The only thing that keeps israel calm are russians. If they were not there Iranians would be destroyed as soon as they land in syria. They already attacked them even with russians there.
The Iranians are playing the bigger picture... a few killed here or there does not matter if the ultimate goal of kicking the Americans out of Syria is achieved.
...Keep in mind while America and Israel are bitching about Iran being in Syria and Iraq, the US is also in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan... so they are actually in Irans back yard knocking on the door.... and of course we also remember that the US actually interfered in a few Iranian elections in the past too... and certainly not with the interests of the Iranian people at heart...
The navy also wants a supercarrier and won't get it before one or two decades.
I would not call it a super carrier, they don't want to invade countries, they want to be able to sail surface ships and subs anywhere they please with adequate air cover... which means a slightly bigger Kuznetsov... rather than a Kiev class or smaller.
Russian navy cares about what US navy is doing right now.
Of course they do, but for the forseeable future their remedy for a US carrier group off their coast will be a mix of Tu-22M3Ms with four Kinzhal missiles each plus an internal rotary magazine with 6 Gurza missiles, and a few MiG-31s with one Kinzhal each.
They plan 2400 f-35. Their carrier can carry something like 60 of them. They can use them to destroy these 2 or 3 S-300 and poliment redut. They may loose some f-35 but at the end if they destroy the ships they win.
60 per carrier, but what happens when those carriers are sunk by Zircon?
How many waves of F-35s will it take to get through the air defences of every ship in the Russian group and can they do it before Zircon missiles destroy all the ships in the carrier group they came from?
A surface group of Russian ships is very very well protected but the protection level would be enormously increased with a fixed wing carrier with AWACS platforms and modern fighters.
The Russian navy is not currently in a condition to operate anywhere in the world in anything like safety... they need carriers for that. That wont make them completely safe, but will make them much much safer.
The problem is that the system is old even russian version and new threat are hard to detect. You can use it against new anti ship missiles but if it detect the missiles at 10km from the ship while new ship's own radars detects them at 20km it is useless. And if it has 150km against old fighters and less than 80km against stealthier ones then it won't detect the launches. That's the reality.
Are missiles used on land less stealthy? Because the Russian Army bought some Ka-31s as a battlefield airborne radar system to monitor the battlefield for low flying threats... now if it can't see stealthy stuff it would probably be rather useless... yet they didn't have to buy it... it is not like they are a huge customer of Kamov... I mean a couple of Ka-50s and a few Ka-52s is about it for the Army... they don't have Ka-29 transports so having a Ka-31 makes no sense to add a new type that is totally different from the other helos they operate... except if it works...
In syria they used A-50U to monitir launches from western air forces not ka-31.
Don't be so stupid... A-50U is a much bigger much better MUCH MUCH more expensive platform... of course they will use an A-50U over 20 or 30 Ka-31s... DUH.
It's not threats from soviet times anymore. It's newer ones while ka-31 is the same.
And the Su-35 is just an Su-27 so it will be shit as well... the thing about the Russians is that they stick with old stuff... no wasting money on upgrades or improvements... but then if the Ka-31 is the same as the old Ka-31... why are they now calling it the Ka-35? PR?
If exocets worked against british air defences that should have had 100% success against it, what makes you think russian navy is safe against the newer one with less rcs with its same ka-31 in the air ?
Because the British were arrogant
that thought they just had to turn up and they would win.
A new yak 44 for Kuz would be one hundreds times better.
It would be absolutely rubbish... why don't you just say... a new A-100 for the Kuz would be a million times better... because neither would get off the deck safely.
Ka-31( or 35, first time I hear it was named ka-35) is outdated against modern threats. A new 6m AESA with last generation GaN modules would do better.
Ahh, this is the crux of it... you don't like it because it uses a radar array that is not an AESA or PESA... might come as a shock to you but even old generation radar antennas can still track targets and pass on target data...
Russians aren't ignorants and army is used also to show you care about the world and foreign interests and humanitarian disasters. UN white helmets didn't stop genocides in Bosnia or Uganda! And no invitation is needed for that, except for UN Security council mandate.
As the west keeps pushing Russia away it will need to look to the rest of the world for partners and growth and development... but Russia needs to be able to prove to these nations that it can protect them from the reaction they will get from the west for trading with Russia...
Don't you feel safer now when US couldn't do whatever they wanted in Syria and Ukraine?
Honestly... down here in NZ we haven't really been effected by American fuckups like Libya and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, but europe has seen a migration tsunami because of the chaos they created... ironic that the Europeans are still listening to the US after getting that sort of backlash from following the instructions of Washington... but they are so used to it they don't know any different these days...
As much as I like geoeconomics, it's not the only part of geostrategy. US and France weren't able to stabilise Central African republic in 5 years. If Russia can fix humanitarian and security situation there with 300 instructors, they'll get more respect, partners, trade in the entire continent. Soft power elements go beyond profit maximizing. This is not McDonalds business plan.
There are a lot of countries in the ME and elsewhere who saw Russian actions in Syria and were impressed... but not just the military professionalism, but also the negotiating skills of talking to Israel and Turkey and Iran and Syria and getting things done with the minimum of fuss, the minimum of cost... I mean they are supporting an ally from what is basically their exercise budget....
Except for the biggest regime change in the history in 2016 in US Very Happy . We shouldn't be romantic about Russian good guys and American bad guys. It's the opposite, its about realism. Russians are better strategists and have clear goals and strategy and don't have to look for exit strategy for 17 years like US in Afganistan.
Actually the Russians are the good guys... they don't whip other countries into following their morals and to meet their rules or demands.
The Americans are the loud white teethed tanned preachers telling you you are a sinner and you need to do exactly what they say or you will go to hell... and then you find out they live in a multi million dollar house with 10 fancy expensive cars, and that they do drugs and sleep around and are the opposite of what they are telling you to do.
The Russians just get on with things... they don't tell you what to do and don't really appreciate it when you tell them what to do. They keep themselves to themselves. They don't judge you and don't expect you to judge them.
Now which of these two types should I idolise and respect?
You say the TV evangalist... go right ahead... he will sleep with your wife the first chance he gets and he will kick you out of the church if you object...
Russian concept of navy isn't American. They never had a proper CV, for a good reason. Kirov's reason for existance and strategic meaning is CVN-killer.
Really, because the Chinese bought some incomplete hulls of carriers the Soviets were making... the last one was supposed to be fitted with a catapult...
The Russian navy isn't the American... they weren't going to build 10 carriers to send to all corners of the globe to control the sea, their carriers were intended to operate with a surface action group to protect that group by controlling the air space above it.
The Ships and subs would carry the anti ship missiles, while the carrier would protect the ships and subs.
In the US navy it was the aircraft that were supposed to attack the enemy ships and the friendly ships were there to protect the carrier...
Do you expect D-day amphibious warfare in 2018? With no element of surprise because of satellites and radars? Packing 12 VTOLs for campaigns like Syria and creating air superiority is more important than extra CAS.
I expect the Russian naval infantry to want to land on beaches... and their helicopter carriers carrying fighter planes does not make it easier to land forces... it would be like the VDV giving up their Il-76s for Su-30s... it would mean the enemy ground forces would be much better suppressed but the whole point is to land ground troops and ground equipment... an Il-76 or a helicopter are much better at doing that than a Harrier type aircraft.
Any attack that involves the Russian naval infantry will also include a CV or CVN so why waste space with a Harrier when you could have a MiG-29KR or Su-33 offering much better fighter cover and Ka-52s offering close air support...
Also with disaster relief or humanitarian intervention like in Yemen helicopters including transports and attack types would be vastly more useful than fighter aircraft.
Why couldn't they have many Priboys? 2 are to be commissioned by 2026.
Why would they need more than 2-4 or them?
They would be useful in the north, but most of the time they will be training... their capacity as a ship for humanitarian aide... go to the Pacific islands and offer medical assistance to the locals... do the same down the coast of Africa and central and south america and asia... help in places damaged in floods or hurricanes etc etc, but I suspect much of its time will be exercising in the far north in the arctic...
These helicopter carriers wont be replacements for aircraft carriers... even if they got 2 into service in 2026 there is no chance of a STOVL fighter to be operational before 2030...
What I'm getting at is; Russia doesn't need to be actively patrolling the globe like the US; and only protect its interests near its borders.
I very much agree with you for now, but with the west pushing Russia away it can't just rely on being the silk trade route for china to the EU and back for making a living. It needs to expand its trade partners to Africa and Asia and central and south america... but to do that it needs to be able to send ships there without fear of interference or blockade.
The US has already said it is looking at blockades against Russia if it buys up Irans surplus oil and tries to trade it internationally (to bypass US sanctions on Iranian oil sales).
They have also said a lot of other stupid things like wanting to attack weapons Russia has which it says violate the INF treaty in a pre-emptive strike...
Regardless, my point is it still has a role it can play aside from AWAC and even if it was for AWAC it's a helicopter not a plane. Both have different layouts & frames
Well actually I agree... in a fleet of ships in a surface group you will have most of your ships together in a cluster, but you might have some ships positions in a sort of picket role in directions you expect trouble from... having a fixed wing AWACS platform around the main cluster of vessels makes sense, but having an AEW aircraft over a picket frigate or destroyer could be useful too... though as I keep mentioning an airship with a tether could also be used on Destroyers in that sort of role too...
Somewhat correct; it is still set to replace the S-300; but work together with the S-400.
Whereever the S-500 will be used it will likely integrate with the nearest S-400 system, so in a sense it would be replacing the S-300, but replacing it in the sense that a Helicopter replaces walking as a means of transport...
S-500 is not just adding some bigger and more capable missiles to S-400 it has its own dedicated radar types for detecting very high angle space objects... at enormous distances...
What I'm getting at is that in an equal technological and training scenario; Russia doesn't have a chance on its own to be an aggressor.
The Russian military is only a fragment in size to what the Soviet forces were, but I genuinely believe they are a much better trained and much more professional force today than they were during the cold war... and it has not happened by accident.
I don't think any western military force could have pulled off what they did in the Crimea... and I don't mean getting a win... I mean doing it without murdering anyone who objected to what they were doing. Obviously it helped greatly that it was clearly the will of the people to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
Equally their performance in Syria has been very impressive too, and with a fraction of the resources western countries were using with much better results.
At the end of the day it depends what the Russian government wants to do; either modernize the Kirov's or to R&D the new Lider-Class. Both are nuclear powered after all (atleast it is assumed Lider will be).
I think part of the problem is that most large ships have very long lifespans, yet when the Kirovs were originally designed the technology was totally different.
Upgrades actually make them much more multirole... instead of 20 Granits that could only be used against ship targets they will get 80 launch tubes that can carry anti sub weapons, anti ship weapons, and land attack weapons in any combination. The number of SAMs can be enormously increased and new AESA radar arrays means more targets can be detected and tracked and engaged than ever before.
The thing is that sometimes if costs more to upgrade a house than it does to just build a new house instead and get everything brand new... and that is their decision...
Need has changed. What we're witnessing is dramatic shift in Russian foreign policy. Away from EU and towards diversification. Since 2014, they consolidated their relations with Central Asia and Japan, befriended Turkey, allied with China and focused on Africa. Have you counted visits between leaders of Russia and N. Sudan, Eritrea, Mozambique, Madagascar, CAR, S. Congo? Or increased naval presence in Indian ocean? Before destroyer Severomorsk there was frigate Yaroslav Mudry patrolling for months.
They are also establishing a base in Eritrea.
And why not... these african countries are not super rich, but they want to trade and they don't want to tell Russia how it should treat its own citizens, or accuse it of things without any proof. Russia trading with poor African countries makes them richer and Russia richer... you can basically grow and develop together... the west wants to sell stuff to Russia, and it wants raw materials from russia like energy and other things, but it does not want Russia to develop and get rich from it... they want to keep every country down so they can enjoy dominance...
They already decided for modernisation of 2 Kirovs. Taking into account increasing gap between defensive and offensive needs, they need a platform that can serve in both foreign intervention, as well as mainland defence. Kirov class ship could be used both offensively in a task group with Priboy (because of her land attack capabilities) and defensively (anti-ship capabilities). The question is how different will Lider be. Any chance of modularity on that big ship or will it simply go full scale multi-role?
The new Lider design will be modular so it will have redut and UKSK and other standard systems, so in a sense the upgrades of the Kirovs will make them more like Lider will be, but at the end of the day I think they will keep the upgrades of the Kirovs modest without being too expensive and spend money on the Liders to make them really very powerful vessels...
Kirovs were always rather powerful ships and the upgrades are going to make them even more powerful and multirole.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
