insults ? says somebody who's calling other dicks every second post. hmm how does your own medicine taste like?
Now you are a doctor prescribing medicine... are you being a dick now?
Grim Reapers is Florida based and used for inter- operability training among others
Couldn't care less...
Russia is working ? together with Eehnie's Liders ? Right
Yeah... denial is one strategy... a strategy to fail.
Possibly why you support VSTOL so much...
Of course. if Su-33 is to be upgraded then fail of 29k is EPIC
The 33 needs to be upgraded so it can operate with 29KRs and be useful still.
now're you contradict yourself. Why do you need large fighters and many of them to liter over your grouping?
Larger fighters can liter for longer and carry more material to litter the enemy with.
A bigger fighter like a naval Su-57 can fly combat air patrols around the surface groups but when approaching enemy are detected it can fly out and destroy them further away from friendly vessels, which means they are less likely to get shots off at the surface group and if they do there is more time to stop the attacking munitions.
Bigger aircraft can carry more weapons too... the Su-33 can carry 12 missiles as an example.
But yes there is one reason for large guns/ships ot exist:
Not a very good reason.
now focus why do you need large CVN for this?
Moron... you need a large CVN for the job the Russian naval group is doing, not the thing it is never going to do, which is fight the US Navy... that is your fucking wet dream, not theirs.
Visiting Venezuela with a huge trade delegation to help sort out trade substitutions for material and resources the US and her allies are cutting off from Venezuela to try to blackmail them, and troops to assist in keeping order and to hunt down traitors and enemies of the Venezuelan state, and aide that could include food export surplus the Russians might have the Venezuelans might benefit from.
A US style carrier group was never designed to be useful for anyone but the US and the US companies that make bombs.
A Russian carrier group is an economic tool to support and assist allies in need and expand Russias trade base...
tell me now how size of 100+ ktons CVN would affect this?
No one is suggesting Russia needs an American carrier, they need a Russian carrier... likely in the 70-80K ton weight range, unless there is a multi hull design that increases volume an capacity and reduces weight and then they could have a smaller carrier...
you're very emotional. SO gay. Im glad Su-33 get upgrade! Better STOL abilities. No more 29k crashes and 15% serviceability. VSTOL will have great predecessor!
An Su-33 crashed when the 29 crashed in Syria and it was the fault of the arrester gear system and nothing at all to do with the aircraft themselves.
VSTOL has already failed.
No one talks about VSTOL, it is STOVL and that is no better... it is just an admission of the failure of the V.
then stop lying to yourself, start listening, learning ? don't kid yourself.
Why read anything you post?
very likely, but they stop flying 29k && the clock is ticking form 2017.
What are you blabbering on about?
Why would they stop flying their MiG-29KR?
> MiG-29M/K and 35 share basically the same structure, aero and engines. They are the "new unified family of the fighters" according to MiG's site.
> MiG-29K is the official naval fighter both for Russia and India, please give us a break with all that gossip!
Don't expect him to be rational about this... he is a democrat and the MiG-29KR is his Donald Trump...
In the case of the F-35 it is much worse even than previous equipment, where Us could restrict spares and slowly deny a country to use their weapons against them. Through ALIS they can simply ground your complete fleet with a flick of the wrist. It baffles me that ANYONE could be buying that PoS which is synonym to surrendering your defence sovereignty... except for the Israelis of course, which were the only ones allowed to modify the plane's OS. It is so gross and brazen that it is funny
But the joke is on them because the only ones who will know why all their planes shut down during war time will be the Chinese.... ahahahahahaha...
The few things HE cannot solve get solved with more HE
There has always been a link between HE power and precision... Soviet cruise missiles of the 1980s lacked fine precision with no terminal guidance so the solution was a nuclear warhead... ie more bomb power solved the fact that the missile might miss by 100m or more.
During WWII... their vaunted strategic bombing campaign and precision daylight bombing bullshit, the reality was that to hit a ball bearing factory... a target the size of an entire city block or bigger they needed thousand bomber raids to get hits... and even then repeat bombing missions had to be organised because last nights raid hit the wrong city... thousands of bombers carrying a ton or so of bombs each... you got the target eventually because eventually that was the only thing remaining to aim bombs at...
Today with modern guidance options, if you are trying to hit a specific vehicle you can hit it with a 10kg bomb instead of dropping a dozen 500kg bombs in the place you think it might be... A 10kg warhead means it is less likely that you are going to kill everyone on the street at the time of the attack, which is unnecessary and can be counter productive.
If on the other hand it is total war, then by all means drop big bombs and kill and destroy everyone and everything, but even the US can't afford to obliterate an entire enemy... they have certainly tried lots of times.
Every conflict which is not total world war takes place in the middle of a informational storm with the whole world as viewer. So just to show you can damage the enemy and get away with it has almost the same value as a victory.
There is always going to be another side saying hospitals and schools and churches were hit and women and children were killed...
Real world is not as easy as pushing missile launch buttons and automatically eliminating blips from the radar screen. Tactical fighters have and will have their role
The extra ring of interceptor aircraft is a useful feature of a carrier, but the primary value it provides is airborne AWACS platforms... a radar in the sky and a super mobile set of missile launching platforms that can shift your missile launch platforms 800km in any direction in a matter of an hour.
Having an airborne radar that can spot low flying targets well beyond the horizon of surface ships that can also be used for targeting surface launched missiles is almost as good and much much cheaper.
Most ships are able to defend themselves and a group of ships working together with radar assets able to see great distances should be well able to defend themselves even from very determined attacks... having friendly fighters would improve their performance but not by a huge amount... they would certainly increase flexibility but then larger support ships could carry Ka-52K helicopters with AESA radars and modern BVR AAMs like R-77 and R-37M if needed.
A new range of helicopter launched scramjet powered AAM would be much cheaper than buying CVNs of CVs.
Helos r enough for ice reconn; no need to use HE blowing up ice as they r/will be powerful enough to break it on their own.
Most icebreakers have ice thickness limits where they would have to stop and find paths of thinner ice in some places where it gets too thick... being able to launch a significant sized HE bomb to fracture and break up some of the ice makes it easier to move faster in heavier and unpredictable ice sheets.
To store & service them, special compartments & personnel will be needed; once they run out, how will they be replenished in the middle of the NSR or off Chukotka?
Fly some in via helo, or land them next to them on an ice sheet in an aircraft and lift them on using a crane.
It still didn't help the CV-63 & other CV/Ns when they got "sunk" by SSN/Ks operated by the Soviet VMF, & later by China & Sweden.
American CVNs don't have PAKET anti torpedo torpedos.
There is no such thing as an unsinkable ship... extra size does not make a ship less sinkable, it does make it more useful.
Perhaps if the captains of those ships were less arrogant assholes and treated their "enemies" with more respect and acted with more caution they might not have been sunk.
And before you claim American captains are professional... read up about the captain of the AEGIS cruiser that shot down the Iranian airbus.
Exactly how & why? The bigger the target, easier it is to find, by visual & other means.
Trying to find one CVN with one battle group or 6 battlegroups... I wonder which would be harder and why...
Smaller carriers means shorter radar range and shorter aircraft range so the danger area around them is smaller... you can get closer...
France could built a Nimitz size CVN if she really wanted & could afford to, but there's no need for it.
No she couldn't because as you suggest she couldn't afford it... how much higher would they need to put up petrol to pay for a CVN like that?
U didn't get it.
No, I don't... even a little purse pistol like a PSM and you can defeat the greatest swordsman...
Even Bruce Lee recognised that... in that movie where he goes to that island he asks what guns they are taking... he was no fool.
I'm talking about the VMF, not the RN & others.
Do you think creating a brand new 5th gen VSTOL fighter will be any cheaper?
Even if it was 10 times cheaper... that is 150 billion dollars development money plus the price of the aircraft which will be at least twice as expensive and the aircraft they are currently using... you say they can't afford super carriers and EMALS... why do you think they can afford this?
Only if they wanted to restart their production, but the Harrier is inferior in all aspects & therefore
it won't be worth it, unless it's enlarged, given new engines, & modernized.
Even having to restart production of the Sea Harrier they could make hundreds for the price the F-35B is going to end up costing them.
Even India didn't ask for them to replace her retired birds. OTH, she may order new STOVLs from Russia once they appear.
India rejected PAK FA fighters, what makes you think they will want these aircraft?
The F-35Bs r expensive but the UK plundered so much from others that they can afford it & they hope it will help them keep on plundering.
But that is the problem... their plundering days are over...
What if it never will be made more reliable than a steam catapult that they never built & operated?
What if it never will be made more reliable than a the Yak-41 that they never built & operated?
What if it is worse than the Yak-38 that they built and operated for years and was totally bloody useless in every regard?
They may or may not be successful in both, but there's a bigger chance that their tilt-rotors will be more beneficial in the long run.
I would say the opposite... a minor flight speed advantage over helos that may be narrowed significantly simply by putting forward propulsion propellers on helicopters.
In comparison EMALS requires technology involving enormous levels of electricity... storing, generating, directing, superconductors, magnetic fields, plasma... with the explosion of electric drive systems... ships could be all electric soon too and these problems are going to come up again, so any work in that area will be valuable.
Mini EMALS could be used on smaller ships to launch UAVs... they could be fitted to submarines for launching UAVs, cargo ships and ships operating in the arctic could use EMALS launchers all year round... UAVs of all sizes could be launched...
As u wrote, only fixed wing AWACS (+ CODs) will need them. Those must be re/designed & built after several $Bs r spent on it. U r essentially suggesting they follow USA & France to have an E-2 direct counterpart.
I think an airship design would be the best, but then you really would not need a carrier then in that case.
I am not suggesting Russia should use CVNs for colonial domination of countries... in fact to prevent the US and France and the UK from doing to potential Russian trade allies what they are currently doing to Venezuela and have done recently to Syria and Libya and Iraq.
The V-22 is smaller than the E-2 which is smaller than the Yak-44:
So?
The Ka-31 is even smaller still, so why don't I think they should just keep using that?
The Mi-6 led to the Mi-10/-12/-26 & the An-124 led to the An-225; why should they stop with mid-size 2 engine aircraft?
Sometimes things don't scale up so well... you are never going to get an An-124 sized Tiltrotor aircraft... it just does not make sense and it is probably not possible anyway.
True, but u forgot their marines, army, FSB, MVD/MChS & civilians.
They are currently operating fine without tiltrotors. Light transport planes are a little limited but over the next few years they will have Il-112V, and Il-114, and of course the new upgraded An-2 model too, plus all sorts of new and older helos that will continue to be useful including Mi-17 and the new Mi-38.
all those will be easier to build & run with tiltrotors' symbiotic help.
Rubbish. Tiltrotor aircraft are an attempt to replace helicopters in roles where fixed wing aircraft can't replace them because they need something that can take off vertically. An-2 and An-26 and An-12 other conventional aircraft can be landed on packed ice with the equipment to build a better landing strip and then heavier aircraft can come in and bring in more material and equipment to make it a more useful place for a wider range of aircraft to land... at no point would a tiltrotor aircraft be more useful than an An-12 or Mi-26.
Tilt-rotors add more value & r force multipliers.
Not if you don't have any they don't.
Dozens of helos & small planes crash there every decade, while they can fly above the bad weather faster & farther.
So you are claiming in harsh climates and difficult operational conditions and low tech maintenance and support environments the tiltrotor is better than the planes they currently have?
When are they taking tiltrotors to Alaska and Antarctica then?
There have been a lot of new flash sophisticated planes that were supposed to replace the ancient An-2 and now that the current one has a production contract... it is an An-2 with improvements...
That would be a bad example for Russia's military to follow, repeating the USSR mistake of being sucked into another arms race.
You mean building tiltrotors because the US has them... yes I totally agree that it would be stupid for them to develop and deploy tiltrotor aircraft just because America is doing that... they need to explore both US experience and promises as well as what was actually delivered and decide whether all that money and time an effort will create something that actually has some value... one thing they don't have a shortage of in Siberia and the far north is big flat open areas they can put runways on, so if you want to transport stuff faster than a helicopter can then use a fixed wing transport aircraft... they already exist, they are much faster and much more efficient than any operational tiltrotor aircraft, and their simpler design means less chance of accidents and a better ability to overfly bad weather.
Bad weather is always going to kill pilots and make planes crash... just like the sea will kill people... Russia having a tiltrotor or not having one wont change that at all.
Not in absolute terms, as they operate from different platforms with different mission profiles & objectives.
If they need to take off vertically or land vertically for some reason then the B model can and the C model can't. For pretty much everything else the C is better than the B.... and cheaper by 10%.
It is a lot more important for the politicians & the old farts who hold the purse strings afterwards, if they r going to loose a multi B $ CVN with its AWs, pilots & Ks of sailors to much cheaper mines & missiles.
Such things can sink any naval platform... there is not much you can do to 100% proof any ship or sub from those issues... so what you are saying is they can't have a navy.
Since u like analogies: don't use a luxury limousine as a taxicab or deliver building/plumbing materials/pizza/Chinese food; buy a pickup truck instead.
Well if you want to use analogies then use them properly... for the Russians a 100K ton Ford class would be using a luxury limousine as a taxicab... for the Americans that is just the standard they expect when being taken to the Oscars.
The real problem is that you are completely ignoring wilfully or otherwise, what the Russians will be doing with their carrier groups in the future... perhaps you realise all these decades of having 13 enormous and terribly wasteful carrier battle groups that spend a lot of time not actually doing very much at all is a bit of a waste... but this has really been brought to a head because Russia has introduced a range of missiles the USN admits it cannot reliably stop which means that huge super carrier and the powerful cruisers and destroyers that operate with it that control the sea they occupy are suddenly targets and useless for invading Russia or China.
What I am telling you is that they were always bloody useless for that... what Kinzhal and Zircon can do now Granit could do in the early 1980s and Moskit and Onyx after them... they were just too arrogant to admit it... oh you will never find the carrier group because they will be invisible blah blah blah...
Russias fleet was never and will never be intended to attack the US or the west or attack the continental US except to destroy it... they don't want to capture the west or the US or take it over... they want to be left alone and if you can't do that then they will happily destroy you in self defence.
What I am talking about for Russia assumes a few things... first of all they wont be making 6 full sized carriers... they might make 4 more... two will likely be helicopter carriers with influence from the Mistral design for landing operations world wide... so they will be nuke propelled, and two new fixed wing carriers that will also be nukes and they will offer air cover and protection for any surface group the Russians send anywhere around the world... they wont be carrying Su-34 strike aircraft and delivering strikes deep into enemy territory... they have cruise missiles that can already do that with much less risk and probably cheaper if you add up the cost of flying a dozen aircraft including the strike aircraft, the fighter escort, the jammer escort, and the inflight refuelling tankers and AWACS support too.
If they are only going to make two CVNs why not make them the same as the helicopter carriers and make four ships so save money on the design... because they want fighter aircraft and AWACS support and they want decent levels of both so a ship bigger than the K is what they have been asking for.
It has enough capacity to carry plenty of aircraft that might be needed and the stores and support equipment they might need for a decent trip.
The little ships you are suggesting might be OK for Syria where the navy really does not have a significant role but in Venezuela or Cuba or Vietnam it might be the only Russian forces there and will need to have everything it needs to get any job done.
Su-57Ks would be useful against pretty much any enemy platform even into the 2030s and beyond, let alone against most third world forces it will likely come up against.
It doesn't need to be STOVL, STOL is fine and would be much less complicated and expensive...
It will be her problem too after they get a few CVNs.
They wont need more than 2... together with the kuznetsov three would be plenty as half the time one will be in overhaul or upgrade and the other two will be doing operational training or in the field.
They don't need to invade 10 countries at a time like the US wants to...
With what u wrote earlier about them protecting their future trade around the World, they may need to shift them around &/ keep them at sea/overseas longer.
They will get plenty of use, they wont always need a full carrier group... sometimes a cruiser and a destroyer would be enough to show the flag... they don't need troops in every country like the US does.
Also, the climate in & around (where they'll exercise) their future home ports is not as balmy as in Norfolk, Yokosuka, San Diego, Tsingtao, Hainan, & Latakia.
They have ice breakers and could easily set up a temporary dock somewhere in international waters in the med or the pacific if they wanted to.
Why should I think that ur industry and technology pulse reading skills r better?
They are politicians... what is the bet that Yakovlev has a large factory in his area that employs a lot of people and he wants a new VSTOL fighter plane to make and doesn't give a shit if the Russian navy even wants it...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
things wouldn't be so expensive for them... 800 bases in foreign countries around the world and they can't build a fucking wall.... pathetic.
