Home
Latest images
Register
Log inOk, detailed engineering issues are outside of the scope of what we can discuss I guess but it may well be the case that there are limits and restrictions affecting the Sukhois to carry Kinzhal. Concentrating in MiG-31 in the first place was IMO the right decision due to the availability of airframes, speed, range, size and flight altitude. Let's see if other carriers follow besides Tu-22M3Tsavo Lion wrote:even if not, there may not be enough ground clearance with all that extra weight on the centerline, + the landing gear may not withstand the stresses, esp. on recovery (landing, or "trap") with BN unused. They didn't even consider using some land based Su-34s for that, although their max speed is lower.Due to overload at the springboard or due to the TO weight?
+32
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
kumbor
magnumcromagnon
George1
Tsavo Lion
higurashihougi
miketheterrible
jhelb
dino00
Gibraltar
LMFS
Isos
verkhoturye51
Borschty
GunshipDemocracy
Hole
ATLASCUB
The-thing-next-door
Peŕrier
Azi
medo
AlfaT8
flamming_python
Kimppis
eehnie
Singular_Transform
kvs
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
Firebird
36 posters
Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
GunshipDemocracy
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°752
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:37 am
LMFS wrote:Put that way it is ridiculous yes, but the advantage of a carrier group is taking your surveillance, airspace control, AD and strike close to the theatre so they can be effective. In the end I can imagine both Us and Russia bringing naval resources to a hot spot but the balance of capabilities of both sides will hopefully result in deterrence working and nobody doing too stupid things. That is the idea I think.yeh but dotn you think its becoming ridiculous?! then you dont need carriers really but put airbases in fixed locations or harbor CVN in the middle of ocean? New York - Lisbon is like 6,5000km . BTW with fighters close to deployment you'd betteruse light fighters. Same range but more can be carried on board.
balance as potential to destroy enemy yes, If you mean number of fighters or ships no, never. The reason is is simple, resources. SU has by order of magnitude more. Everything. That's why Russians rely on sea denial strategy while |US on sea control. And that's why i dont believe that Russia will rely on large CVNs since large airwign dont add much value but much costs here. if 30 fighters wont stop US 60 wotn stop either.
L wrote:I know you disagree, it is ok. I think Syria has lessons to take but not everything will be like Syria. US is getting desperate and i.e. Caribbean is probably not going to be a place where US fears escalating...
US can be as desperate as they want but what keeps them on leash is Fashington DCm fear. Neither 30 nor 60 or 90 fighters wont do against thousands (in Caribbean land fighters can be included).
As long as tens of megaton Sarmats or bunch of Avangards can say hello within 30 mins there wont be any fighting. Poseidons are also useful here. Very I'd say.
L wrote:
Regarding the aggressions, they came to the point where Turkey directly attacked Russia... that is an act of war pure and simple, Russia had to swallow its pride and respond asymmetrically. It was a hard test for Putin's leadership. It was not US directly but it was under their orders, Russia knows this for a fact. Imagine Russia deploys to Venezuela. Colombia or Brazil or Guyana start a skirmish because any obscure claim regarding territorial or exclusive economic interest waters (BTW there is an open dispute with Venezuela in this regard!), attack to some of their vessels or whatever excuse nobody will be able to corroborate afterwards and decides to strike against RuN vessels. Russia strikes back and images are shown of the massacre, so US comes to the rescue. Just off the top of my head but if you think it well you could create a situation where US "needs" to engage Russia militarily. Use your imagination man, imagine you are a Neocon and ploys will start popping up
Not turkey as far as i remember but pilots who later bombed Erdogans site, Russian reaction was not about swallowing pride but clever choice not do involve in war US wanted to see Russia with.
As for this scenario with Guyana, sorry it is not realistic. US never comes to fight directly with Russia unless we are talking about start WW3.
So how many times USA did shoot tens of Russian fighters or sinked ships? There is not even not even 1 example since II WW US officially attacking Russians. Some proxy can attack but that's all. Proxy is dead then. US didnt dare to send their ships to Kerch... tried Germans tho and any number of Ukrainians. They can provide proxy with weapons, money but never official USN/USAF help. .
L wrote: But of course the more planes the more expenses. 2-3 sqdn of very capable fighters are more than enough for Russian CV IMHO.
wait wait did you say 2-3 ?like 20-30 fighters? 
L wrote:> I don't know what precludes SU-33 or MiG-29 from carrying the R-37M. I don't expect it to be an absolute no-go, if MoD would see it as a need.ekh m R-37 for MiGs? well I believe when I see one -avionics/radars need to be changed first. Kinzhal is big and close to max payload MiG-29k. So no I dont see. Evenif why would you assume USN wond have long rangfe missiles too? with US resources it is no problem to create one.
You could try to use MiG-23 but why? 29k with 140km range (against fighter ) radar cannot use 400km AAM anyway. 4ton Kiznal wen 4,5t is max payload? so how many Kuz runways it should need to TO? I dotn see this coming.
L wrote:
> MiG-29 carrying Kinzhal makes little sense to me. This is a weapon only most heavy fighters can have a chance of carrying.
> Yes, US "may" be all mighty, but they are behind in so many fields and doing so many blunders that they are clearly not. If they can counter anything that you do better crawl under a rock and pray they don't find you. Not exactly what Russia is doing.
you seem to mix wasting resources to pimp up light fighter to heavy role with backing down.
L wrote:
2. Maybe the naval fighter will have two sides: one for STOBAR CVs (Su-57), one for LHDs (STOVL). This would make much sense but the economy of scale could be an issue.
I am not sure they know what they will do in big detail to be honest.
no worries nobody does, only them and GrarryB
Not sure why would you think VSTOL wont be used on all aircraft carrying ships? This would make no sense. L wrote:
As a matter of fact, they don't have the money they want for all the "needs" they perceive. They are not backing down, closing bases and returning to defend the country only. They are investing in more of the same, only this time bigger and better. So money is running out and will run out even more, despite all their attempts to use other countries as collateral. The strategy is unsustainable.ekhm your assumptions the US runs out of money is, mildly speaking, too optimistic.
in world where there is no slavery, extortion and wars yes it is not sustainable. But not in the world we live in. One huge war and counter with debt is reset. As long as $ is reserve currency yes their money spending pattern is sustainable.
L wrote:
Work is on and in high speed to me.
True, see above what kind of investments they are making. For instance, PCA which stands for penetrating counter air. So, more of the same delusion of "penetrating" air defences, at estimated $300 million a piece. 6G fighters like NGAD and PCA will need fundamentally new technologies (3 stream engines, DEW, GaN radars and EW etc.) or it will be nothing more than a PAK-FA with the stars and stripes all over it. If they go for the next step it will take many years to mature, despite of that I agree they are talking less publicly and working overtime on this issue because they know where they stand right now.
If US is delusive then why Russian need anything better they have now? Underestimating enemy is very bad idea.
As for fighters, so you admit that US will field in worst case Su-57 counterpart. The tiny difference is that only USN will have 500? 1000? of them while the whole Ru AF/N so far ordered 15 Su-57. After 18 years of programme.
Russian whole fighter AF part is trying to reach 700 fighters. USN aviation alone is close to 1000. .
To provide you with scale -> In naval case there will be something like 20:1 ratio
L" wrote:
And their debt increases exponentially too and the de-dollarization advances quite fast too... which trend will kill the other first?Their budget tug-of-wars is a matter of internal politics no money issue.
Look at Pentagram budget grows with each and every ear now.
debt you can reset to 0. As long as you control rules or can kill those you own money from.. I dont like US but i dont see this magical collapse coming.
Not in many years ahead. OK they get eventually get weaker because their slave base gets shorter in multi-polar world. Yet much more more powerful then Russia. (currently GDP PPP is like 6:1 if Russia jumps up GDP by 50% still you have 4:1)
L wrote:
That means 1.1.2030 or 31.12.2039? Depending on that I can agree or not.In 2030s can have IMHO at best 2 working CVs ( Kuz + new one) and US surely F/A.XX. Hopefully Russian deck fighter too.
any date in between me thinks . Does it really matter who will be first by year or two? Russia can be first but US can produce couple of times faster and more fighters.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°753
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 21, 2019 5:05 am
The Flying Tigers were used by the US against Japan before 12/7/41; they can hire reserve or active N/AF pilots to fly Colombian &/ Brazilian fighters against the Venezuelans & the Russian N/AF. The same with SOF & "private security firms'. So officially, the USN/AF/Army/MC won't be killing any1 there.They can provide proxy with weapons, money but never official USN/USAF help. ..
OTH, Soviet pilots flew against the USAF in Korea in Chinese uniforms.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°754
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:26 am
Tsavo Lion wrote:Still, it's not worth the trouble modifying Su-33 for that, + those Ms will need more storage space. R ammo lifts big enough? How safe will it be to bring it back on deck in case & after it's not used? Jettisoning expensive Ms is possible but not desirable.
The VMF will have plenty of other C/HSMs.
There are two things here
1) Whether modernization will include Kinzhal
That we dont now. Fucntionally tho if makes sense. Kiznal+|Su-33 range range makes any CSG keeping far and away. At least 1,500km which is enough
to be outside |USN range.
2) If technically Su-33 can carry it.
I believe it is.
2a) weight (mass actually ;-)
- they say that Kinzhal mass is ~3,5 tons while for normal AA mission profile Su-33 takes 3,3tons AAD missiles.
2b) clearance? it seems Su has even better one
2c) landing with Kiznal ?
same as landing with AAD missiles? BTW landign speed for su-33 is 10% smaller then MiG-29k
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°755
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 21, 2019 10:53 am
Tsavo Lion wrote:The Flying Tigers were used by the US against Japan before 12/7/41; they can hire reserve or active N/AF pilots to fly Colombian &/ Brazilian fighters against the Venezuelans & the Russian N/AF. The same with SOF & "private security firms'. So officially, the USN/AF/Army/MC won't be killing any1 there.They can provide proxy with weapons, money but never official USN/USAF help. ..
that's precisely what Im saying. But with private companies smaller airwing is more then enough.
BTW i dont think any of Latin countries' govt would be so stupid. Especially that even if Ukro-nazi-junta wasn't.
OTH, Soviet pilots flew against the USAF in Korea in Chinese uniforms.[/quote]
Officially tho there was no USSR - USA confrontation. Who, at least in first period, was manning Vietnamese AADs which downed US fighters?
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
And that's why i dont believe that Russia will rely on large CVNs since large airwign dont add much value but much costs here. if 30 fighters wont stop US 60 wotn stop either.
Well actually 60 fighter aircraft with AWACS support operating over half a dozen ships bristling with SAMs and radars and guns should be able to withstand quite a substantial attack from any threat... including BM attack... mostly because they can send out aircraft to find the threats and launch attacks at them, which will be rather more effective that passively sitting back and waiting for the Americans to fire missiles at them until they run out of missiles.
You could try to use MiG-23 but why? 29k with 140km range (against fighter ) radar cannot use 400km AAM anyway.
And in 10 years time when the K is back in the water the MiG-29KRs will be ready for a new overhaul which might include new generation radars that can see fighters at 600km as long as they are lifted above the radar horizon... and an R-37M would be ideal for shooting down enemy AWACS and refuelling aircraft at 400km range... which is what it was intended to do all along.
Operating with AWACS and Su-33s with new AESA radars should extend its engagement range too.
you seem to mix wasting resources to pimp up light fighter to heavy role with backing down.
Glad you see the sense of going for Su-57K as the future STOL fighter... I knew you would eventually see reason.
no worries nobody does, only them and GrarryB afro afro afro Not sure why would you think VSTOL wont be used on all aircraft carrying ships? This would make no sense.
Not sure why you think VSTOL aircraft are needed at all...
Maybe the naval fighter will have two sides: one for STOBAR CVs (Su-57), one for LHDs (STOVL).
Why waste space on a LHD with useless little half planes that crash all the time... you should be carrying helicopters, because in a landing they are the useful things just like on a CV the useful things are large STOL fighters. Other crap like VSTOL is just bullshit that takes up space you could be using for more useful things.
As for fighters, so you admit that US will field in worst case Su-57 counterpart. The tiny difference is that only USN will have 500? 1000? of them while the whole Ru AF/N so far ordered 15 Su-57. After 18 years of programme.
The US has 189 Su-57 counterparts and they are inferior already... the F-35 is inferior to the Su-35, with countries backing out of buying F-35s as we speak, so the planned run of 3,000 F-35s is a joke... like the planned run of 1,500 F-22s was.
Russian whole fighter AF part is trying to reach 700 fighters. USN aviation alone is close to 1000. .
To provide you with scale -> In naval case there will be something like 20:1 ratio
At the start when all the carriers are on the surface, but after a few minutes and those USN carriers are submarines then it will be 1:0....
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°757
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Thu Mar 21, 2019 1:33 pm
GarryB wrote:And that's why i dont believe that Russia will rely on large CVNs since large airwign dont add much value but much costs here. if 30 fighters wont stop US 60 wotn stop either.
Well actually 60 fighter aircraft with AWACS support operating over half a dozen ships bristling with SAMs and radars and guns should be able to withstand quite a substantial attack from any threat... including BM attack... mostly because they can send out aircraft to find the threats and launch attacks at them, which will be rather more effective that passively sitting back and waiting for the Americans to fire missiles at them until they run out of missiles.
You still fail to understand that there will be no conventional scenario where 60 Us fighters is fighting with 60 Russian ones. 30 minutres is all Avangard needs to kill CSG.
Deterrence? you dont need 60 fighters to do that. You have 1,500km hypersonic ASh. Nobody is gonna attack you for days. Send 6 and nobody comes closer then 2000km
GB wrote:You could try to use MiG-23 but why? 29k with 140km range (against fighter ) radar cannot use 400km AAM anyway.
And in 10 years time when the K is back in the water the MiG-29KRs will be ready for a new overhaul which might include new generation radars that can see fighters at 600km as long as they are lifted above the radar horizon... and an R-37M would be ideal for shooting down enemy AWACS and refuelling aircraft at 400km range... which is what it was intended to do all along.
Operating with AWACS and Su-33s with new AESA radars should extend its engagement range too.
looks like nice fantasy not realistic tho. MiG-35 for RuAF have no AESA. Nobody is gonna waste money to put Su-57 top radar for old 29k. Assuming this would be technically possible at all.
KUZ will be back in 2-3 years. In 10 years Kiznhal likely and 29k surely will on way out. Same with 29. Replaced by Su-30SM first.
GB wrote:no worries nobody does, only them and GrarryB afro afro afro Not sure why would you think VSTOL wont be used on all aircraft carrying ships? This would make no sense.
Not sure why you think VSTOL aircraft are needed at all...
becsue they are much more effective in short runways what for navy does make sense. With same qualities wrt payload or radius as current fighters.
GB wrote:
As for fighters, so you admit that US will field in worst case Su-57 counterpart. The tiny difference is that only USN will have 500? 1000? of them while the whole Ru AF/N so far ordered 15 Su-57. After 18 years of programme.
The US has 189 Su-57 counterparts and they are inferior already... the F-35 is inferior to the Su-35, with countries backing out of buying F-35s as we speak, so the planned run of 3,000 F-35s is a joke... like the planned run of 1,500 F-22s was.
Soin comparison F-22 which requirements were gathered in late 80s with almost 20 years later Su-57 - Su is better. If it was worse i'd be shocked.
So far there are 80 Su-35 (?) and no Su-57 in line and over F-35 300 build and 189 F-22 in line. But you, unlike Russian generals, seem not see the problem here. And yes F/A XX at worst on pair then Su-57
GB wrote:Russian whole fighter AF part is trying to reach 700 fighters. USN aviation alone is close to 1000. .
To provide you with scale -> In naval case there will be something like 20:1 ratio
At the start when all the carriers are on the surface, but after a few minutes and those USN carriers are submarines then it will be 1:0....
in this unrealistic scenario you dont need even 30 deck fighters for Russian Navy. Because none of CSGs will be sinked by fighter.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°758
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:14 pm
It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.Kinzhal+Su-33 range range makes any CSG keeping far and away. At least 1,500km which is enough to be outside USN range.
The VMF will have Zircons & Onyxes; the Su-33s may have Brahmos derived CMs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos-II
https://www.janes.com/article/86816/india-likely-to-induct-air-launched-brahmos-a-by-early-2020
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/new-brahmos-missile-will-take-down-enemy-force-multipliers/articleshow/68094383.cms?from=mdr
The Su-33 has ~1,500 km combat radius; with BrahMos-A (an estimated operational range of around 400 km), all surface ships will be kept at least 1,900 km away.
https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/india-plans-to-induct-air-launched-brahmos-supersonic-cruise-missile-by-2020/
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
Yes, I mean the capability to put the opponent at risk even with less ships and aircraft. Hell, I have said this like 200 times.GunshipDemocracy wrote:balance as potential to destroy enemy yes, If you mean number of fighters or ships no, never.
They waste orders of magnitude more than the Russians to compensate, a recent report discovered Pentagon had lost track to something like 20 trillion...The reason is is simple, resources. SU has by order of magnitude more. Everything.
Besides, military budget in Russia is also like one order of magnitude more effective than in USA so they are quite balanced in the end for what matters to the defence of the motherland.
if 30 fighters wont stop US 60 wotn stop either.
Please pay attention: no US CVN carries 60 fighters.
They are fucking mad to start a war with Russia and take that roadblock out of their sight finally. And you suggest that I don't underestimate them? I am not doing, therefore I hope Russia is capable of having conventional deterrence, otherwise their international grow and therefore capability to reach an economic balance vs US and China will be cut before even starting. Again: escalation control requires conventional deterrence.US can be as desperate as they want but what keeps them on leash is Fashington DCm fear. Neither 30 nor 60 or 90 fighters wont do against thousands (in Caribbean land fighters can be included).
As long as tens of megaton Sarmats or bunch of Avangards can say hello within 30 mins there wont be any fighting. Poseidons are also useful here. Very I'd say.
ANDNot turkey as far as i remember but pilots who later bombed Erdogans site, Russian reaction was not about swallowing pride but clever choice not do involve in war US wanted to see Russia with.
Make up your mind, you are saying one thing and the opposite almost at the same time. Turkey was used as a proxy against Russia and yes, the natural response (bomb them in retaliation) was not executed, while the herds of the public opinion and countless pundits were demanding Putin to do just that and accused him of being weak. It is not for nothing that US uses this kind of action as a trap you know? They challenge the authority and power of the political leadership in question in a very crude but effective way. Either you have the balls and the power to bomb the aggressor and show who is the boss or you are an underdog. People are that basic, it really works. And consequently US always retaliates violently when challenged, see dozens of times in Syria for instance.Some proxy can attack but that's all. Proxy is dead then.
To the effects of public opinion, indeed it was Turkey, regardless of who exactly did it and what plot was used. Or do you suggest random guys can take an armed TuAF F-16 from an air base while some other buddies guide him to shoot down a foreign fighter without air force knowing????
It is worrying to me that you fail to see the path US will use to unleash a war with Russia. It will be a provocation using the excuse of Russia attacking a foreign "ally". It is so obvious, they even admit to be preparing for that and set up trip wires around Russia accordingly. And of course they bet on Russia being reasonable enough to accept a conventional conflict (even knowing this is exactly what US wants to plunge them into a chaos that will keep them down for some decades more) than ending the world. Russia MUST NOT ALLOW this to happen.As for this scenario with Guyana, sorry it is not realistic. US never comes to fight directly with Russia unless we are talking about start WW3.
So how many times USA did shoot tens of Russian fighters or sinked ships? There is not even not even 1 example since II WW US officially attacking Russians. US didnt dare to send their ships to Kerch... tried Germans tho and any number of Ukrainians. They can provide proxy with weapons, money but never official USN/USAF help. .
The only ways are:
> Convincing US that they will immediately retaliate with nukes. Nobody believes this and much less the neocons who think Putin is weak. Every provocation until now that was not escalated just proves them right and further encourages them to escalate further, which is exactly what they are doing.
> Having ways of conventional escalation control. If US attacks and they are the ones sunk the public opinion will eat them alive and they will loose essentially all their international prestige. They fear being humiliated like this more than dying quickly in a nuclear blast, I am 100% sure.
You have to understand you are not dealing with a rational actor anymore, but with a bunch of demented narcissists. They are very dangerous
Oh boy!! I already repeated 100 times that a US CVN carries a maximum of 4 sqdn fighters, max 48 units. 36 Su-57K could not wipe the floor with 48 F-18 or F-35C, really?? I would go as far as suggesting a single Russian CV with such air wing and the corresponding supporting assets could block and eventually defeat up to 3 CSGs, which is the maximum you would see in a single conflict zone before the thing grows so big that it gets nuclear.
Who says the missile must be guided by the MiG-29???You could try to use MiG-23 but why? 29k with 140km range (against fighter ) radar cannot use 400km AAM anyway.
I already said no Kinzhals on MiGs...4ton Kiznal wen 4,5t is max payload? so how many Kuz runways it should need to TO? I dotn see this coming.
I think you didn't understand anything I saidyou seem to mix wasting resources to pimp up light fighter to heavy role with backing down.
Not again!Not sure why would you think VSTOL wont be used on all aircraft carrying ships? This would make no sense.
Been explaining this for ages so sorry not going to repeat again, mostly out of respect for the forum. But look at what other navies do if you really search for an answer.
Resources are finite, sadly for the US predatory capitalism there is indeed a limit. Hence the situation in which we find ourselves now. It is striking that you have such a defeatist stance and yet think Russia will not be rolled over one of these daysin world where there is no slavery, extortion and wars yes it is not sustainable. But not in the world we live in. One huge war and counter with debt is reset. As long as $ is reserve currency yes their money spending pattern is sustainable.
Not underestimating anyone, at all. But the fact is that excess of power leads to self indulgence. No correct feedback --> false assumptions. It happens all the time and US is pretty much trapped in their bubble of self reassurance. This is a daydreaming nobody wants to be awaken from.If US is delusive then why Russian need anything better they have now? Underestimating enemy is very bad idea.
US military has committed several blunders one after the other that have given Russia an opportunity that was not to be expected if they had just used their budget and technology rationally. This is obvious to see.
Of course, they need something against Su-57. When and what are the questions. Russia has no plan to leave the Su-57 as it is until the end of time either.As for fighters, so you admit that US will field in worst case Su-57 counterpart. The tiny difference is that only USN will have 500? 1000? of them while the whole Ru AF/N so far ordered 15 Su-57. After 18 years of programme.
I am a bit weary of your numbers, do you mind providing the calculation?Russian whole fighter AF part is trying to reach 700 fighters. USN aviation alone is close to 1000. .
To provide you with scale -> In naval case there will be something like 20:1 ratio
Not going to discuss the absolute farce of GDP here. National power is measured differently. And the US crisis is there for everyone to see. Nothing happens until it happens, and when it does, it is pretty fast. So what has not happened yet proves nothing for the future. But the signals are not good for US.debt you can reset to 0. As long as you control rules or can kill those you own money from.. I dont like US but i dont see this magical collapse coming.
Not in many years ahead. OK they get eventually get weaker because their slave base gets shorter in multi-polar world. Yet much more more powerful then Russia. (currently GDP PPP is like 6:1 if Russia jumps up GDP by 50% still you have 4:1)
If Russia has Su-57K for ten years before US comes up with something really capable then it would have been worth it.any date in between me thinks . Does it really matter who will be first by year or two? Russia can be first but US can produce couple of times faster and more fighters.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
- Post n°760
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
magnumcromagnon Thu Mar 21, 2019 11:47 pm
Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.
Not maneuverable??? Blasphemy! You have no off-hand accuracy testing data to come to that conclusion, all we know is that it's derived from Iskander-M (which actually maneuvers through flight
) which has a CEP of 5-7 meters, besides 100k aircraft carriers stick out like a sore thumb.
Isos- Posts : 11598
Points : 11566
Join date : 2015-11-07
magnumcromagnon wrote:Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.
Not maneuverable??? Blasphemy! You have no off-hand accuracy testing data to come to that conclusion, all we know is that it's derived from Iskander-M (which actually maneuvers through flight
Mach 10 is 12348 km/h so 1500km is made in about 7.2 minutes.
In 7.2 minutes, a carry with a top speed of 50km/h will move maximum 6 km which for a radar is nothing even without mid course corrections. It only needs the precise position of the carrier at launch and it will know the carrier is max 6km around this position. A little scan and it will find it.
Once detected the missile needs to make only one correction. Don't need to "intercept" the carrier like antiair missiles do with targets. But only go on the carrier position as the between the detection and tge hit the carrier move only few meters.
Last edited by Isos on Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
GarryB wrote:Maybe the naval fighter will have two sides: one for STOBAR CVs (Su-57), one for LHDs (STOVL).
Why waste space on a LHD with useless little half planes that crash all the time... you should be carrying helicopters, because in a landing they are the useful things just like on a CV the useful things are large STOL fighters. Other crap like VSTOL is just bullshit that takes up space you could be using for more useful things.
I happen to think that Russia could be deploying LHDs for smaller operations where some presence and strike capability is useful but there are no opposing air forces involved or no first order threats present. STOVL plane could be of use in such conditions, given it is reliable of course and in contained numbers (6-10 planes). There should be some export market for such a plane also, since "upgraded" LHDs are going to be quite abundant in world fleets, much more than CVs.
For instance, Russia having 4 CVs could have one in Northern Fleet + one in Pacific + retrofit + (ideally and admittedly thinking wishfully) one in Caribbean Sea or any other important and remote area. Additionally one LHD in Hmeimim for missions in the Mediterranean and maybe others in locations close enough to Russia to be covered from there without the need of a top-notch CV and naval aviation. It would be a multiplier for Russian capabilities at a reasonable cost.
As said, development of STOVL only for Russia is something I have never quite seen... the co-development with China would be good though. Feasible and even good business in the right conditions.
High speed helos could also ending up doing more or less the same than STOVL planes, so it needs to be seen what way Russia decides to go.
IMO it does not make sense to waste the opportunity Su-57K offers, but maybe MoD sees it differently. It all depends on if Russia wants to escalate their fleet to be a credible blue water navy or prefers keeping a lower profile for the immediate future. 2050 strategy seems rather ambitious, but the wording has been kept conveniently vague just in case the scope needs to be more restricted.
Whaaat? Kinzhal is specifically a weapon to put CSGs and US vessels in general on notice, in case they come too close or start doing silly things in the Russian surroundings.Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.
http://tass.com/defense/998221
Coherently, they are deployed from MiG-31 and Tu-22M3
Don't think so, a missile that only has 400 km range leaves the carrier very exposed to enemy DCA... Russia has not hundreds of planes to sacrifice in such an action. On the contrary, a missile like Kinzhal with claimed 2000 km range makes the carrier impossible to reach before it launches.The Su-33 has ~1,500 km combat radius; with BrahMos-A (an estimated operational range of around 400 km), all surface ships will be kept at least 1,900 km away.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°763
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:14 am
They'll still need to know it's precise location. The current radar detection range at sea is 400 km. Get closer, & the EW plane/helo will be shutdown:
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/03/21/79948-no-mozhem-sobstvennyh-tsirkonov
Neither the USN, RN, IN, PLAN & FN nor the RuN will use CV/Ns/TAKRs against each other; that WWII story is over.
It would be more efficient to use 1 SSBN detached into an ESG that can strike a CSG from greater distances & with more conventional warheads which r already hyper-sonic.
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/03/21/79948-no-mozhem-sobstvennyh-tsirkonov
Neither the USN, RN, IN, PLAN & FN nor the RuN will use CV/Ns/TAKRs against each other; that WWII story is over.
It would be more efficient to use 1 SSBN detached into an ESG that can strike a CSG from greater distances & with more conventional warheads which r already hyper-sonic.
LMFS- Posts : 5158
Points : 5154
Join date : 2018-03-03
There are satellites providing targeting info for naval warfare. A CSG is not some king of stealthy and unremarkable target, and it is huge in radar. The missile will have no big problem finding it.Tsavo Lion wrote:They'll still need to know it's precise location. The current radar detection range at sea is 400 km. Get closer, & the EW plane/helo will be shutdown:
https://www.novayagazeta.ru/articles/2019/03/21/79948-no-mozhem-sobstvennyh-tsirkonov
Neither the USN, RN, IN, PLAN & FN nor the RuN will use CV/Ns/TAKRs against each other; that WWII story is over.
It would be more efficient to use 1 SSBN detached into an ESG that can strike a CSG from greater distances & with more conventional warheads which r already hyper-sonic.
Of course SSNs are one of the main factors in this case, and increasing ASMs range will help them a lot too. But they have their vulnerabilities too. On the one hand, they could be shadowed as USN has more of them. On the other, the moment they reveal their position they would be toasted. So it is not the kind of mission anyone would be willing to do or MoD would be inclined to call for. Not if the surface fleet has the possibility of deterring aggression in a safer way.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°765
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 22, 2019 3:16 am
that can be sporadic, & sats can be interfered with.There are satellites providing targeting info for naval warfare.
OTH Radars can detect CVNs, but out of their range it's a lot harder to do. The best way to eliminate them is by an ambush in the littorals/choke points they must sail through.
The USN was lucky that its CVs were not in/near Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
- Post n°766
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
magnumcromagnon Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:02 am
Tsavo Lion wrote:that can be sporadic, & sats can be interfered with.There are satellites providing targeting info for naval warfare.
OTH Radars can detect CVNs, but out of their range it's a lot harder to do. The best way to eliminate them is by an ambush in the littorals/choke points they must sail through.
The USN was lucky that its CVs were not in/near Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.
Lotus satellites in the growing Liana system constellation can passively listen to electro-magnetic transmissions whether it be their radars actively scanning or their closed communication channels, and direct missiles in the direction of the transmissions. For Liana not to passively detect them, they would have to cut-off communications of deck aircraft already in flight (meaning no landing), communications between the CBG, and the radars would need to be shut-off (no tracking and or targeting of missiles). So in short the enemy doesn't know its being targeted until it's too late.
"Sats can be interfered with" Don't pretend that the US automatically has the same capability as the Federation in this field, the MiG-31DAZ ASAT exists, but the U.S. equivalent using the F-15 as a platform was a colossal failure and led to nowhere. Similarly the U.S. doesn't have any Krashuka-4, Peresvet, Samakhand, Murmansk-BM equivalents, and the closest equivalent to Nudol is the SM-3 and THAAD which struggle with Scud-B's. So in theory what you say is true, but the practice, the systems, and the doctrine isn't there.
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
You still fail to understand that there will be no conventional scenario where 60 Us fighters is fighting with 60 Russian ones.
That is exactly right so why do you keep bringing it up?
For the same reason WTF are they wasting money on Armata vehicles for... Russia will never make enough to take on all of NATO... so why bother making any at all?
T-72s with upgrades will blunt any attacks while the strategic nukes are launched.
But then Russian land forces need to be able to do more than just fight WWIII for a day.
If Russia was ever in a situation like Britain was in the Falklands conflict a carrier that can carry 90 fighters, but more often 60 fighters plus AWACS and other useful platforms including unmanned ones makes a hell of a lot more sense than one that can only carry 24 fighters.
The initial price difference would not be enormous and would be spread over the decade it would take to go from laying them down to getting them into operational service.
In service a bigger vessel will be more capable and more flexible... you could even operate some VSTOL fighters if you want, but after they have all crashed you can use proper fighters too.
looks like nice fantasy not realistic tho. MiG-35 for RuAF have no AESA. Nobody is gonna waste money to put Su-57 top radar for old 29k. Assuming this would be technically possible at all.
KUZ will be back in 2-3 years. In 10 years Kiznhal likely and 29k surely will on way out. Same with 29. Replaced by Su-30SM first.
AESA elements start out expensive but over time the cost goes down and the performance gets better... right now it is hard to justify, but over time on different platforms AESA radars are going to mature and over time as production increases it is going to get much much cheaper and smaller and lighter... in 5 years time they might be rather cheaper and offer rather better performance and become worth fitting to aircraft.
Photonic radar might make current AESA radars obsolete so they might be waiting for that to become available instead and skip a generation...
Soin comparison F-22 which requirements were gathered in late 80s with almost 20 years later Su-57 - Su is better. If it was worse i'd be shocked.
The F-22 had a range of problems with its design and equipment and systems, and most of those problems remain... they have done very little at all to upgrade and improve the aircraft... in comparison the Russians have massively upgraded their Flankers and seem set on making the Su-57 as good as it can possibly be, while at the same time also improving the Su-35.
The Americans love what is hot right now, they don't love the F-22 any more, the new thing is the F-35 but it has quite a few problems of its own that are not getting sorted out either... what are they actually doing?
So far there are 80 Su-35 (?) and no Su-57 in line and over F-35 300 build and 189 F-22 in line.
They might have 300 already produced, but you can't call them operational ready to go aircraft...
And the fact that they are not really ready to go doesn't make them cheaper....
And countries are cancelling or reducing orders for F-35... Germany doesn't want them, Turkey wont be allowed them because if they fly them with their S-400 systems operating they will find how easy they are to detect and track and shoot down... who is going to want them then? (I mean F-35s... not S-400).
And yes F/A XX at worst on pair then Su-57
What does that even mean?
And SUX is three letters so it would have to be F/A XXX.
in this unrealistic scenario you dont need even 30 deck fighters for Russian Navy. Because none of CSGs will be sinked by fighter.
Three or four CAPs with four aircraft per group means a total of 12-16 aircraft in the air able to shoot down maybe 3-4 subsonic low flying cruise missiles each up to 500km away from the surface group would seriously blunt any initial attack on the carrier group before the missiles even come over the radar horizon... plus their tracking radar could be used to direct long range SAMs launched from the surface group... hell you could have 5-6 Trucks each with 40 tubes of Hermes missiles that can be volley launched ballistically out to 120-150km with the fighters tracking the incoming anti ship missiles and passing on target data to the surface fleet to take out hundreds of incoming subsonic anti ship missiles... the falling Hermes missiles could come down in volleys of 12-16 missiles at a time and each volley be aimed at the incoming anti ship missiles with laser target marking from the fighter planes as they fly back to the carrier to land and reload... time each volley at 1 minute intervals and as each target is destroyed it can scan and lock the next target in 60 seconds and then the next missile falls from the sky and takes out the marked target... the US would need to launch thousands of missiles and even then would have trouble to get a kill...
It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.
Iskander is able to be used against moving targets like ships, is very manouverable, and very accurate... it can also use a range of warheads including nuclear and cluster as well as HE penetrating and HE thermobaric...
Besides, military budget in Russia is also like one order of magnitude more effective than in USA so they are quite balanced in the end for what matters to the defence of the motherland.
The Russian budget has less corruption... the capitalist west feels the need to rip off their own government will will charge much more when it is a government contract. Health costs also greatly increase when insurance companies are paying the bills too BTW.
Please pay attention: no US CVN carries 60 fighters.
The number they carry is irrelevant because unless they stay in port and get dealt with via the god of the sea, they wont be operating any fighters from the sea floor.
I happen to think that Russia could be deploying LHDs for smaller operations where some presence and strike capability is useful but there are no opposing air forces involved or no first order threats present. STOVL plane could be of use in such conditions, given it is reliable of course and in contained numbers (6-10 planes). There should be some export market for such a plane also, since "upgraded" LHDs are going to be quite abundant in world fleets, much more than CVs.
An LHD is most useful for landing armour and deploying helicopters... what they are not useful for is mini aircraft carriers... which is a role they are shit for... the British know because they had the Hermes and Invincible... they are tiny ships much cheaper than the 70K ton ship they are using now.... the Russians also know they had the Kiev class carriers that were also small ships that were cheaper than the Kuznetsov... do you see a trend?
If tiny little ships with VSTOL fighters were so fucking cheap and so fucking great why are the British and the Russians not building them?
Perhaps because when all is said an done an LHD is not a CVN and vice versa, so by all means build a couple of LHDs but for goodness sake build CVNs so they will actually be able to operate safely and not be butchered like the big container ships they are with out proper air support.
For instance, Russia having 4 CVs could have one in Northern Fleet + one in Pacific + retrofit + (ideally and admittedly thinking wishfully) one in Caribbean Sea or any other important and remote area. Additionally one LHD in Hmeimim for missions in the Mediterranean and maybe others in locations close enough to Russia to be covered from there without the need of a top-notch CV and naval aviation. It would be a multiplier for Russian capabilities at a reasonable cost.
Yeah... what do you mean by reasonable cost... any operational CV is going to need a billion dollars support each year... the carrier group that operates around a CV costs over a billion dollars to keep operational... and for what... so it can sit ready in case it is needed... that is a shit load of money for just in case.
Two new CVNs plus the Kuznetsov means one can be given a decent overhaul and upgrade and there should be at least one carrier available for anything needed and most likely two will be available most of the time... which is enough.
Some Mistralski LHDNs in the northern fleet and the pacific fleet that make regular visits to the med and spend time in tartus make sense... but spending money on the northern fleet base and the pacific fleet base is already happening... basing a total of three CV/Ns there plus two LHDNs makes sense and at nuke power speeds they can go where they are needed quickly enough anyway... most operations will be planned months in advance, but if an emergency crops up generally it will take weeks for them to get to where they are needed anyway, so taking a few weeks to load them properly so they are prepared makes sense too... they are never going to be the US with carriers positioned everywhere able to arrive within a few days... that is simply not an option.
IMO it does not make sense to waste the opportunity Su-57K offers, but maybe MoD sees it differently. It all depends on if Russia wants to escalate their fleet to be a credible blue water navy or prefers keeping a lower profile for the immediate future. 2050 strategy seems rather ambitious, but the wording has been kept conveniently vague just in case the scope needs to be more restricted.
They will have a few years to decide whether they want a naval 5th gen Su-57 heavy naval fighter, or a brand new light 5th gen land and sea fighter... the latter being quicker and easier and cheaper and simpler to make if it is just STOL... 5th gen light fighters will be low drag large wing high thrust aircraft that would suit CATOBAR and STOBAR operations.
On the contrary, a missile like Kinzhal with claimed 2000 km range makes the carrier impossible to reach before it launches.
Think he means no carrier aircraft will likely be carrying Kinzhal... but then carrier aircraft probably will carry Zircon, with half the range of Kinzhal and almost the same flight speed an air launched model would at the very least add 1,000km to the flight range of the aircraft... probably double that...
They'll still need to know it's precise location. The current radar detection range at sea is 400 km. Get closer, & the EW plane/helo will be shutdown:
Yeah, might want to check satellite capability there... Kh-22 could only be launched at targets it had a lock on at launch and some models of that missile had a range of over 500km...
EW is a game of cat and mouse, except it is really cat and cat these days...
The USN was lucky that its CVs were not in/near Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.
Actually the Japanese were lucky the USN CVs were not there, because they could have very quickly put up an air threat that could have blunted and turned back the attack... making them think twice about taking on the Americans in the pacific.
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°768
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:44 am
The US has a "mini-shuttle" now to damage/destroy/de-orbit Lianas:
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/07/spacex-launches-us-air-forces-secret-mini-shuttle/
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/09/06/mysterious-air-force-x-37-b-about-spacex-falcon-9-launch-kennedy-space-center-florida/637131001/
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/07/x-37b-spaceplane-returns-to-earth-and-makes-precision-autopilot-landing/
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/07/spacex-launches-us-air-forces-secret-mini-shuttle/
https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/09/06/mysterious-air-force-x-37-b-about-spacex-falcon-9-launch-kennedy-space-center-florida/637131001/
https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/05/07/x-37b-spaceplane-returns-to-earth-and-makes-precision-autopilot-landing/
If just 1 of them crashes not due to enemy fire, measures will be taken to prevent more crashes. They may even ground them all to fight another day, as they r more useful on deck than on the sea bottom or enemy beach.you could even operate some VSTOL fighters if you want, but after they have all crashed you can use proper fighters too.
Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:59 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
- Post n°769
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
magnumcromagnon Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:57 am
Tsavo Lion wrote:The US has a "mini-shuttle" now to damage/destroy/de-orbit Lianas:
https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-air-force/2017/09/07/spacex-launches-us-air-forces-secret-mini-shuttle/
1.) You can't be serious?
Your saying this launch platform.......
...Is a proper substitute for this launch platform?
....Do I need to explain to you the many reasons why the former's launch platform is a vastly inferior launch platform compared to the latter???
2.) The X-37B flies at approx 310 to 422 kilometers altitude, while the Lotus-S constellation (that comprises Liana) flies at a 1000km atltitude.
https://www.space.com/41565-x-37b-space-plane-skywatcher-photos-otv5.html
https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/x-37.htm
https://www.globalsecurity.org/space/world/russia/lotos-c.htm
Tsavo Lion- Posts : 5960
Points : 5912
Join date : 2016-08-15
Location : AZ, USA
- Post n°770
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
Tsavo Lion Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:16 am
The US will put weapons in space sooner than many expect, as they r behind Russia in B/CMs, CVNs loose their utility, closed seas around Eurasia r no longer being controlled, & the Arctic outside of Alaska, Canada & Greenland is de-facto off limits to NATO surface warships.
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The US has a "mini-shuttle" now to damage/destroy/de-orbit Lianas:
The Russians have some of the best space tracking equipment available to anyone... and they monitor US launches so if the US makes any move against Russian defence satellites that would be taken as the first step in an all out attack on Russia... why else would you try to blind their satellites?
It would be one of the few situations where the Russians would enjoy all the benefits of a first strike because they can freely launch their entire arsenal of nuclear weapons straight away... without waiting for confirmation of launches from the US or the west... it means aircraft can be immediately scrambled to launch nuclear armed Kinzhal to take out ABM sites in Japan, Europe and Alaska while ICBMs and SLBMs are ordered to be launched and strategic bombers are armed and launched too...
If just 1 of them crashes not due to enemy fire, measures will be taken to prevent more crashes. They may even ground them all to fight another day, as they r more useful on deck than on the sea bottom or enemy beach.
In a war situation if you have to ground all your fighters you might as well not have any to begin with. I would expect the aircraft would be flown anyway with the hope they don't all come into the same set of circumstances that caused the other crash... but good luck with that...
The US will put weapons in space sooner than many expect, as they r behind Russia in B/CMs, CVNs loose their utility, closed seas around Eurasia r no longer being controlled, & the Arctic outside of Alaska, Canada & Greenland is de-facto off limits to NATO surface warships.
Because they are behind in the hypersonic missile sphere, they want to expand into the nukes in space sphere... well the US is even more reliant on space and satellites than anyone else on the planet, that is somewhere where they could really lose hard... and screw up space for thousands of years... filling it with trillions of fragments will mean future trips into space will need to pass through a gauntlet of rubbish to get through...
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
The US will put weapons in space sooner than many expect
Aww come on... you telling me you think they don't already have nukes up there... just in case...
GarryB- Posts : 40515
Points : 41015
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Better hope any new Russian VSTOL fighter is better than the F-35 family of aircraft:
https://sputniknews.com/military/201903201073410541-watchdog-report-us-navy-f-35-troubles/
Maybe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR will be fine in 10 years time on Russian CV and CVNs...
"The F-35B's fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018," POGO analysts determined.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201903201073410541-watchdog-report-us-navy-f-35-troubles/
Maybe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR will be fine in 10 years time on Russian CV and CVNs...
Isos- Posts : 11598
Points : 11566
Join date : 2015-11-07
GarryB wrote:Better hope any new Russian VSTOL fighter is better than the F-35 family of aircraft:
"The F-35B's fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018," POGO analysts determined.
https://sputniknews.com/military/201903201073410541-watchdog-report-us-navy-f-35-troubles/
Maybe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR will be fine in 10 years time on Russian CV and CVNs...
20% of 300 aircraft is still 60 aircraft.
GunshipDemocracy- Posts : 6165
Points : 6185
Join date : 2015-05-17
Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada
- Post n°775
Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.
GunshipDemocracy Fri Mar 22, 2019 2:07 pm
LMFS wrote:
They waste orders of magnitude more than the Russians to compensate, a recent report discovered Pentagon had lost track to something like 20 trillion...The reason is is simple, resources. SU has by order of magnitude more. Everything.
Besides, military budget in Russia is also like one order of magnitude more effective than in USA so they are quite balanced in the end for what matters to the defence of the motherland.
This is called wishful thinking to me. Perhaps they are less effective but over order of magnitude and Russian costs will be growing with salries too.
BTW Russia is trying to defend herself not to control all world with such effective budget Russian would control everything already.
L wrote:Please pay attention: no US CVN carries 60 fighters.if 30 fighters wont stop US 60 wotn stop either.
would you say Nimitz carrying 90 aircraft has 40 helos and AWACS? OK Im not specialist on USN
L wrote:
They are fucking mad to start a war with Russia and take that roadblock out of their sight finally. And you suggest that I don't underestimate them? I am not doing, therefore I hope Russia is capable of having conventional deterrence, otherwise their international grow and therefore capability to reach an economic balance vs US and China will be cut before even starting. Again: escalation control requires conventional deterrence.US can be as desperate as they want but what keeps them on leash is Fashington DCm fear. Neither 30 nor 60 or 90 fighters wont do against thousands (in Caribbean land fighters can be included).
As long as tens of megaton Sarmats or bunch of Avangards can say hello within 30 mins there wont be any fighting. Poseidons are also useful here. Very I'd say.
then deterrence you want to build up till US navy size? they you lost war already by bankrupting . Real example we had in Syria proved that 8 fighters were more then enough.
Make up your mind, you are saying one thing and the opposite almost at the same time. Turkey was used as a proxy against Russia and yes, the natural response (bomb them in retaliation) was not executed, while the herds of the public opinion and countless pundits were demanding Putin to do just that and accused him of being weak. It is not for nothing that US uses this kind of action as a trap you know? They challenge the authority and power of the political leadership in question in a very crude but effective way. Either you have the balls and the power to bomb the aggressor and show who is the boss or you are an underdog. People are that basic, it really works. And consequently US always retaliates violently when challenged, see dozens of times in Syria for instance. [/quote]L wrote:ANDNot turkey as far as i remember but pilots who later bombed Erdogans site, Russian reaction was not about swallowing pride but clever choice not do involve in war US wanted to see Russia with.
Some proxy can attack but that's all. Proxy is dead then.
1) no I dont, I say not more fighters did the trick, as you insist, but other means of "signalling"
2) You kept saying spend more on arms regardless if you can afford or not.
3) bigger CVN does it all according to you? I disagree
L wrote:
To the effects of public opinion, indeed it was Turkey, regardless of who exactly did it and what plot was used. Or do you suggest random guys can take an armed TuAF F-16 from an air base while some other buddies guide him to shoot down a foreign fighter without air force knowing????
same random guys that were fighting Erdogan, AFAIK ~30k military were prosecuted
L wrote:. Russia MUST NOT ALLOW this to happen.
if US wants war they dont need any provocation. For whom if world wont exist anymore? and you Russia should do this? I can answer you already: you cannot. Besides ensuring US motherfucking elites know they will be killed till last one of them.
L wrote:The only ways are:
> Convincing US that they will immediately retaliate with nukes. Nobody believes this and much less the neocons who think Putin is weak. Every provocation until now that was not escalated just proves them right and further encourages them to escalate further, which is exactly what they are doing.
any example of escalation now? i fail to see any, help is appreciated
L wrote:> Having ways of conventional escalation control. If US attacks and they are the ones sunk the public opinion will eat them alive and they will loose essentially all their international prestige. They fear being humiliated like this more than dying quickly in a nuclear blast, I am 100% sure.
you cannot be serious with that, can you?
L wrote:Oh boy!! I already repeated 100 times that a US CVN carries a maximum of 4 sqdn fighters, max 48 units. 36 Su-57K could not wipe the floor with 48 F-18 or F-35C, really?? I would go as far as suggesting a single Russian CV with such air wing and the corresponding supporting assets could block and eventually defeat up to 3 CSGs, which is the maximum you would see in a single conflict zone before the thing grows so big that it gets nuclear.
1) OK NIMITZ carries 40 fighters and 52 helos or 48 fighters and 42 helos
2) 36 Su-57k iin 2040s? (which wont happen anyway ), would deal with 3x48 F/AXX + tens of drones and basically would be dead
3) defeat 2 CSGs ? wow ? Russian admirals dont seem to be on your level of optimism.
L wrote:Not again!Not sure why would you think VSTOL wont be used on all aircraft carrying ships? This would make no sense.
Been explaining this for ages so sorry not going to repeat again, mostly out of respect for the forum. But look at what other navies do if you really search for an answer.
I did Royal navy, Italian navy or Japs Navy. They all use (or plan to) exclusively VSTOL. BTW Borisov said "undoblty VSOTL is future of all deck aviation" looks lie Russian MoD is not sharing your views either.
L wrote:Resources are finite, sadly for the US predatory capitalism there is indeed a limit. Hence the situation in which we find ourselves now. It is striking that you have such a defeatist stance and yet think Russia will not be rolled over one of these daysin world where there is no slavery, extortion and wars yes it is not sustainable. But not in the world we live in. One huge war and counter with debt is reset. As long as $ is reserve currency yes their money spending pattern is sustainable.
what about that Im just realistic and understand that you need to live withing your resources?
Ask yourself why many of my "defeatist guesses" were then somehow confirmed by Russian MoD decisions?
L wrote:US military has committed several blunders one after the other that have given Russia an opportunity that was not to be expected if they had just used their budget and technology rationally. This is obvious to see.
hmm if you check timeline and geopolitics then you'd realize they didnt really . Their assumptions were based on political decisions. Now when they need to counter technological enemies they start and get there very soon in terms or geopolitical eras.
L wrote:I am a bit weary of your numbers, do you mind providing the calculation?Russian whole fighter AF part is trying to reach 700 fighters. USN aviation alone is close to 1000. .
To provide you with scale -> In naval case there will be something like 20:1 ratio
Perhaps this would explain your uberoptimism wrt US countering.
23 MiG29k in service + 19 Su-33 = 42
USMC = 330
USN = 800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft
Ratio 1030/42 = 24,5 :1
Sorry I was wrong. It's more then 20:1
L wrote:If Russia has Su-57K for ten years before US comes up with something really capable then it would have been worth itany date in between me thinks . Does it really matter who will be first by year or two? Russia can be first but US can produce couple of times faster and more fighters.
you can be sure they will, in numbers. It is good Russia is first then there is hope Russians can counter US aggression.
Sponsored content