Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
sepheronx
I truely think Russia needs to take a good look at what they had previously. The Yak-141 jumpjet project was too good to give up, and yet, they did (understandably during the time it was being worked on). What I am getting at though is that a ship like what Japan recently commissioned, the 22DDH, is a wonderful ship, and something like that for Russian navy is hundreds of times better than the Mistral, and Kuztnetsov is in desperate need of repair and modernization.
+56
calripson
Morpheus Eberhardt
magnumcromagnon
navyfield
collegeboy16
Hannibal Barca
Vann7
zg18
Dima
Arrow
Mindstorm
Notio
SU-41
AlfaT8
Flanky
NationalRus
Flyingdutchman
xeno
Hachimoto
eridan
dino00
KomissarBojanchev
Cyberspec
Mr.Kalishnikov47
psg
TheRealist
harsh
Shadåw
Sujoy
medo
coolieno99
gloriousfatherland
flamming_python
Firebird
TheArmenian
TR1
George1
GarryB
ahmedfire
runaway
Pervius
PAVN
nightcrawler
Serbia Forever 2
Russian Patriot
IronsightSniper
Austin
Farhad Gulemov
KRON1
sepheronx
Viktor
Jelena
Stealthflanker
RuStepan
Vladislav
Admin
60 posters
Russian Navy: Status & News #1
sepheronx- Posts : 8836
Points : 9096
Join date : 2009-08-05
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Thats treu if the russians are having à ship like that with à new model of the jumpjet thans more effective than mistrals!
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
At the end of the day a jump jet is a horribly compromised aircraft... it is much better than a helicopter, but not much better than most conventional take off aircraft in the same category.
The Harrier got a very good reputation because when used in anger it was used with a late model Sidewinder that could lock on to the front of an enemy aircraft. This meant that the Harrier had a much better chance of a lock and a kill than its opponents.
Later Harriers got AMRAAM which meant it still had a good primary weapon and it had a good radar, but if it went up against a more potent enemy it would have been in trouble.
Against a Mig-21 it would have probably had better AAMs but in terms of speed it could not dictate combat.
Against a Mig-23 it would not have had any BVR missiles so the Mig would have had an advantage in terms of speed, range and engagement options.
Against a modern jet it would be hard to develop a VSTOL aircraft that was better than any ground based equivalent... the requirement to take off vertically limits effective weight... most use rolling takeoffs to increase payload... so you might as well have a real plane anyway.
In terms of supporting amphibious operations the Mistral is a very very useful vessel. In terms of humanitarian use helicopters are vastly more useful than jump jets.
Problems near the Kurile Islands can be supported by land based Russian fighters... fixed wing carriers will not be so critical in such an instance.
The Harrier got a very good reputation because when used in anger it was used with a late model Sidewinder that could lock on to the front of an enemy aircraft. This meant that the Harrier had a much better chance of a lock and a kill than its opponents.
Later Harriers got AMRAAM which meant it still had a good primary weapon and it had a good radar, but if it went up against a more potent enemy it would have been in trouble.
Against a Mig-21 it would have probably had better AAMs but in terms of speed it could not dictate combat.
Against a Mig-23 it would not have had any BVR missiles so the Mig would have had an advantage in terms of speed, range and engagement options.
Against a modern jet it would be hard to develop a VSTOL aircraft that was better than any ground based equivalent... the requirement to take off vertically limits effective weight... most use rolling takeoffs to increase payload... so you might as well have a real plane anyway.
In terms of supporting amphibious operations the Mistral is a very very useful vessel. In terms of humanitarian use helicopters are vastly more useful than jump jets.
Problems near the Kurile Islands can be supported by land based Russian fighters... fixed wing carriers will not be so critical in such an instance.
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Thats à very good point
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
How the hell is the 22DDH a wonderfull ship that is better for Russia than Mistral?sepheronx wrote:I truely think Russia needs to take a good look at what they had previously. The Yak-141 jumpjet project was too good to give up, and yet, they did (understandably during the time it was being worked on). What I am getting at though is that a ship like what Japan recently commissioned, the 22DDH, is a wonderful ship, and something like that for Russian navy is hundreds of times better than the Mistral, and Kuztnetsov is in desperate need of repair and modernization.
It is a huge glorified helicopter carrier.
It would be even heavier and bigger than the debatable useful Mistral.
A complete money waste that is much better spent on more frigates and the underwater fleet.
For the size the 22DDH has a miserly armament. Russia doesn't need a big expeditionary ASW asset as much as it needs other things right now.
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Well actually the 22ddh will be able to deploy f 35b aircraft.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
That is speculation right now.
It will be years untill any headway is made in that direction, if ever.
And even if it does get VSTOL capability, I fail to see how that is at all what a priority for Russia should be.
Small carriers and VTOL birds will suffer a serious load and range penalty, so they won't have much use close to Russian shores where land based birds can be used.
A worldwide naval jet presence would be an expensive and wasteful luxury for RuNavy at this point.
Not to mention the fact that no plane exists, the Yak-141 is in the dustbins of history.
Developing a VTOL jet just for small-scale use on several small carriers is terribly wasteful compared to adapting a land based jet for a big carrier.
And hell, one big carrier with a non VTOL compliment would probably carry more deploy-able birds than two half-the size VTOL carriers.
It will be years untill any headway is made in that direction, if ever.
And even if it does get VSTOL capability, I fail to see how that is at all what a priority for Russia should be.
Small carriers and VTOL birds will suffer a serious load and range penalty, so they won't have much use close to Russian shores where land based birds can be used.
A worldwide naval jet presence would be an expensive and wasteful luxury for RuNavy at this point.
Not to mention the fact that no plane exists, the Yak-141 is in the dustbins of history.
Developing a VTOL jet just for small-scale use on several small carriers is terribly wasteful compared to adapting a land based jet for a big carrier.
And hell, one big carrier with a non VTOL compliment would probably carry more deploy-able birds than two half-the size VTOL carriers.
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
TR-1 raises a good point... a VSTOL aircraft for Russia would be a very specialist aircraft only needed in very small numbers... it makes rather more sense to go for an adapted land based aircraft.
Besides why waste money making a Mistral class carrier into a fixed wing carrier when a fixed wing carrier would be much better for the job?
When you have F-35s on your carrier how is having a $200 million dollar fighter more use to ground troops than the 10 Ka-52s you could have had for the same price?
To carry a decent air to ground load of weapons the F-35 has to give up its stealth completely so other than speed and range the Ka-52 would probably be the better air support choice.
For air to air defence of a naval group a bigger carrier with nuclear power will carry more fuel and more ordinance for larger potentially more capable aircraft... by the time the Japanese are putting F-35s on their ships the Russians will likely have PAK FAs on their new carriers and I think a naval PAK FA will be a better naval aircraft than the F-35... especially without having VSTOL capabilities to handicap its performance.
Besides why waste money making a Mistral class carrier into a fixed wing carrier when a fixed wing carrier would be much better for the job?
When you have F-35s on your carrier how is having a $200 million dollar fighter more use to ground troops than the 10 Ka-52s you could have had for the same price?
To carry a decent air to ground load of weapons the F-35 has to give up its stealth completely so other than speed and range the Ka-52 would probably be the better air support choice.
For air to air defence of a naval group a bigger carrier with nuclear power will carry more fuel and more ordinance for larger potentially more capable aircraft... by the time the Japanese are putting F-35s on their ships the Russians will likely have PAK FAs on their new carriers and I think a naval PAK FA will be a better naval aircraft than the F-35... especially without having VSTOL capabilities to handicap its performance.
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
Yes he has a very good point!
sepheronx- Posts : 8836
Points : 9096
Join date : 2009-08-05
Age : 35
Location : Canada
New carriers? There isn't even anything planned yet till at least after 2020 to come up with a design. If it is in Russia best interest to have carriers, then at least come up with a newer generation of Kuznetsov (to reduce design development), and try to implement more aircrafts. And even then, there isn't a carrier variant of PAK FA R&D going yet (at least we know of) and so it is all pure speculation.GarryB wrote:TR-1 raises a good point... a VSTOL aircraft for Russia would be a very specialist aircraft only needed in very small numbers... it makes rather more sense to go for an adapted land based aircraft.
Besides why waste money making a Mistral class carrier into a fixed wing carrier when a fixed wing carrier would be much better for the job?
When you have F-35s on your carrier how is having a $200 million dollar fighter more use to ground troops than the 10 Ka-52s you could have had for the same price?
To carry a decent air to ground load of weapons the F-35 has to give up its stealth completely so other than speed and range the Ka-52 would probably be the better air support choice.
For air to air defence of a naval group a bigger carrier with nuclear power will carry more fuel and more ordinance for larger potentially more capable aircraft... by the time the Japanese are putting F-35s on their ships the Russians will likely have PAK FAs on their new carriers and I think a naval PAK FA will be a better naval aircraft than the F-35... especially without having VSTOL capabilities to handicap its performance.
22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.
flamming_python- Posts : 9519
Points : 9577
Join date : 2012-01-30
It opens the question as to why the Soviets were focusing on VTOL fixed-wing aircraft in the first place. Was it just a fad during the 60s-80s? Naval helicopter technology not being developed to a sufficient degree at that time?
Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?
Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
[quote="sepheronx"]
So I repeat to you: how is 22DDH much better than Mistral for Russia?
Which is irrelevant as far as Russia is concerned.GarryB wrote:
22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.
So I repeat to you: how is 22DDH much better than Mistral for Russia?
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The Russian Navy wont be ready for more than one fixed wing carrier before 2025.New carriers? There isn't even anything planned yet till at least after 2020 to come up with a design.
The fact that they are bothering to keep the Kuznetsov operational means they want carriers to support their operations... right now they will be local in nature with the odd long range voyage... like the ones to Cuba and Venezuela.
By 2025 they might want to go further afield and carriers will let them do that with better safety.
No way. What is the point of playing it safe and going with an existing design?If it is in Russia best interest to have carriers, then at least come up with a newer generation of Kuznetsov (to reduce design development), and try to implement more aircrafts.
It makes rather more sense to use what they have learned from their own experience and the experience of others and make a much better aircraft carrier from scratch than just make another Kuznetsov.
For a start the focus of the carriers will be air defence... all of the ships and subs in the battle group will have plenty of land attack capability with UKSK launcher bins so there is no point in compromising aircraft design for strike missions as a primary role.
Naval versions have already been mentioned by Sukhoi... if an Su-33 can operate from the K then a PAK FA should be able to too as it is lighter and slightly smaller and has much more powerful engines. The only issue is a hook, strengthened undercarriage, and folding wings and tail surfaces.And even then, there isn't a carrier variant of PAK FA R&D going yet (at least we know of) and so it is all pure speculation.
The gas turbines of the Ka-29 and Ka-52 are technically jet engines.22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.
Being able to carry an F-35 would be rather pointless for Russia don't you agree?
Grew from helicopter carriers used for ASW, and was also influenced by British VSTOL carriers for use in an expanded ASW role with some anti ship capability. The Yak-38 and Yak-38M were seen as alternatives to the Su-25 in the light strike role and were tested as such in Afghanistan. The Su-25 being the far superior light attack platform.It opens the question as to why the Soviets were focusing on VTOL fixed-wing aircraft in the first place. Was it just a fad during the 60s-80s? Naval helicopter technology not being developed to a sufficient degree at that time?
The Soviets had no sea lanes to protect, no world wide empire to protect so instead of building aircraft carriers to replace the guns of the battleships they built supersonic heavy anti ship missiles that could be mounted on vessels from patrol boats to cruisers.Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?
The usefulness of aircraft at sea however was undeniable... especially in the sphere of ASW so they tested the waters with helicopter carriers and then moved to VSTOL carriers... the increase in range of SLBMs meant NATO subs no longer had to approach Soviet waters to launch their missiles so they shifted their focus to fixed wing carriers to protect the various platforms with large heavy anti ship missiles for attacking US carrier groups.
Firebird- Posts : 1808
Points : 1838
Join date : 2011-10-14
I think emphasis WAS different to the USA. As was "key interests".flamming_python wrote:It opens the question as to why the Soviets were focusing on VTOL fixed-wing aircraft in the first place. Was it just a fad during the 60s-80s? Naval helicopter technology not being developed to a sufficient degree at that time?
Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?
But also, the USSR had 4 Kiev class carriers commissioned in the 70s and 80s.
Ontop of that, 2 Kuznetsov class carriers. And 2 Ulyanovsk mega carriers(similar to Nimitz) being prepared at the end of the Soviet Union.Even the 2 Moskva class carriers were only a little over 20 yrs old in 1991.
Kievs had VSTOL, Moskvas were for choppers. But Uylanovsk and Kuznet are "true" carriers. So I think they were definitely moving towards a US equivalent doctrine. And the VTOL was showing problems, despite earlier promise.
What Russia has is a complete lack of carriers built for over 25 years or so, and others prematurely sold.
If the USSR had continued and been in a strong financial state, I see no reason why more than 2 Ulyanovsks would not have been in service. Ofcourse, this was hugely expensive for the USSR and is a huge drain on America for her own carriers, but looking at it this way, the 2 super powers werent THAT different. Despite what the "conventional wisdom" is today.
BTW, I actually think that the true winner of the cold war wasnt the US or ofcourse Russia, but actually places like China and India, who were able to concentrate on civillian industry and tech, to close the gap massively.
sepheronx- Posts : 8836
Points : 9096
Join date : 2009-08-05
Age : 35
Location : Canada
Longer/wider, can transport more.TR1 wrote:sepheronx wrote:Which is irrelevant as far as Russia is concerned.GarryB wrote:
22DDW is much better than Mistral, at least the deck can sustain a jet based aircraft unlike Mistral.
So I repeat to you: how is 22DDH much better than Mistral for Russia?
@ GarryB
Kuznetsov isn't a bad aircraft carrier per se, the only issue that the ship has is the gas turbine engines that are continuously failing and are in desperate need of replacement. As far as I am aware, the refit was supposed to include something of a replacement engines, but they never said if it was gas turbine again, or if it was a nuclear (there was pure speculation of such to test a newer ship reactor on board). As well, the ship is indeed need much of its hull repaired and/or overhauled as there are plenty of cracks, and rust.
I heard they were going to remove the antiship missiles (as they were apparently flooded out and no longer opperational) and make room for an additional aircraft or two. The other aircraft carrier design they could come up with is that of the Ulyanovsk. Other than that, it will take countless of years for R&D of a new generation of Aircraft carriers. It would be quicker and more useful to build pocket carriers as it would be cheaper too.
Soviet VTOL or even western VTOL's were not that efficient (Yak-38 or Harrier) but they were useful, much easier for transport and could carry more jets on board, so able to cover more area. Yak-141 was a very promising vtol program that was ultimately canceled following the end of the Soviet Union, and now America got lots of its sweet necture for its F-35 project. After having VTOL's in service, I do not see why they couldn't work on efficiency afterwards, which is what we will see on F-35.Firebird wrote:I think emphasis WAS different to the USA. As was "key interests".flamming_python wrote:It opens the question as to why the Soviets were focusing on VTOL fixed-wing aircraft in the first place. Was it just a fad during the 60s-80s? Naval helicopter technology not being developed to a sufficient degree at that time?
Or was there something fundamentally different about Soviet naval doctrine (I don't think there was) as opposed to today's Russian doctrine?
But also, the USSR had 4 Kiev class carriers commissioned in the 70s and 80s.
Ontop of that, 2 Kuznetsov class carriers. And 2 Ulyanovsk mega carriers(similar to Nimitz) being prepared at the end of the Soviet Union.Even the 2 Moskva class carriers were only a little over 20 yrs old in 1991.
Kievs had VSTOL, Moskvas were for choppers. But Uylanovsk and Kuznet are "true" carriers. So I think they were definitely moving towards a US equivalent doctrine. And the VTOL was showing problems, despite earlier promise.
What Russia has is a complete lack of carriers built for over 25 years or so, and others prematurely sold.
If the USSR had continued and been in a strong financial state, I see no reason why more than 2 Ulyanovsks would not have been in service. Ofcourse, this was hugely expensive for the USSR and is a huge drain on America for her own carriers, but looking at it this way, the 2 super powers werent THAT different. Despite what the "conventional wisdom" is today.
BTW, I actually think that the true winner of the cold war wasnt the US or ofcourse Russia, but actually places like China and India, who were able to concentrate on civillian industry and tech, to close the gap massively.
As for who won the cold war, I would say that America won on the sense of the political background because of them being able to push their agenda to Russia's next door, as well as collapsing Russian allies. India and China won because there was a huge influx of technologies from both sides going everywhere, and those two countries ate it up.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
There are no serious modernization plans as of yet, certainly nothing like UKSK housing.
This dry dock visit was general repair, though its likely some minor navigational, electronic upgrades were completed.
This dry dock visit was general repair, though its likely some minor navigational, electronic upgrades were completed.
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Who told you that?Kuznetsov isn't a bad aircraft carrier per se, the only issue that the ship has is the gas turbine engines that are continuously failing and are in desperate need of replacement.
I don't remember the last time the K had to be towed back to port.
AFAIK the refit was supposed to take from early 2013 to 2018... which suggests a fairly comprehensive refit.As far as I am aware, the refit was supposed to include something of a replacement engines, but they never said if it was gas turbine again, or if it was a nuclear (there was pure speculation of such to test a newer ship reactor on board).
Installing new propulsion should be interesting as nuclear power means electric which suggests an electric motor based propulsion with the nuke reactor as the battery... Diesels can be run in reverse but have to be stopped... gas turbines need extensive gearing to be run in reverse. Electric motors just need the polarity changed on the power source to run backwards and don't even need to be stopped first.
Also EM based catapults should enable heavier aircraft to operate from her deck including tanker aircraft and AEW/AWACS fixed wing aircraft which should greatly improve performance.
Its condition is not all that bad... it has been maintained and used quite regularly recently.As well, the ship is indeed need much of its hull repaired and/or overhauled as there are plenty of cracks, and rust.
The area taken up by 12 Granits will free up quite a bit of space, but moving to nuclear power also means the fuel stored on the ship is for the air component only instead of for the ship so rather more can be carried.I heard they were going to remove the antiship missiles (as they were apparently flooded out and no longer opperational) and make room for an additional aircraft or two.
They are not going to start building new carriers till at least 2022 so why dust off ancient cold war plans for a conventionally powered carrier?The other aircraft carrier design they could come up with is that of the Ulyanovsk.
Quicker?... yes... pointless?... also yes.Other than that, it will take countless of years for R&D of a new generation of Aircraft carriers. It would be quicker and more useful to build pocket carriers as it would be cheaper too.
Pocket in this case means disposable.
Their intent in having carriers is to defend surface and subsurface units from enemy air, sea, and undersea forces... tiny little carriers make little sense.
It is a bit like the Mi-24 vs Mi-17 debate... why use a big heavy Mi-17 to deliver 16 or 24 troops into combat when the smaller lighter Mi-24 can carry 8 and provide fire support for them when they land.
The reality is that an attack helo has a job and a transport helo has a job and it can't do both jobs at once, which meant the Hind just carried weapons and the Mi-17 carried troops and rockets to suppress enemy forces near the landing zone just before and after dropping off troops.
In many ways all the parts of the Soviet Union that was not Russia actually won the cold war... getting to blame everything on Russia and having the west rush you into NATO or suck up to you to get you to join so they can move their little chess pieces closer to Moscow...As for who won the cold war, I would say that America won on the sense
In addition Russia also had a sort of stupid democracy imposed on it half based on US law (ie limits as to how long a leader can remain in power.... there are no such limits in the UK or commonwealth AFAIK).
Flanky- Posts : 192
Points : 197
Join date : 2011-05-02
Location : Slovakia
Guys i've seen some really out of the world comments in this topic.
Let me point out couple of things:
1.) Russians have just recently built Vikramaditya carrier for India
I think this was a very good lesson to them, what to do when, how much matterial, where to place what and why.
Basically their experience is now on the old level.
2.) Based on their experience building the Indian ship, they probably know by now on 200% that Kuznetsov is utterly insufficient for bluewater navy.
And there are 2 reasons for that claim:
a) It is not nuclear powered and needs to refuel now and then.
b) There are no catapults. For a blue water navy you need to have logistics - air logistics as well. If you are in the middle of nowhere you need to have a transport plane being able to cover long distance to haul cargo. An equivalent of C-2 Greyhound. Somehow i cannot imagine that an aircraft like this would be able to get out ino the air by a mere skijump.
3.) You were talking much about the F-35. I personally doubt that aircraft will make it to the production. It will be canceled just like the RAH-66 Commanche was.
The program is having so many problems, which solution to that problems will increase the cost of single unit to a degree that it won't be affordable.
It isn't affordabe right now - countries will cut their orders and that will increase the cost of the plane even more.
Having listen to the experts that the plane is having problems with oxygen system, with control system, with structural weaknesses, with small wing size - those are just examples.
I would not see F-35 as a serious enemy when it comes to Naval deployment. If that programme survives, that plane wont be manufactured in huge numbers.
4.) New Russian carrier will not have a unique focus on fleet air defense which was the role of Kuznetsov. New ship need to have balanced roles. It needs to be able to protect the fleet from air threats as much as it needs to be able to show ground attack capability. The fact that rest of the fleet will have significant ground attack capability is not an excuse of not having ground strike airplanes aboard. The reason for that is that often your targets aren't just stationary strategic infrastructure, but also moving mobile targets. For that you need some sort of observation in the area to determine what is target and what not - a piloted plane or a drone. So either way you need a strike plane or strike drone.
Let me point out couple of things:
1.) Russians have just recently built Vikramaditya carrier for India
I think this was a very good lesson to them, what to do when, how much matterial, where to place what and why.
Basically their experience is now on the old level.
2.) Based on their experience building the Indian ship, they probably know by now on 200% that Kuznetsov is utterly insufficient for bluewater navy.
And there are 2 reasons for that claim:
a) It is not nuclear powered and needs to refuel now and then.
b) There are no catapults. For a blue water navy you need to have logistics - air logistics as well. If you are in the middle of nowhere you need to have a transport plane being able to cover long distance to haul cargo. An equivalent of C-2 Greyhound. Somehow i cannot imagine that an aircraft like this would be able to get out ino the air by a mere skijump.
3.) You were talking much about the F-35. I personally doubt that aircraft will make it to the production. It will be canceled just like the RAH-66 Commanche was.
The program is having so many problems, which solution to that problems will increase the cost of single unit to a degree that it won't be affordable.
It isn't affordabe right now - countries will cut their orders and that will increase the cost of the plane even more.
Having listen to the experts that the plane is having problems with oxygen system, with control system, with structural weaknesses, with small wing size - those are just examples.
I would not see F-35 as a serious enemy when it comes to Naval deployment. If that programme survives, that plane wont be manufactured in huge numbers.
4.) New Russian carrier will not have a unique focus on fleet air defense which was the role of Kuznetsov. New ship need to have balanced roles. It needs to be able to protect the fleet from air threats as much as it needs to be able to show ground attack capability. The fact that rest of the fleet will have significant ground attack capability is not an excuse of not having ground strike airplanes aboard. The reason for that is that often your targets aren't just stationary strategic infrastructure, but also moving mobile targets. For that you need some sort of observation in the area to determine what is target and what not - a piloted plane or a drone. So either way you need a strike plane or strike drone.
AlfaT8- Posts : 2488
Points : 2479
Join date : 2013-02-01
As far s i am aware of more experience a good thing.Flanky wrote:Guys i've seen some really out of the world comments in this topic.
Let me point out couple of things:
1.) Russians have just recently built Vikramaditya carrier for India
I think this was a very good lesson to them, what to do when, how much matterial, where to place what and why.
Basically their experience is now on the old level.
2)That would depend heavily on Russia's view on what a "Blue Water" navy should be.Flanky wrote:
2.) Based on their experience building the Indian ship, they probably know by now on 200% that Kuznetsov is utterly insufficient for bluewater navy.
And there are 2 reasons for that claim:
a) It is not nuclear powered and needs to refuel now and then.
b) There are no catapults. For a blue water navy you need to have logistics - air logistics as well. If you are in the middle of nowhere you need to have a transport plane being able to cover long distance to haul cargo. An equivalent of C-2 Greyhound. Somehow i cannot imagine that an aircraft like this would be able to get out ino the air by a mere skyjump.
a) That much is clear and is in the process of being resolved.
b) Sounds like a question on how cargo should be hauled to the carrier which should be compared to how it was done before which i don't know.
On the issue of catapults i hear they experience problems in lower Temp. which is why there not being used.
On the issue of air transport i wonder if Russia is able to produce a light transport aircraft with a long enough range to bypass EU/NATO airspace and head to "the middle of nowhere" and return?
Unfortunately the F-35 will enter production and will be mass produced simply because unlike the RAH-66 there is no alternative, the F-22 is discontinued and the F-15/16/18 are approaching there expiration date, and we all know how much the U.S has to have the newest most advanced gizmo's, after all they never left the cold war.Flanky wrote:
3.) You were talking much about the F-35. I personally doubt that aircraft will make it to the production. It will be canceled just like the RAH-66 Commanche was.
The program is having so many problems, which solution to that problems will increase the cost of single unit to a degree that it won't be affordable.
It isn't affordabe right now - countries will cut their orders and that will increase the cost of the plane even more.
Having listen to the experts that the plane is having problems with oxygen system, with control system, with structural weaknesses, with small wing size - those are just examples.
I would not see F-35 as a serious enemy when it comes to Naval deployment. If that programme survives, that plane wont be manufactured in huge numbers.
Overall it will be Russia's decision, but as far as i am aware of the MIG-29K is a multi-role aircraft that is capable of carrying air-to-air, air-to-sea and air-to-ground munitions, and as for Navy drones i have heard nothing.Flanky wrote:
4.) New Russian carrier will not have a unique focus on fleet air defense which was the role of Kuznetsov. New ship need to have balanced roles. It needs to be able to protect the fleet from air threats as much as it needs to be able to show ground attack capability. The fact that rest of the fleet will have significant ground attack capability is not an excuse of not having ground strike airplanes aboard. The reason for that is that often your targets aren't just stationary strategic infrastructure, but also moving mobile targets. For that you need some sort of observation in the area to determine what is target and what not - a piloted plane or a drone. So either way you need a strike plane or strike drone.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-29k.htm
Flanky- Posts : 192
Points : 197
Join date : 2011-05-02
Location : Slovakia
Yes - i was reacting to a statement which was indicating that Russians don't have experience building aircraft carriers.
As far s i am aware of more experience a good thing.
You see Kuznetsov was never on a prolonged deployment somewhere at the other end of the world.
b) Sounds like a question on how cargo should be hauled to the carrier which should be compared to how it was done before which i don't know.
On the issue of catapults i hear they experience problems in lower Temp. which is why there not being used.
On the issue of air transport i wonder if Russia is able to produce a light transport aircraft with a long enough range to bypass EU/NATO airspace and head to "the middle of nowhere" and return?
The reason for that was it had to count only on local supplies or supplies from naval logistics bases.
Having a plane able to resupply entire battlegroup would allow the group to have significantly better endurance and combat radius.
However i don't deny that Russians certainly need couple of more bases arround the world that would support carrier battlegroup prolonged deployments in distant seas.
But in my view they would need those bases anyway, not just for the navy, but for monitoring space based assets, communications relay and monitoring, space observation.
You see having a bluewater navy in american doctrine means to be able to get to most parts of the world seas and project power by mere presence.
Russians are a superpower but with limited influence. Putin knows very well that in the light of protecting economic interrests in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America - they need to have bases there, and that would cost money. So far those bases are not needed because the navy is not in a shape to have purpose for them - because of the limited bluewater capability and not too many ships.
You know the exact same thing was said about Apache when the Commanche programme was being pushed.
Unfortunately the F-35 will enter production and will be mass produced simply because unlike the RAH-66 there is no alternative, the F-22 is discontinued and the F-15/16/18 are approaching there expiration date, and we all know how much the U.S has to have the newest most advanced gizmo's, after all they never left the cold war.
In the end pentagon opted for Apache to retain service and life extension programme and Commanche was cancelled.
Pentagon now have an option to keep F-16s in service with SuperHornets and cancel JSF. You allways have an option to perform life extension upgrades.
The reason why i am saying this is because of the level of frustration that im reading everywhere on the net, how F-35 is facing infinite number of problems and that they havent even scratched the serious testing despite being like 20 years in development. You know if pentagon which is usually more money tolerant is being fed up, what about countries like Holland, Denmark or Norway which are usually more budget limited. F-35 is doomed to fail i tell you.
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Lack of nuclear propulsion is not a huge drawback for a carrier... most of the vessels in a Russian Carrier battlegroup right now (if you put one together) would pretty much only include Kirov class cruisers as the only surface vessels with partial nuclear propulsion anyway so the support tail of the group would need to supply fuel to all the ships in the group anyway. Making the carrier alone a nuke would just reduce the amount of fuel needed to support the group, or because you can't change the amount of fuel the fuelling ships carry in actual fact what you do is extend the operational range of the other vessels in the group.2.) Based on their experience building the Indian ship, they probably know by now on 200% that Kuznetsov is utterly insufficient for bluewater navy.
And there are 2 reasons for that claim:
a) It is not nuclear powered and needs to refuel now and then.
To get the real benefits of a nuclear carrier you need every vessel in the group to be nuclear powered which means the 16knt speed refuelling vessels wont slow the group down.
Actually the transport fixed wing aircraft are not that useful... the Ka-32 can carry a 5 ton payload and transfer it from ship to ship much faster than a fixed wing transport can transfer it from land if there is a nearby land base in the first place.b) There are no catapults. For a blue water navy you need to have logistics - air logistics as well. If you are in the middle of nowhere you need to have a transport plane being able to cover long distance to haul cargo. An equivalent of C-2 Greyhound. Somehow i cannot imagine that an aircraft like this would be able to get out ino the air by a mere skijump.
A catapult would be very useful, but mainly for launching very large heavy aircraft like AWACS that would otherwise not be able to operate from the carrier. Large heavy fixed wing AWACS can have large antenna, and large fuel tanks for long periods on station... they don't necessarily need to be manned, though two way datalinks with surface vessels will effect emcon.
It is a vicious circle where it costs too much so they reduce numbers which of course increases the price etc etc. The Naval VSTOL model is the most expensive of all the F-35 models and most likely to be cut... leaving a CTOL model.It isn't affordabe right now - countries will cut their orders and that will increase the cost of the plane even more.
The primary focus will be air defence with anti sub warfare as a secondary mission I suspect. For strike missions there might be a SKATE type UCAV, but I really don't see them putting dedicated strike aircraft on board... other than UCAVs of course. The PAK FA is multi role and should be able to perform medium strike missions, but as I have mentioned I really don't see the Russians using their carrier groups against a lot of land targets any time soon... it is just not their way. Perhaps firing a cruise missile or two, but not an air strike.4.) New Russian carrier will not have a unique focus on fleet air defense which was the role of Kuznetsov. New ship need to have balanced roles. It needs to be able to protect the fleet from air threats as much as it needs to be able to show ground attack capability. The fact that rest of the fleet will have significant ground attack capability is not an excuse of not having ground strike airplanes aboard. The reason for that is that often your targets aren't just stationary strategic infrastructure, but also moving mobile targets. For that you need some sort of observation in the area to determine what is target and what not - a piloted plane or a drone. So either way you need a strike plane or strike drone.
Steam cats have problems at lower temperatures with ice build up blocking the slots. Likely any cat system the Russians introduce will be EM cats.On the issue of catapults i hear they experience problems in lower Temp. which is why there not being used.
Makes rather more sense to use helicopters to transfer supplies and stores from nearby ships... quicker and more efficient...On the issue of air transport i wonder if Russia is able to produce a light transport aircraft with a long enough range to bypass EU/NATO airspace and head to "the middle of nowhere" and return?
Probably very true but I doubt that will save the VSTOL F-35. The CTOL F-35 might make it, but I suspect the VSTOL F-35 will get the chop.Unfortunately the F-35 will enter production and will be mass produced simply because unlike the RAH-66 there is no alternative,
The huge irony is that the entire design of the aircraft was based around making the VSTOL version possible which meant choices were made that might not otherwise have been made to allow for those features.
AFAIK the SKATE is pretty much just an unmanned Mig-29 with a 2 ton payload, no AB, and 2,000km range plus stealth. A two seater Mig-29K could be launched with it to send it into enemy territory, find a target and deal with it and then guide it home offering CAP for it.and as for Navy drones i have heard nothing.
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
Moving production to Russia but I did not know how many are produced in Ukraine.
MOSCOW, August 20. (ARMS-TASS). Modern warships of the Russian Navy until the Ukrainian power plants are equipped with state-owned enterprise manufacturing Research Complex for Gas Turbine (HP Research and Production Complex) "Zorya" - "Mashproekt", which is located in Nikolaev. According korr.ARMS-Tass on the "Day of Innovation Ministry of Defense of Russia" deputy head of marketing, "Zorya" - Mashproekt "Anatoly Stashok, the company performs a series of contracts for the supply of major power plants (power plant) for the latest Russian frigates" Admiral Gorshkov "( Project 22350) and the frigates of Project 11356.
Currently, ship propulsion power M7N1 54,000 hp put on the Baltic Shipyard "Yantar" for the head of Project 11356 frigate "Admiral Grigorovich." Finished making a second propulsion system for the first production of this project frigate "Admiral Essen." Ukrainian company has a contract for the next 2 years for the manufacture and supply of four more plants for the frigate "Admiral Makarov", "Admiral Butakov", "Admiral Istomin" and "Admiral Kornilov."
Manufactured and delivered to the Shipyard "Severnaya Verf" by the Russian company "Turborus", two M56 installation capacity of 60,000 hp for new Russian frigates of Project 22350 "Admiral Gorshkov" and "Admiral Kasatonov." Completed production plant for the third frigate of the project "Admiral Golovko."
At the same time, as reported korr.ARMS-TASS in the Rybinsk NPO "Saturn", currently underway, in particular, the preparatory work for the replacement of a power plant in the Ukrainian Project 11356 frigates for reversing the power turbine to the turbine, similar to the development of the Russian higher efficiency and lower fuel consumption.
As for the power plant for the Project 22350 frigates, it is produced jointly by Ukraine and Russia, as Russian companies are in the process of development of its production. "Zorya" - "Mashproekt" produces, in particular, only the gas generator and gearbox this setting, while the Russian company made turbine, and an automatic control system.
As reported in "Saturn", in the long term the new ships of the Russian Navy and the FSB Border Service is supposed to equip a new generation of power plants only domestic production development Rybinsk engine builders.
In particular, the Russian made engines M75RU capacity of 6-7 thousand horsepower and M70FRU (12-14 thousand HP), which are the basic highly economical automated ship's turbine-powered 4-th generation. In various combinations, they fully meet the current and future needs of the Navy and the FSB Border Service in the equipment of ships and boats, planned for construction in the next 10-15 years.
The most powerful engine in the family base for the fleet capacity of 27,000 M90 hp performed together until now "Zorya" - "Mashproekt" and Rybinsk "Saturn." However, in the long term, and its production will be conducted entirely in Russian enterprises. - 0-nn
Modern warships of the Russian Navy until fitted with Ukrainian power plants, but in the perspective of their production will be carried out in Russia
TheArmenian- Posts : 1880
Points : 2025
Join date : 2011-09-14
New Fast Boat for Navy from Pella Shipyard in St. Petersburg
Viktor- Posts : 5796
Points : 6429
Join date : 2009-08-25
Age : 44
Location : Croatia
Interesting.
Cryptologist of USNAVY arrested for trying to spy for Russia
Cryptologist of USNAVY arrested for trying to spy for Russia
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
http://flotprom.ru/news/?ELEMENT_ID=151138
6th 21631 will be laid down tomorrow.
Name : Vyshnuy Volochek
6th 21631 will be laid down tomorrow.
Name : Vyshnuy Volochek