Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Isos wrote:

So, again :
Are you agree about that three seawolf submarine cost as much as two nimitz carrier?

YES or NO

No.

Good,we getting there.

So , it means that you don't agree one or both of the next informations:

1. the cost of the Truman ( comissioned at the same time like the seawolf) was 4.5 billion $
2. The cost of each seawolf was 3 billion $


So, 1 or two or 1 and 2 ?

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

They don't need any more submarines than they have planned already.

Aircraft carriers are like AWACS aircraft... they are very expensive too, but they increase the capabilities of your air force both at home and abroad.

Russia can build a submarine AC, perhaps.

No, they can make lots of Zircon missiles to make US ACs into submarines...

This is more in your mind than in the reality, because you can not traslate this to every country that had a communist gouvernment. Then obviously the communism was and is not the reason of the hate to Russia.

Good god... are you slow?

If the cold war was about communism then why was China best buddies with the US for a lot of it?

The British have been hating and fighting Russia for centuries... the greatest fear of Britain was that Russia would take India from it... ironic as the actions of the west have largely driven India to look to Russia for its defence needs.

Here where I live in Dunedin in New Zealand we have a port gun built two centuries ago... not to stop Japanese invasion, but to stop Russian invasion... when it actually was Russia... ie the Soviet Union did not exist when it was built.

the hate towards Russia has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the fact that Russia is a powerful country that if left alone might become a very very powerful country. The stupid short sightedness of the west means they are a powerful country kept at arms length, instead of a very powerful ally.

It is the wests loss.

I do not think you can say that the current Russian technological level depends of the sale of some variant of Su-30 to India before than to Russia.

What I am saying is that for a very long period there were no domestic orders so the only thing keeping the Russian MIC working was export orders... of which India was a dominant part.

Indian money didn't invent the Su-30, but the money they spent kept Sukhoi working on state of the art technologies... without that experience the PAK FA would be vastly inferior to what we see now.

This is not the same than to offer to India aircraft carriers of 90000-100000 tons that Russia plans not to have (in your opinion).

India can choose anything it likes... that does not mean Russia has to buy it too. Russia has not got any Su-30MKIs in service and wont get any. The technology developed for the Su-30MKI and upgrades was used to develop the Su-35 first for export only and then for Russian Air Force use.

Anything useful developed in the FFGA programme with India will be transferred to the PAK FA if found useful... and why not... Russia is paying half the development costs for that too.

The United Arab Emirates spend a small fortune on the Pantsir air defence system. They transformed the system by spending money to upgrade the radar and optics and missiles and create a vastly better system... which the Russian military also adopted later... on land and on sea.

Russia never does it with the most advanced and the most powerful armament. Russia never would do it with the A-235, with the SS-30, with the SA-500, with the T-14 or with the Su-PAK-FA. This is a non-sense.

Leaking images... not the whole programme.

The reality is that there are plenty of companies in Russia trying to win competitions... the example I gave was Mil and Kamov trying to win the competition to replace the Hind.

Kamov won, because there was no night or all weather requirement. Because Kamov won their design was kept secret, but Mil was allowed to take their brand new prototype to the Paris Airshow for christs sake... WTF does that tell you?

Ka-50s seemed to be what they needed but they knew the Mi-28 was not bad so they allowed Mil to try to sell it on the international market.

A Russian ship building company can sell designs to India... that does not mean the Russian navy are going to buy one.

Knowing India they would all have to be made in India anyway... so that is not going to happen.

Besides the Indian requirements will likely include too much foreign components.

No-one is talking about ships in the water by 2020, even it would not be possible with the Project 23000. But a project of aircraft carrier is not something doable in 6 months or 1 year. The timeline for an alternative project of aircraft carrier is so short, every time shorter, every time less realistic.

So you think because no other design models have been published that the ones we have seen are the only ones in the running?

That is fine for you to think that... what I am saying is that we wont see any of the real designs for a very long time.

You can try to evade the question, but the answer is clear. Out of the range of the air force from coastal bases, the tools what make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems, are clearly the aircraft carriers of the adversaries.

Bullshit.

Very few countries have aircraft carriers capable enough to be a problem.

By the time these Russian carriers are operational the ships of the Russian Navy will be armed with mach 8+ Zircon anti ship and land attack missiles... pretty much any enemy countries carrier is in trouble... the only ones able to resist for any time would be US carriers and they don't matter because any conflict with those will be decided with SS-30s, not aircraft carriers.

What you are saying is like saying that if US carriers can't survive a dedicated anti ship missile attack then there is no point in having them... they have had them for a while now and have not been attacked by Russian or soviet missiles so they are useful after all.

It means the Russian aircraft carriers must defend the Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems from the aircraft carriers of the adversaries.

No.

The carriers purpose is to destroy enemy aircraft... ship launched Mach 8 anti ship missiles will take care of the enemy ships including carriers.

Then it is logical that Russia, China, and India, think about aircraft carriers of at least the same power (which means the same size). Only that makes possible to face the aircraft carriers of the adversaries in a 1 vs 1 situation. With smaller aircraft carriers the alone option is to escape (just what the US likes).

What China buys and what India buys is none of Russias business and also none of their concern.

Even NATO countries don't standardise their aircraft carriers and they are in a military alliance.

What is this smaller carriers just escape bullshit?

Escape from what? Harpoons?

A Naval PAK FA will kick the arse of F-35s and F-18s.

But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.

Who cares what you can buy with the money?

If you need air cover for ships sailing in the south pacific then three more Yassens are not going to be value for money.

To protect surface ships from enemy air power... whether it is land or sea based you need an aircraft carrier.

Dinky little carriers require VSTOL aircraft which are expensive and bloody useless against a modern enemy.

That leaves medium and large carriers. Medium does the job without being too expensive so you can have 3-4 of them.

Large carriers wont do most jobs any better but costs so much you will only have one or two.

Having 3-4 medium carriers means one or two carriers always available... you usually have them on rotation... one in service, one in dock getting overhaul/upgrade/refit, and one on training... at a pinch you can get the one in training in service too but the one in dock will take weeks to get ready if not months.

with one large carrier that means you had better hope you need it when it is available.

Britain tried to get an arrangement with France for this very reason... they knew just having one carrier would be a problem.

It would take 15 years from order to in service new carrier so they need to start the process now.

forth they couldn't build heli carrier but bought french mistral

They built half of both Mistrals built for them.

They could build Helicopter carriers, they decided it would be quicker and easier to buy some off the shelf designs that were already proven.

Their mistake was to trust the cowardly Frogs.

They are already building shipyards able to build large vessels in.

And money is not important... all this shit about how many subs they will get for the cost of an aircraft carrier... is fucking moronic.

By the same logic they should never have spent a cent on PAK FA or Su-35 or MiG-35... just fuckin make Yak-130s... they could have made 10,000 of the damn things and they could take over the world...

Except you can't take over the world with jet trainers, just like you can't do very much with a whole fleet of submarines.

You see a submarine is a stealthy sniper... once he fires he needs to run and be very careful because he has potentially revealed his position... and he can pretty much do very little to stop an aircraft attack on a Russian ship... or even itself.

How do carriers change things?

The USS Vincennes is in Iranian waters and detects what it thinks is an Iranian F-14 flying to attack it... any sensible commander would call up the local carrier and get a couple of your own F-14s in the air to investigate. There were F-14s in the air at the time but the carrier commander said the Vincennes did not sound like he was in his right mind and pulled his planes back so they didn't get shot down too.

Result was an airbus was destroyed.

Case two, a US intel ship operating in the Middle East is attacked repeatedly by Israelis who were afraid of what it might find out about them violating agreements with the US.

They only stopped attacking when they heard radio message that F-14s were on the way...

Couldn't really do much in either situation with an extra three Yassens.

GarryB wrote:

This is more in your mind than in the reality, because you can not traslate this to every country that had a communist gouvernment. Then obviously the communism was and is not the reason of the hate to Russia.

Good god... are you slow?

If the cold war was about communism then why was China best buddies with the US for a lot of it?

To remember your previous words, and to see who is slow here...

GarryB wrote:The real problem is that so many have their brains locked in the cold war.

Russia can have friendly relations with Turkey and China and India and Pakistan and Taiwan and North and South Korea... it is the advantage of a no longer communist Russia that is just interested in commerce and cooperation with countries not looking to screw them like the west does.

Other thing.

GarryB wrote:

This is not the same than to offer to India aircraft carriers of 90000-100000 tons that Russia plans not to have (in your opinion).

India can choose anything it likes... that does not mean Russia has to buy it too. Russia has not got any Su-30MKIs in service and wont get any. The technology developed for the Su-30MKI and upgrades was used to develop the Su-35 first for export only and then for Russian Air Force use.

Anything useful developed in the FFGA programme with India will be transferred to the PAK FA if found useful... and why not... Russia is paying half the development costs for that too.

The United Arab Emirates spend a small fortune on the Pantsir air defence system. They transformed the system by spending money to upgrade the radar and optics and missiles and create a vastly better system... which the Russian military also adopted later... on land and on sea.

Russia never does it with the most advanced and the most powerful armament. Russia never would do it with the A-235, with the SS-30, with the SA-500, with the T-14 or with the Su-PAK-FA. This is a non-sense.

Leaking images... not the whole programme.

The reality is that there are plenty of companies in Russia trying to win competitions... the example I gave was Mil and Kamov trying to win the competition to replace the Hind.

Kamov won, because there was no night or all weather requirement. Because Kamov won their design was kept secret, but Mil was allowed to take their brand new prototype to the Paris Airshow for christs sake... WTF does that tell you?

Ka-50s seemed to be what they needed but they knew the Mi-28 was not bad so they allowed Mil to try to sell it on the international market.

A Russian ship building company can sell designs to India... that does not mean the Russian navy are going to buy one.

Knowing India they would all have to be made in India anyway... so that is not going to happen.

Besides the Indian requirements will likely include too much foreign components.

First you are comparing what would be the flag ship of the entire Russian Navy, with armament that is modern but is not in the top of his cathegory, or is not of one of the most important cathegories of their branch like helicopters. You are doing truly absurd comparations. Aircraft carriers compared to helicopters? Seriously? You are not understanding the military weight of an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy (or for every other Navy in the world).

Second, you are giving too much merit to some sales of modern armament that is not in the top of the Russian military capabilities. Russia symply would have done the same with other finnancial sources.

GarryB wrote:

No-one is talking about ships in the water by 2020, even it would not be possible with the Project 23000. But a project of aircraft carrier is not something doable in 6 months or 1 year. The timeline for an alternative project of aircraft carrier is so short, every time shorter, every time less realistic.

So you think because no other design models have been published that the ones we have seen are the only ones in the running?

That is fine for you to think that... what I am saying is that we wont see any of the real designs for a very long time.

The bolded part contradicts the Russian maritime moctrine of 2015.

GarryB wrote:

You can try to evade the question, but the answer is clear. Out of the range of the air force from coastal bases, the tools what make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems, are clearly the aircraft carriers of the adversaries.

Bullshit.

Very few countries have aircraft carriers capable enough to be a problem.

By the time these Russian carriers are operational the ships of the Russian Navy will be armed with mach 8+ Zircon anti ship and land attack missiles... pretty much any enemy countries carrier is in trouble... the only ones able to resist for any time would be US carriers and they don't matter because any conflict with those will be decided with SS-30s, not aircraft carriers.

What you are saying is like saying that if US carriers can't survive a dedicated anti ship missile attack then there is no point in having them... they have had them for a while now and have not been attacked by Russian or soviet missiles so they are useful after all.

Then why would Russia need the T-14, the S-500 or even the Zircon anti ships missiles? The SS-30 will also be there for other cases.

Russia wants not a worldwide domination of the sea by the US. Why Russia has to concede the sea to the US aircraft carriers?

Small aircraft carriers mean for Russia inferiority in every case. Big aircraft carriers mean for Russia tie or even local superiority in some cases. And less dependence of the SS-18 or the SS-30 in the future.

GarryB wrote:

It means the Russian aircraft carriers must defend the Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems from the aircraft carriers of the adversaries.

No.

The carriers purpose is to destroy enemy aircraft... ship launched Mach 8 anti ship missiles will take care of the enemy ships including carriers.

Kidding me? the defense from the aircraft carriers of the adversary means also defense of the aircrafts carried by the aircraft carriers.

GarryB wrote:

Then it is logical that Russia, China, and India, think about aircraft carriers of at least the same power (which means the same size). Only that makes possible to face the aircraft carriers of the adversaries in a 1 vs 1 situation. With smaller aircraft carriers the alone option is to escape (just what the US likes).

What China buys and what India buys is none of Russias business and also none of their concern.

Even NATO countries don't standardise their aircraft carriers and they are in a military alliance.

What is this smaller carriers just escape bullshit?

Escape from what? Harpoons?

A Naval PAK FA will kick the arse of F-35s and F-18s.

The main difference between small and big aircraft carriers is in the power (size) of the aircrafts that can carry, and in the amount of aircrafts that can carry.

With small aircraft carriers, even with some people talking openly about helicopter carriers, the naval PAK-FA would be out of the game. Just what the US would love to see.

The US policy about aircraft carriers is that only them need the big aircraft carriers. They allow not even to their allies to have them. But other countries do not agree. Russia between them.

Taking into account that only the big powers can design STOVL or VTOL aircrafts, and they want not except for own use, in fact all the small aircraft carriers are helicopter carriers.

Only 5 countries have other thing:

US: 10 big aircraft carriers
Russia: 1 big but smaller
China: 1 big but smaller
India: 1 big but smaller
France: 1 big but smaller

Note for GarryB that all them are nuclear powers, not helicopter owners. Aircraf carriers is not something within reach to everyone.

It is obvious why the US uses not their aircraft carriers vs aircraft carriers of the adversaries. Basically they are unopposed. Today. And this is how the US wants to remain. Unopposed. What made the US after the coup in Brazil? Inmediatelly they forced the retirement of their aircraft carrier, that was in the previous list until this year.

And then we come to the previous map:



This map is the worst nightmare of the US foreign policy of worldwide domination. Is what they fear most. This is why we have here a decent number of pro-US, pro-Israel and pro-NATO warmongers, posturing as Russian friends, and trying to convince us that Russia needs not big aircraft carriers (having good aircrafts for it, and with a prospect to have even better in the future.

Obviously the US wants Russia to have not proper aircraft carriers. Obviously the US would love to repeat with the aircraft carriers of Russia, China and India, what they have done with the aircraft carrier of Brazil, but they can not.

One of the main problems of the US with this map is that with it, Russia needs not 10 big aircraft carriers to contest the global naval power of the US.  With 2 maybe enough (2 of Russia, 4 of China and 3 of India, as example). And this is nothing that I have to explain to Russia, China or India. They are smart enough to see it before no-one else. And here we have the new Russian maritime doctrine of 2015, here we have the Project 23000 of 90000-100000 tons accomplishing the doctrine, and also being offered to India, and here we have the Chinese plan of aircraft carriers.

The US naval power worldwide will be contested, at least in the oceans around Asia.

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:..........................

The main difference between small and big aircraft carriers is in the power (size) of the aircrafts that can carry, and in the amount of aircrafts that can carry.

With small aircraft carriers, even with some people talking openly about helicopter carriers, the naval PAK-FA would be out of the game. Just what the US would love to see.

The US policy about aircraft carriers is that only them need the big aircraft carriers. They allow not even to their allies to have them. But other countries do not agree. Russia between them.

USA uses aircraft carriers to predominately engage land targets, not other aircraft carriers or ships. They have submarines for those. And that is why Russia has submarines. And submarines are best engaged by naval helicopters, not other submarines (unless you have to) because you risk higher losses if you fail.

Helicopter is cheaper than submarine. Submarine or missiles are cheaper than aircraft carrier.

And why should Russia sink insane amounts of money and, more importantly, time in building aircraft carriers when they already have much better tools at their disposal for dealing with hostile aircraft carriers?

They have rock solid advantage in missile technology while they are at disadvantage in naval construction. Why should waste resources just so they could play with weaker hand?

Why play by rules that favor opponent when you can play by ones that favor you?

Let me put this in terms your 6 year old brain will be able to understand: You should never try to zerg-rush the Zerg.

That's because there allies don't have what it takes to maintain them.

The issue should be about better tools to handle hostile aircraft from said Carrier.
The battles of the Pacific and the Mediterranean in WW2 are a good example, ships will be busy fighting ships, fending of aircraft at the same time will just weaken there weapons load, no matter how well armed the ship.

No need for insults like that PD.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

Isos wrote:

So, again :
Are you agree about that three seawolf submarine cost as much as two nimitz carrier?

YES or NO

No.

Good,we getting there.

So , it means  that you don't agree one or both of the next informations:

1. the cost of the Truman ( comissioned at the same time like the seawolf) was 4.5 billion $
2. The cost of each seawolf was 3 billion $


So, 1 or two or 1 and 2 ?

Both of them are true.

I doesn't agree with your stupid logic of 3 seawolf = 2 Nimitz. The price of Nimitz is 4.5 million + the price of the planes. So it's Something like 15 billion $ for each Nimitz. So it's 5 Seawolf = 1 Nimitz.

Back to the topic, even for russian standards it will be the same logic even worse. They can't just build a carrier for the price of a single Akula. That's impossible. The fact that for a simple SSN, Yassen, which is a dev of Akula and Alpha, the price went from 1.6 to 3.0 billion proves that the cost of carrier will be huge because first it's costly, second they never build a carrier, third they will put lot of missile systems on it and that is very expensive, forth they couldn't build heli carrier but bought french mistral so R&D will cost lot, fith they will put naval Pak fa which will cost double the price a Mig-29K, six corruption, seven they also need to build facilities to build one of them ...

You need to see the difference between you who calculate stupid things like " 3 seawolf = 2 Nimitz " and RuN which takes into acount all the parameters I said above and have to present it to the MoD, MoEconomy, Putin ...

So, now you saying that the only reason why Russia doesn't has 100k aircraft carriers is because they can't make 72 aircraft for them?

Isos wrote:


Their F-18 armed each one with 4 harpoons are a good tool against any surface ship ... Their fighters are made for everything from ground Attack to anti ship, arisuperiority, air defence... Every other ship is their to protect carriers. Subs are there to lunch cruise missiles and protect from enemy subs. There many exemples of US navy fighter attacking ship with harpoons, far less exemple of SSN destroying ships with torpedos.

Modern defences against subs and torpedo make an attack by SSN very difficult, specially if their is some Udaloy deployed to protect the task force. While an helicopter would be found easily by an E-2 and destroyed by an F-18 if it goes far from it's own air defences. The only "free" thing in the battle would be the fighter because of its speed and the fact that it knows ennemy systems so it can stay at safe distance and lunch missiles.

A potential Russian carrier for just air defence would totaly destroy the "liberty of the F-18s" and then US navy would have to engage its ships in a dangerous way, closer to the battlefield and closer to Russian or chinese missiles and defences. Then the advantage would be to the Russian missiles as they have variety of them and can coordinate lunch of modern low flying Oniks with subsonic Uran, kh-35, kh-31 and very high flying Kh-22 and anti radar missiles. The potential battle would occure near russian borders so they would also have support of the air force.

However, the best way for attacking carriers is sub lunched missiles from a safe distance. Then you can still run to your base undetected and rearmed.

The US navy using carriers and aircrafts NOT because that is the most effective or best way to counter the enemy, but because they have the industrial base build for this kind of stuff, and they tried to fit them to any new role.

So, the simple fact they designated them / using them doesn't means that say against iran they will be usable.

Actually it is true for any weapon system.

No one know what should be the performance of the Tu-160,B-2,Onix, yassen , virginia or nimitz during real fight against similar enemy.

PapaDragon wrote:If Russian and US ships ever get into a shooting match it would be instantly forgotten due to events that would transpire 20-40 minutes later.

As for insults, given the recent track record of that member, I'd say I was being gentle.

Perhaps, but there ships would be at the bottom of the ocean as well.

Isos wrote:

I said that your maths are stupid and proved it. If you have no more arguments don't talk bullshit and don't make me say what I didn't say.

C1mon , you agree about that the Russian shipbuilding industry can simply pump out nimitz class carriers as fast as yassens.

That is it, from that point the capability of russia to make carriers is not questioned, all that prevent them to make them is the military doctrine / priority.

Thanks for your support, the issues settled.

Isos wrote:


They have industrial base build for this kind of stuff because they use them because they think it's the best stuff. Are you stupid ? do you think they invest 600 million every year on Something outdated ?

it is somewhere between 50-100 billion

Isos wrote:

What would be usable against Iran if 10 super carriers are not ??? 1 Yassen ? 10 mini boat armed with 2 chinese missiles each one ??

maybe 3 million soldier.But I don't know , and you don't know as well. Actually the US military doesn't know it as well.

Isos wrote:
What simiar ennemy does US have ? 0 they have more carrier than russia has big ships. They have more destroyers and cruisers than russia has corvettes.

and they has one thousand more area and interest to protect on the sea than russia . So?

Isos wrote:
Iran uses disymetric warefare. They have 20 fighters from cold war era, mini subs that have 70 km range and local made torpedos, small corvettes (these corvette were succesfully destroyed by US in Lybia and during iran iraq war), speed boat armed with small guns. The only thing that can be a threat to US is the 3 kilo they have.

Iran is the only country in middle east (and maybe in Africa) with any industrial base.And at the end of the day that counts.

Isos wrote:
If US starts a war against Iran they will send 3 battlegroup and destroy from the air all the iranian military equipement, bases, industrial area in a couple days. Iran can't do anything, just lunch some scud on Israel. That's the same with north Korea.

then why they don't do that ?

Isos wrote:
You have 0 argument. You pretend to know things but you don't know basic physics laws. That's pathetic.

Maybe you miss the point.

The US is not making this weapons because they are proven stuff in the modern warfare , but because the momentum of the military/industry.

Maybe they are useful, but you can't forget that prior of the 2nd world war everyone thought that the cavaliers are very good idea, and it took only five real minutes to wake up from that dream.

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:If Russian and US ships ever get into a shooting match it would be instantly forgotten due to events that would transpire 20-40 minutes later.

As for insults, given the recent track record of that member, I'd say I was being gentle.

Perhaps, but there ships would be at the bottom of the ocean as well.

Update: Russian ships.

Isos wrote:

I'm done. You are weird. I don't know how to answer to you, you just invent stupid things that I didn't say. The point I wanted to make clear is that you calculs of 1 carrier = 1 SSN are totaly stupid. So I hope you get it. I can't help you more, try with Militarov or some mods, or a psy. Maybe they can teach you Something. bye

I reprhrase:

You need only 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine.


Simple,isn't it?

If you accept the above then all it needs is a reason why to make a carrier ,and capacity to make aircrafts for it.

Russia now has the first , and allways had the second.

I think many person has false idea about that how a submarine fight against a ship.

The CCCP military never considered the torpedoes as a weapon against surface ships, they allways considered the rockets as main weapons against them.

The torpedo is good against enemy submarines only.

The surface ship can be spoted by towed sonar from hundreds of kilometers, and can be killed by supersonic anti ship missiles.

And it is extremly hard to spot this kind of submarines with any sensor that the US (or russian) navy posses.

Supporting data>

lack of topredo developent in the CCCP
extremly high resources spent for asm development
design of the oscar submarines
physical characteristic of the sofar chanel

Singular_Transform wrote:I think many person has false idea about that how a submarine fight against a ship.

The CCCP military never considered the torpedoes as a weapon against surface ships, they allways considered the rockets as main weapons against them.

The torpedo is good against enemy submarines only.

The surface ship can be spoted by towed sonar from hundreds of kilometers, and can be killed by supersonic anti ship missiles.

And it is extremly hard to spot this kind of submarines with any sensor that the US (or russian) navy posses.

Supporting data>

lack of topredo developent in the CCCP
extremly high resources spent for asm development
design of the oscar submarines
physical  characteristic of the sofar chanel

Lack of torpedo development? I have to disagree there, and alot. VA-111 "Shkval" was early 80s child, UGST was to enter service in early 90s and was developed during 80s, USET-80 was introduced in 80s... APR-3 was also late USSR development, APR-3 was also supposed to enter service in early 90s. All of those are projects that started in 80s.

Militarov wrote:

Lack of torpedo development? I have to disagree there, and alot. VA-111 "Shkval" was early 80s child, UGST was to enter service in early 90s and was developed during 80s, USET-80 was introduced in 80s... APR-3 was also late USSR development, APR-3 was also supposed to enter service in early 90s. All of those are projects that started in 80s.

Compared to the ASM these stuff these torpedoes best at par on the US counterparts.

Isos wrote:

The production today is very low according to some sources.

@Singular_transform Again you are talking BS. With the salvo of missiles, the subs had to fire their 650mm long range torpedos against carrier group during cold war. Torpedos are more dangerous than missile in case of a hit as one even small one can destroy the ship, while a missile hit against a big ship doesn't mean it will destroy it.

They have to attack with every weapons in the shortest period of time, before they have chance to limp back to the base with the damaged ships.



So the Oscars attack from 100 kms with the ASMs, after they go get closer and sink the survivor ships with 2-6 torpedoes detonated underneath the ship.

Isos wrote:

Yes you need " 50% more industrial resources to make a 100k carrier than to make a yassen/akula/seawolf class submarine" but it will be without fighters so it's simple for you. As I tried to say it, but don't want to understand, is that this calcul is totaly stuppid because a carrier without fighters is just useless. If you build it you will obliged to build fighters for it. So the price when you talk about a carrier is is cost + the cost of fighters.

Why don't you accept that ?

the fighters universal, and Russia has a big pile of fighters.

Actually as a mater of facet they have enough carrier fighters for another Kuz.

However the carrier is attack platform ,so I presume the waiting for the T-50 with the new engine to use them with real full capability.