Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I know I will start another flame war but still I'll just say it:

This here is what Russia requires.

Some tweaks of course: it needs nuclear reactor, catapult, diagonal ''landing strip'' (don't know name) in the back and mast moved to the side.

But size-wise this is spot on:
...................

Those size requirement are kinda strict, but ok,
After looking around a bit, the ship that comes close would be the INS Vikrant, currently under construction in India, or perhaps even the French De Gaulle class (although it doesn't follow Russian A/C design principles).

IMO, Russia, will most likely go with a modern Kuznetsov-like design.

Well in this day and age you can build smaller carrier that hauls as much aircraft as Kuznetzov does. Technology and design moved on since 70's.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
I know I will start another flame war but still I'll just say it:

This here is what Russia requires.

Some tweaks of course: it needs nuclear reactor, catapult, diagonal ''landing strip'' (don't know name) in the back and mast moved to the side.

But size-wise this is spot on:
...................

Those size requirement are kinda strict, but ok,
After looking around a bit, the ship that comes close would be the INS Vikrant, currently under construction in India, or perhaps even the French De Gaulle class (although it doesn't follow Russian A/C design principles).

IMO, Russia, will most likely go with a modern Kuznetsov-like design.

Well in this day and age you can build smaller carrier that hauls as much aircraft as Kuznetzov does. Technology and design moved on since 70's.

True, although by that logic, you can also build a similar sized carrier hauling even more aircraft than the current one does, and room for a good number of VLSs to boot.
Decision, decisions.

KiloGolf wrote:The Kuz isn't pulling its weight at all, wasting far too many resources in manning and maintaining.

WTF are you prattling about now? Define "too many"?

Not "pulling her weight".... Not sure if you're aware of this, but Russia is in peacetime, and the K doesn't actually have anything specific to do currently? Her recent foray to Syria wasn't actually required from an operational POV, but was more of a flag-waver and a chance to trial her and her crew & air detachment in real world combat conditions. By all accounts it was very successful for gaining some experience, running a good number of combat sorties, and most importantly, highlighted some shortcomings which can now be addressed.

Your endless pessimism gets on my fucking nerves. I think you are definitely "pulling your weight", if'n ya get my drift...

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:
Those size requirement are kinda strict, but ok,
After looking around a bit, the ship that comes close would be the INS Vikrant, currently under construction in India, or perhaps even the French De Gaulle class (although it doesn't follow Russian A/C design principles).

IMO, Russia, will most likely go with a modern Kuznetsov-like design.

Well in this day and age you can build smaller carrier that hauls as much aircraft as Kuznetzov does. Technology and design moved on since 70's.

True, although by that logic, you can also build a similar sized carrier hauling even more aircraft than the current one does, and room for a good number of VLSs to boot.
Decision, decisions.

I tend to agree that 2-3 examples of 60-65kT modernized Kuznetsovs would be Russia's best bet, fitted with nuclear propulsion and current multi role weaponry and sensors suitable for an independent capital ship. A 100kT+ leviathan can come later, but even then, UKSK and layered AA is a must, even if at the expense of some of her air complement. The US can build a fleet of virtually defenseless flat-tops as she has no shortage of guided missile escorts, but Russia doesn't have the available screening escorts to allow them to adopt the US battle-barge approach.

Mind you, with the state of advancement of guided ballistic weapons, hypersonic missiles and sensor fusion technologies, big unwieldy carriers will be become progressively far more difficult to defend. Putting all your eggs in one basket may work when pitted against small-fish in developing nations, but against peer-competitors? If you want to plan for fighting the USN in some future conflict, spreading your capabilities across multiple hulls is a better strategy.

Big_Gazza wrote:
I tend to agree that 2-3 examples of 60-65kT modernized Kuznetsovs would be Russia's best bet, fitted with nuclear propulsion and current multi role weaponry and sensors suitable for an independent capital ship.  A 100kT+ leviathan can come later, but even then, UKSK and layered AA is a must, even if at the expense of some of her air complement.  The US can build a fleet of virtually defenseless flat-tops as she has no shortage of guided missile escorts, but Russia doesn't have the available screening escorts to allow them to adopt the US battle-barge approach.

Mind you, with the state of advancement of guided ballistic weapons, hypersonic missiles and sensor fusion technologies, big unwieldy carriers will be become progressively far more difficult to defend.  Putting all your eggs in one basket may work when pitted against small-fish in developing nations, but against peer-competitors?  If you want to plan for fighting the USN in some future conflict, spreading your capabilities across multiple hulls is a better strategy.

More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line. Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier. So what is the "pulling of the weight" here? What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have? To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders? No mission means no use.

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants. One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific. At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships  Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

VSTOL? Pfffttt... that ship has sailed in the 80s. I can't imagine todays Russia spending resources to develop a modern multi-role VSTOL fighter. The US has done so, but only because they had already a massive investment in small assault carriers for the USMC and they needed a replacement for the near-obsolete Harrier derivatives.

kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.  

No mission? I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid. Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons. That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept. Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

Big_Gazza wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships  Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

VSTOL?  Pfffttt...  that ship has sailed in the 80s.  I can't imagine todays Russia spending resources to develop a modern multi-role VSTOL fighter.  The US has done so, but only because they had already a massive investment in small assault carriers for the USMC and they needed a replacement for the near-obsolete Harrier derivatives.

Russia no. 

UAE? Definitely...

Big_Gazza wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships  Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

VSTOL?  Pfffttt...  that ship has sailed in the 80s.  I can't imagine todays Russia spending resources to develop a modern multi-role VSTOL fighter.  The US has done so, but only because they had already a massive investment in small assault carriers for the USMC and they needed a replacement for the near-obsolete Harrier derivatives.

The Russian Navy earlier stated it intended to get a perspective aircraft carrier with a nuclear-powered propulsion unit by late 2030. The deputy defense minister earlier said the contract for building the aircraft carrier might be signed by late 2025.
The same deputy defense minister said at the recent MAKS airshow outside Moscow that the Defense Ministry was discussing plans with aircraft-building industry contractors to develop an aircraft with vertical take-off and landing for a future aircraft carrier. The fighter jet is expected to further develop the family of vertical take-off planes made by the Yakovlev Company.
According to Head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar, the company has not yet received any technical assignment for such aircraft.

But Russian MoD can imagine this check my post up on this page for details pls. Yup VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.  

No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship? The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
to defend it. No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases. How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
the Kuznetsov have in tow? None. Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets. In this role they make sense
and remain relevant. In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.

Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

Asymmetry has become a buzzword. The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation. Expanding this capability to the point of almost
making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go. A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.  

No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  

Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.

kvs wrote:
An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?  

No, but as an air-superiority & ASW platform operating with other surface units to protect Russia's SSBN bastions, (a) interdiction of HATO ASW aircraft and any escort fighters, and (b) carrying out helo-based ASW against HATO SSNs.

IIRC it was this mission for which the Kuznetsov (and her Pr 1143 predecessors) were originally designed, and for which an absolute need is still required today. This mission requires 3 carriers - one for the Northern Fleet (ie Barents sea), one for Pacific (Sea of Okhotsk), and a 3rd as a swing to account for repairs, training. For this reason, 100kT+ behemoths are not feasible and 65kT Kuznetsov Mk II will be ideal.

kvs wrote:
The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go

That's why I think the upcoming upgrade of the K must include deletion of P-700 Granits and their replacement with as many 3C-14 modules as can be made to fit.  For defense of SSBN bastions, the new ASW munitions will be ideal.  Carry a 50/50 mix of AShM & ASW.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR

With all due respect, i'll disagree. VSTOL imposes strict performance liabilities on the aircraft design - if you doubt this, look at what a total bag of shit the F-35 has turned out to be due to the need to operate off USMC assault carriers.... STOBAR is likely a better solution, but it depends on your mission type.

For the mission of Kuznetsov (ie not including any long-range strikes with heavy bomb-load) a STOBAR configuration works fine, regardless of the BS shit-posting from Western "commentators" who routinely disparage the Kuz use of ski-jump. Local AA doesn't require heavy ordnance load-outs or full fuel loads, so having two aircraft available for launch on the 1/2 length ski-jump launch points is fine. For the odd time when they need something heavier, use the full length launch point (though you will need to suspend recovery operations while its in use).

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:
An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?  

No, but as an air-superiority & ASW platform operating with other surface units to protect Russia's SSBN bastions, (a) interdiction of HATO ASW aircraft and any escort fighters, and (b) carrying out helo-based ASW against HATO SSNs.

IIRC it was this mission for which the Kuznetsov (and her Pr 1143 predecessors) were originally designed, and for which an absolute need is still required today.  

I agree.

In fact an Aircraft Carrier and its scort is an advanced mobile military base:

- To provide air superiority in an important area.
- To provide advanced air defense in an important area.
- To provide advanced anti-ship armament in an important area.
- To provide advanced anti-submarine armament in an important area.
- To provide advanced maritime patrol in an important area.

All that is very useful specially in the Artic Ocean.

The question about the size of the Aircraft Carrier, is in reality a question about the strenght of this mobile military base:

- Which types of aircrafts are allowed. Weaker aircrafts means lower capacity of air superiority.
- Which types of air defense systems are carried
- Which types of anti-ship armament are carried.
- Which types of anti-submarine armament are carried.
- Which types of maritime patrol tools are carried
- Which kind of aircraft carriers of the adversary can face without a need to retire. In fact is military base vs military base by strentght.

The main question is. With haw many of its current Aircraft Carriers (including scort) Russia will allow the domination of the Arctic Ocean to the US?

In other words:

Which type of aircraft carrier and of what size needs Russia to deny to the US the domination of the Arctic Ocean with 1 of its big Aircraft Carriers deployed in the Arctic?
Which type of aircraft carrier and of what size needs Russia to deny to the US the domination of the Arctic Ocean with 2 of its big Aircraft Carriers deployed in the Arctic?
How many of its big aircraft carriers can afford the US to deploy in the Arctic Ocean in peace time without seeing damaged its domination in other oceans?

PS: The argument of Russia lack of scort for a big Aricraft Carrier is not right. The entire Nothern Fleet is basically a battle group designed to work under the command of its Aircraft Carrier. Obviously the scort of the A Kutznesov aircraft carrier moved not to the Mediterraneum with the ship, but this is because the scort of the A Kutznetsov is not designed to be mobile, and neither the mission of the A Kutznesov is mobile. The campaign of Syria was more a test than of the ship than a model to operate Aircraft Carriers.

Just two key points:

1. VSTOL fixed wings are proved shit in air-to-air fight
2. If you want your carrier in Arctic, you need a ice-class hull. Doesn't matter what is the tonnage. Ice will love you if the hull is not ice-classed. Or you need a bunch of icebreakers as escort (not scort).

Big_Gazza wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR

With all due respect, i'll disagree.  VSTOL imposes strict performance liabilities on the aircraft design - if you doubt this, look at what a total bag of shit the F-35 has turned out to be due to the need to operate off USMC assault carriers....  STOBAR is likely a better solution, but it depends on your mission type.

For the mission of Kuznetsov (ie not including any long-range strikes with heavy bomb-load) a STOBAR configuration works fine, regardless of the BS shit-posting from Western "commentators" who routinely disparage the Kuz use of ski-jump.   Local AA doesn't require heavy ordnance load-outs or full fuel loads, so having two aircraft available for launch on the 1/2 length ski-jump launch points is fine.  For the odd time when they need something heavier, use the full length launch point (though you will need to suspend recovery operations while its in use).

Lets' agree to disagree F-35 is not bad because of VTOL capabilities but manufacturer tried to incorporate 3 different planes in one machine. The result is known. Yak-141 was not a bad fighter it just was born in wrong time. For ships called "heavy aviation cruiser" those kind of airwing is best IMHO. Fighters to point protect fleet group. with up to even with 700 radius you have π*(700)2 square km of possible space for own SSBN subs.

As for size Kiev Class (40kT) was chosen in USSR not by accident. It turned out this is optimum for cost/mission pair.

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.  

No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  

Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.

You are describing a US colonial enforcement mission and nothing that is relevant for Russia. Russia does not need aircraft carriers to defend itself. Aircraft can be fielded from land bases on its territory. The need for carriers to support ships is by definition a remote operation. Does the Russian navy have any interest in such operations? I would like to see some evidence of any such interest.

kvs wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
destroyers.  

No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  

Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.

You are describing a US colonial enforcement mission and nothing that is relevant for Russia.  Russia does not need aircraft carriers to defend itself.  Aircraft can be fielded from land bases on its territory.   The need for carriers to support ships is by definition a remote operation.   Does the Russian navy have any interest in such operations?   I would like to see some evidence of any such interest.

Ships go to Sea and air-support is needed, nothing colonial about it.

The UK is a tiny rather uninteresting group of islands off the coast or europe.

The UK,Spain, Portugal, France, the US... all pretty insignificant until they deployed powerful navies.

Before aircraft the capital ship was king.

Now the aircraft and sub fought for supremacy in attack... but now missiles are becoming more important.

Of course defending from an attack of dozens or hundreds of missiles is made easier with AWACS and AAM armed fighter interceptors.

T-47 wrote:Just two key points:

1. VSTOL fixed wings are proved shit in air-to-air fight
2. If you want your carrier in Arctic, you need a ice-class hull. Doesn't matter what is the tonnage. Ice will love you if the hull is not ice-classed. Or you need a bunch of icebreakers as escort (not scort).

1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.

medo wrote:1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.

The Mistral had ice capabilities??
you got a source for that?

1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.

The British dominated because they had Lima and Mike model Sidewinders with much better head on engagement capabilities.

If the Argentines had bought MiG-23s with BVR missiles and modern radar the British would haver been in serious trouble.

Extending the runway on the islands and basing their aircraft there would also have made things much harder.

The Mistral had ice capabilities??
you got a source for that?

Russian Mistrals had ice strengthened hulls and taller roofs for operating in ice and for kamovs with coaxial main rotors.

GarryB wrote:

The Mistral had ice capabilities??
you got a source for that?

Russian Mistrals had ice strengthened hulls and taller roofs for operating in ice and for kamovs with coaxial main rotors.

I see, so any future carrier will most likely have an ice strengthened hull as well, good to know.

eehnie wrote:

T-47 wrote:escort (not scort).

I hope you be not one of those English monolinguals that think that everyone without a perfect English knows less than them.

There is a world that can live perfectly without the English language.

*Evil laughter* Huehuehue

medo wrote:

1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.

1. Garry already wrote enough. Just add another point of quality and training of Argentine AF.
2. You misunderstood my comment. Being in Northern fleet doesn't mean anything about Arctic capable ship. Sea around Murmasnk don't freeze due to the gulf stream. But around Dikson and beyond they do. Everytime Northern fleet ship had to go to Arctic they had ice breaker escorts (except in summer). If you want your ships (A/C or not doesn't matter) around Dikson or Franz Josef Island anytime around the year you need serious ice capabilities or ice breakers (also big ones).