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.
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
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 ….
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.
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.
I know it's location, don't lecture me on geography.
losing 2 fighters which forced its squadrons to operate from Syria.
Then why they used NAF from the Adm. K to attack land targets in Syria?
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.
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.
Showing the flag isn't to win favors, but demonstrate presence & intent to defend 1's interests.
which included attacking land targets; ur argument came a full circle.
Any that will launch LRAShM they r now developing, besides subs firing them & torpedoes.
In 1986 they got rammed & damaged off Crimea, which was not totally unexpected. For the elites, the military is expendable.
This refutes the notion that superpowers + 3rd world countries r not going to shot at each other in anger.
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.
True, but there r many other situations, as u btw described, that better handled with fighters on hair trigger alert.
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.
point is any carrier is a sitting duck against a real enemy ….
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 ….
going back to "car carriers"
they are a good investment as a multi-function regional support political and humanitarian type ship
and Yantar can't do bigger than 150m x 25m ….. so I am personally 90% sure what they will build next
what is a carrier group to Russia ?
fn useless ….
a total waste of money and resources …. that could be better spent on regional Russia ...
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 ….
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
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.
SSGNs r good at conducting surgical strikes; with nukes they can act as semi-strategic subs if nothing better is at hand.
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
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 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.
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!
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.
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.”
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!
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 United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) told TASS that they “haven’t received any design specifications for the given ship from the Russian Defense Ministry yet.”
Isos wrote:
Rob Lee
@RALee85
·
6h
At the Army-2019 defense expo next month, the Krylov State Research Center will display models of a non-nuclear aircraft carrier with a 70k ton displacement, an amphibious landing ship with a displacement of 25-27k tons, and the Lider-class destroyer.
https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6483509
|
|