metal!

    Until 1992 there was no independent country called ukraine, it was all soviet union.

    Furthermore many people there in the south (Nicolaev, Odessa and Kerch area) (expecislly those above 40) cannot even speak properly in ukrainian (and some not at all).

    I also heard that.Nicolaev university is very bad at the moment,while in the past i believe it had one of the best naval engineering faculty of the whole USSR.

    Anyway, i was not speaking about the current ukrainian government. I mean that I cannot see the ukrainian state in.this form surviving another 10 years, and maybe even less.

    In Crimea the shipyards have been modernised and rebuilt and or are in a process of modernisation.
    They are still slower and less.efficient than other shipyards, but they will get there given another few years and enough orders

    The same could be done for the 3 large shipyards in Nicolaev, given enough money and time,

    also because the big efforts of rebuilding and modernising the Russian shipyards in the far east, in the north and.in saint Petersburg area should all be finished by 2024.

    Of course this would be worth to be done only if the south of.ukraine would rejoin Russia (Crimean style).

    Not even a rouble should be spent there if it remains a separate state, even if in a couple of years a less hostile goverment would emerge.

    On a separate note, the other relatively large shipyard in Kherson is instead in a better state apparently.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7361
    Points : 7347
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Thu May 09, 2019 8:12 am

    https://mobile.almasdarnews.com/article/russia-to-create-worlds-first-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier/

    Russia to start nuclear carrier in 2023. Should start it in 2020, it's only paper work R&D.

    Research and development (R&D) work to create the first Russian nuclear-powered aircraft carrier will start in 2023; it was included in the state arms program. A source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS about it on Tuesday.

    “R&D work on the new aircraft carrier was included in the operating state arms program by 2027 and will start in 2023,” the source said.

    For Ehniee :

    The United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) told TASS that they “haven’t received any design specifications for the given ship from the Russian Defense Ministry yet.”

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 25 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 17, 2021 12:35 pm