Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat
What can I say, welcome to generation snowflake...flamming_python wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:James Bond was a bit before my time sorry. He's not as iconic among my generation, try Jason Bourne. pirat
Hahaha, you know out of all the stupid s**t I hear out of you young un's, this one one has to take the Pulitzer.
Jason Bourne? How is it possible to compare your Maaaaaaaaatt Daaaaaaaamon to such an iconic and legendary in the world of film series of movies - as James Bond?
This is the most ludicrous rubbish I heard all week.
OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.
Yes, well that's pretty clear. I was referring to the movie characters... I really couldn't care less.flamming_python wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:Poncy British twat, or gungho Yankee, I don't actually give a fuck mate.
I'm neither, matey
Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else. flamming_python Wed Jun 14, 2017 9:04 pm
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Isos wrote:Russia wanted Mistral and would be using them today if there wasn't sanctions.
But when I say Mistral I mean something of it class or little bit bigger. Not specially the Mistral class. I mean an amphibious ship.
They can carry " 16 NH90 or Tiger helicopters, four landing barges, up to 70 vehicles including 13 AMX Leclerc tanks, or a 40-strong Leclerc tank battalion,[3] and 450 soldiers"
A mig is similar in size to a NH90 helicopter. So you can have 10 helicopters and 6 Mig on it. The capacity for troop won't be changed as they are not in the same hangars. If you want to use it in the open sea for naval battle and NOT for a landing you can fit easily at least 12 Mig 29 or more if you built a bigger "Mistral" of let's say 230m, that's modularity.
12 MiGs wont control a whole country... even a third world one.
That means 3 CAP of four aircraft, so you can control one piece of air space 24/7 assuming no losses with three rotating teams of 4 aircraft.
In other words you can fly over the landing area and that is about it.
And if those 12 MiGs are operating from your Mistral class ship that means no helicopters... transport or support so those MiGs are flying combat air patrol and CAS missions...
That's what I said. They can't control a country, they can just be used in some situations like retaking an Island or attacking some strategical targets or helping a landing by attacking deeper. Even K won't be enough to control a country ... Even US needs more than 1 to control Afghanistan ...
British carriers allowed them to take an Island, they would never allow them to control Argentina if they wanted to.
I hope you understood me. I'm not saying it's a magical ships that will replace carriers. I'm just saying that big amphibious ships have the place needed to give them more capabilities by adding some fighters on it (not replacing all its helicopters but a mix of them) and giving a second role for high sea deployment against other navy by having it's small number of fighter patroling and giving them better visibility. Japan navy is planning to do this with it's F-35 BTW. Even fiting one Mig is giving it a enormous advantage over a navy that is not or can't employ its aviation during a battle far from homeland.
Imagine you confront 2 navies: 5 destroyers against 5 destroyers. They will be affected by radar range and missile range. Now you send your amphibious ships with 2 Mig-29 on it
>> It becames 5 destroyers + 2 Mig-29 radars (300km against destroyers) + a better picture of the battlefield + fast moving vectors armed with anti ship missiles which can be carried in big numbers on the amphibious ship and rearmed AGAINST 5 destroyers.
Even if you are facing a US carrier having 12 Mig-29 can be usefull to intercept attack by giving the position of the Harpoons to the ships and destroying some Hornets AND lunching surprise air attacks from long range.
If you don't have the money for a big modern carrier, a cheap basic ship lunching modern fighters is really enough.
It's cute you think 12 Migs will stand up to the Grouping of Aircraft on one of my countries carriers.....
Russia would be to be insane to challenge us in the open ocean.
Russia, unless we are talking about VTOL aircraft putting any aircraft on a ship like this, is stupid.
That also removes the Choppers which is the entire reason the ships are built.
Sorry your logic makes no sense here, these ships do not need fighters and that would be beyond counter-productive for them. End of the day what you think is a good idea is a silly idea.
WW2 escort carriers had on average 30 plus planes.
Pre WW2 Escort carriers were beyond useless in the war with their maybe eight planes at best.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.
I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.
Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.
Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.
Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.
Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.
Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.
That alone tells me all I need to know.
Isos wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.
I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.
Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.
Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.
Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.
Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.
Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.
That alone tells me all I need to know.
If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.
Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.
Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.
You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.
Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general, should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.
flamming_python wrote:Russia can handily counter the US Navy with its huge stockpiles of ASMs and launch platforms for them; it doesn't really need anything else.
OminousSpudd wrote:While having a potential 96 AShMs available is all well and good for AB DDGs
OminousSpudd wrote:The Americans claimed we cheated.
Hence why I said potential. Having 96 Harpoons isn't going to help much against land-based defenses either. All-in-all, operating near Russian coastal waters will be a tad hair-raising, considering the very Russian approach of not putting all eggs in one basket.Big_Gazza wrote:Well, only if the AB doesn't carry any land attack rounds, and chooses not to carry SAMs.... (!!)
Agreed, one can find just as many strategic disasters as successes, I was cherry picking. Hannibal's elephants failed, but it was Carthage bureaucracy that called him home and stopped him in his tracks. One could also say it was the unconventional Roman strategy of attacking the enemy at home rather than committing all forces to the defending of their territory that ultimately brought defeat to Hannibal.Big_Gazza wrote: Finally, unconventional tactics can be game-winners, but can also be abject failures. Hannibal crossing the Alps with Elephants, or Iran's attempt to cross the Hawr Al Hawiza marsh with pontoons were creative but ultimately disastrous.
Isos wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:six Migs....really that would a horrid idea.
I am sorry any third world rate nation can take down six fighters with ZERO hassle.
Modern day ships will out range the Migs, a half dozen migs would not be able to provide any kind of real cover. They would be slight annoyances at best.
Buddy...six goddam migs (which honestly is a moderate number going by your counts) would under no circumstances be able to provide Air cover against F-18's in the volume they would have to deal with.
Brits lost more ships in the War but okay?.
Close to their shores no? if we caught them in the open ocean those fleets would be destroyed, sorry my countries navy is number 1. We would take loss sure but we would sink MUCH more ships then we would lose.
Sorry, your idea is a poor one and only on the armchair does it make any kind of sense. If Russia thought this was a viable idea they would have done it. Please do not act like they have not considered it. The Juan Carlos was offered to the Russians along with the Mistral but the Ruskies denied it.
That alone tells me all I need to know.
If Russia faces US navy they sure won't fight on open seas. But that's not an argument at all. The world isn't thinking about US anytime they do something. I suggested an idea which in my opinion would be good.
Brits reconquired the Island ... BTW they lost their ships against two Super Etandard armed with 2 exocets Argentinians didn't need 10 carriers for that.
Juan Carlos can't fit Migs just VSTOL fighters as it ski jump would be on the landing area of the mig which is dangerous. They would have an oversized ship without the fighters on it. Harriers are British.
You navy is not number 1 at all. You oblige other countries to give you all the support you need and more you oblige them to fight for you. What would you do against china or Russia without Japan, corea, australia and EU ? Nothing. Nor you would have done anything in Afghanistan or Irak.
Look how french Rafales destroyed your F-16 in exercices, how an indian Kilo class destroyed a Los angeles class in exercices, how french nuc subs destroyed a carrier group in exercices, how israeli F-16/15 destroyed your F-18 in exercices, how Kornets destroyed Abrams, how a Phalanx shot on a friendly ship during training ... You, US in general, should stop thinking that your untouchable. There were much powerfull empires during their time than you are today that ended very badly.
Gazputin wrote:recently they said they will reactivate a heli-landing ship
"Additionally, the navy is considering plans for several new amphibious assault ships with aviation groups employing Ka-52K Katran and Ka-29M rotorcraft. There are also plans to restore the only surviving Project 1174 ship (Alexander Nikolayev) back into an operational condition."
so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them
The cost of it is the reason. The French use a Mistral conducting the Joan d'Arc training cruise every year to keep their aviation assets trained. It is far cheaper to operate that, which is basically a flat deck cruise ship, than it is to operate the Kuznetsov.
Vladimir79 wrote:Gazputin wrote:recently they said they will reactivate a heli-landing ship
"Additionally, the navy is considering plans for several new amphibious assault ships with aviation groups employing Ka-52K Katran and Ka-29M rotorcraft. There are also plans to restore the only surviving Project 1174 ship (Alexander Nikolayev) back into an operational condition."
so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them
The cost of it is the reason. The French use a Mistral conducting the Joan d'Arc training cruise every year to keep their aviation assets trained. It is far cheaper to operate that, which is basically a flat deck cruise ship, than it is to operate the Kuznetsov.
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
You.can only train helicopter operations from a mistral. For the rafales they need.to use their nuclear aircraft carrier
Gazputin wrote:...so why would they retire the Kuznetsov ?
at the very worst it will be a good training ship …. because when you lose these skills …. you will probably never get them...
GarryB wrote:SSGNs are potent, but not really something you can use to show the flag.....
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:...The 1174 can already carry 4 helicopters. It should not.cost too much to just refurbish the engines, do minor repairs, and upgrade maybe communication systems...
Because it's a money pit, it has two squadrons of fighter jets stuck on it that do nothing and enough pilots and sailors to staff two aircraft squadrons and dozen frigates
As for "skills" Syria has demonstrated that they are non-existent
Offshore Patrol Vessel can show the flag no problem, just make sure there is SSGN around to deliver the rest
Edit, concerning the last remaining 1174 (ivan rogov class) I read on a article a few years ago that after the not delivery of mistrals, there were plans to modify it to be a proper heli carrier, but it would have been.too expensive.
Tsavo Lion wrote:Why the only Russian aircraft carrier is powerless
I couldn't say it better myself!
the two lost planes revealed both the pilots' insufficient training in landing on the aerofinisher and the complete lack of readiness of the deck teams to carry out their duties
NATO aircraft, carriers of anti-ship missiles, such as the R-3C Orion or Atlantic-2, repeatedly flew up to Kuznetsov.
Not one of them was intercepted, the fighters did not rise to meet them
As an aircraft carrier, the Kuznetsov air defense should, firstly, disrupt air strikes on our surface ships, and secondly, the actions of enemy anti-submarine aircraft against our submarines.
Interrupt their war-fighting operations by scrambling fighters against a non-existent threat in peacetime?
the two lost planes revealed both the pilots' insufficient training in landing on the aerofinisher and the complete lack of readiness of the deck teams to carry out their duties
NATO aircraft, carriers of anti-ship missiles, such as the R-3C Orion or Atlantic-2, repeatedly flew up to Kuznetsov.
Not one of them was intercepted, the fighters did not rise to meet them
Russia isn't in need of a new carrier right now, probably not for 10-15 years at least, and the K will function fine when she is ready.
Enemy flatops will sink, and Russia having 1-2 of them won't effect the outcome. Russia only needs a minimal carrier force, and doesn't need to divert funds from important programs just to build a large penis pump for navy brass or arm-chair carrier enthusiasts.
In a war zone, a CV is supposed to be on a war footing, with alert fighters set aside ready to launch to intercept & escort out all potential threats. That's the SOP.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
