Yes, yes, amateur
So your expert credentials are....
Meanwhile we have a guy here claiming that by 2025 they will have Su-57 stationed on Kuznetzov
It is slightly smaller than the Su-33 and has more installed thrust and much less drag... but it was more a response to a member who described it as a useless hulk.
They have tested Su-33KUB from the carrier... there is no reason why they couldn't also test current Su-57s from the carrier too to see how it performs and what effect such takeoffs have on range and payload capacity.
That's 4 years from now and at that point Kuznetzov will be in precisely the same location as it is now (providing it doesn't sink again but that would also qualify as the same location only longer term than now so it's all good thumbsup)
LMFS wrote:
@PD: Keep barking, writing drivel in provocative ways does not turn you in the expert and the VMF in the amateurs.
Wait who said they will station a navalized SU-57 on the Kuz by 2025?
The problem with discussing serious issues with fucking retards, is that when they say something stupid it is tempting to say something stupid in reply.
The fact that that is what you picked up from the conversation suggests you are not worth discussing this with either.
They were probably hoping for it to sink when that dock disaster occured.....its the typical Russian indifference when it comes to somethings..
So they are following the best naval traditions after the US ship caught fire and burned out in three days because they couldn't put the fire out... typical American incompetence and lack of knowledge about fire.
Obviously they need to commission and test the Golovko with the first domestic engine and then they can go for the 22350M, in parallel they need to finish development of the new GTs for them, which will take some years too. They need to follow the sequence step by step, cutting corners is not going to work.
Yes, the American way of experiment and fail is just not going to cut it here.
I can imagine that after the M version of Su-57 being deployed predictably in 2024, they should start working seriously in the possible naval version. A world beating aircraft which is already STOL is a no-brainer starting point for a naval plane, specially for Russia that needs to compensate for a severe numerical inferiority vs. USN.
Transferring the Su-35 technology and equipment to the Su-33s would make the most sense in terms of commonality across the board of Flankers in Russian service, but the MiG-29KR/35 is a much better fit for the Kuznetsov and therefore I would expect the LMFS will be its replacement... but longer term a CVN replacement for the Kuznetsov will be in development and would likely use a mix of Su-57K and LMFS to give depth and numbers of aircraft on board.
They don't need a huge number of CVNs to compensate for anything... they will have radars and optical sensors and sonars on ships and subs and helicopters and fixed wing planes and drones of all types and the best damn SAMs and guns on the planet... How many MiG-35s and Su-35s would Russia need right now to protect its national borders... when operating with MiG-31s and of course a nation wide IADS.
The US has an impressive fleet but how keen are they to lose some of those ships?
But being realistic, it will take maybe more than ten years to get the PAK-KA deployed and in the numbers needed, and the Su-33 would need to be upgraded to cover the gap until then, together with the MiG-29K.
I don't think Su-33s are a good idea on Kuznetsov... Su-57s make more sense... and if LMFS was entering operations today I would say it should be on the carrier instead of the MiG-29KR for obvious reasons too.
Nah, naval professionals are all ego maniacs and they just want to have the biggest ship beyond any technical reason
They have an obvious history of overspending and stealing from taxpayers with products they know could never work even with the trillions thrown at it that they do.
For sure, small vessels cannot sustain operations far from their shores and are limited in so many ways. This is not even up for discussion in any serious venue.
They can operate with support ships that could act as local tenders to keep them operating longer but that just defeats the purpose.
I posted a video of Combat Approved in the Karakurt thread that has english subtitles and they clearly state that the Karakurt is specifically designed as a patrol and humanitarian focused ship that is more comfortable and has more room on board at the cost of a reduced armament for missions like anti piracy jobs where endurance is more important than being able to single handedly sink HATO.
Having different types of Corvettes is useful for different purposes, but such small ships makes it harder to make them super all purpose vessels.
The upgrades of the Udaloy class ships is interesting because they are called frigates... the Soviet Navy didn't use many frigates at all, that was MVD and KGB and other interior ministry forces that used the Krivak class frigates... they were essentially long endurance corvettes with about half the fire power of a Destroyer of the time, but for purposes where that didn't really matter... they were always much better armed than pirates and smugglers.
These days Corvettes are short range Frigates... except the Karakurt which is a frigate endurance corvette hopefully, but they need ships bigger than their frigates that can carry a useful number of SAMs to defend themselves in more than one engagement before it can be rearmed, and big enough to operate away from base for much longer periods.
VMF has the Tsirkon to allow for a surface fleet without air power to have a decent deterring power even vs. USN.,
Anti ship missiles are not the best way of keeping enemy ships back... most of the time western ships can hide behind tankers and container ships to sneak up... plus a corvette has 8 launch tubes... does it carry 8 Zircon and be vulnerable to the first HATO sub that comes past? Or 4 Otvet and 4 Zircon... but what if the targets it launches at are not real?
A corvette by itself with a 150km range SAM could be attacked by a flight of Hornets armed with Harpoons from a carrier 1,500km away... the carrier is outside of the range of the Zircon and the Harpoons will be launched from outside the range of the Corvettes SAMs, so it just becomes a situation where who runs out of missiles first... the Corvette in SAMs or the Carrier in Harpoons...
Equally once the carrier has found the corvette it can pass its location to nearby SSNs who can launch Harpoons at the target... as long as they launch from outside the 50km range of Ovtet then they will be safe.
If it is a cruiser then the cruiser has more SAMs and probably 3 or more helicopters and a much bigger sonar and could probably go on the offensive and start hunting those subs and that carrier.
because their fighters are challenged operating at big distances from their carriers, their AD is not up to the task of stopping hypersonic missiles and their AShM suck.
Their anti ship missiles are ordinary, but they are not awful, and they always relied on numbers and they still have that advantage.
Eventually they are going to have hypersonic missiles too and the best defence is having air power support to start engaging incoming targets as soon as possible to whittle down threats as soon as you can as far away from the targets as you can.
Hypersonic missiles don't make carriers obsolete... groups of ships with no aircraft and no AWACS support are the things that are obsolete... a missile that flys at mach 9 or 10 at high altitude should be able to fly at sea level at mach 3-4, which does not sound like much but nothing else moves at that speed at that altitude.... its shockwave wake would probably kill unprotected people on the surface....
But if pushed to try, they will find the way or simply deploy enough forces to overwhelm Russian naval assets.
That is true, but the act of concentrating such forces to have a chance of victory will be plainly obvious and lead to real opportunities of pre-emptive self defence... perhaps including nuclear weapons.
The point is that most of the time they will actually do nothing and just let Russia continue doing what it was doing... which is what Russia wants.
That is where you need extremely deep magazines and extended radar horizon like you have with the Orlans. A Gorshkov is nice when part of a detachment, alone is just asking USN to sink it.
It is where cruisers shine... imagine the Peresvet (spelling) system they could carry... imagine a ship with an extra mini nuke power plant specifically designed to power the onboard laser system.
I remember in the late 1980s it was believed (in the west) the Frunze would have the worlds first operational laser defence system... obviously didn't pan out though.
Good posts in many other threads, but these VMF related meltdowns are simply irrational. Russia would surely wish to have their fleet composed just with brand new ships of the latest technology instead of the current salad of models and versions, and not need to deal with the consequences of the fall of the USSR, but it does not mean Slvas, Orlans or Kuznetsov have no military value, that is certified BS.
A few stupid posts and all the good posts become hard to remember sadly... the Russian Navy can't turn a tap and have mature modern new ship designs it can hand to shipyards and have done by next year... they need to manage what they have to get what they need for now and work to get new replacements developed and produced and into service... but they can't afford to build shit and only after the 3rd one enters service realise there is something fundamentally wrong with it. They don't have dozens of sycophant bitch allies they can sell failed crap to and pretend they are doing them a favour.
They also don't have bottomless pockets to waste money on shit that might actually work but they have no use for.
Their new cruisers wont be the size of Kirovs... more likely in the 17-18K ton weight range, but the design of the new missile launchers means they will have enormous fire power capacity... honestly I think half the time they will sail around with half their tubes empty.
Even tho they don't live there....or ever went there but you know they read stuff on the internet, never served in a military, never worked in any capacity in military R&D, production, or anything else...so that makes them a highly qualified expert.
Don't think of me as an expert on how perfect Russia is.... think more of me as an expert of how fundamentally evil the west is, and based on the anti Russian propaganda in the west for a leader Putin who is a corrupt moron, and Russia is a backwards third world gas station that does not produce anything... their navy is collapsing... perhaps the US could send a few extra rubber inflatable boats like they sent Ukraine they would be right for ships for the next decade or too... so they don't interfere in what the west wants to do... but how could such a broken backward country warrant such attention from the west.... maybe the west is lying again... still.... as usual.
Sarcasm aside, not saying that to be mean or rude just that they have no experience.
Considering your experience is murdering people in Syria defending their country from terrorists and foreign invaders I am touched you don't want to be mean or rude.
Aircraft carriers may be obsolete but submarines still have huge potential – what the Russian fleet will look like in the future, by Mikhail Khodarenok, military commentator for RT.com. He is a retired colonel. He served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces.
Article by a hard core submarine fan.
Problem is that the future purpose of the Russian Navy is to support the expansion of Russian commerce to the rest of the world... how are submarines going to have any effect or make any difference at all in that regard?
Surely if Subs are so amazing why do western countries send other ships?
So far, one thing is clear: the state needs a robust merchant fleet as much as it needs a strong navy.
There is no point having one without the other... the compliment each other.
To start with, every system and component of a ship has a life cycle, just like the ship itself. Once the vessel nears the end of its cycle, it would seem a sound solution to just send it in for an upgrade.
Very true, but as ships get bigger they get more costlier, so it is always going to be true that you will have more Corvettes than Carriers, and a Corvette in many ways is going to be a case of shoe horning lots of weapons and sensors and equipment into a relatively small space.
Learning to do that well is important because when you scale ships up you get more space but also a lot more stuff that has to fit in that space.
Not all designs scale up well so you might find a Frigate can be a scaled up Corvette, but a scaled up frigate might need modifications to increase weapon numbers to satisfactory levels while leaving space to get better endurance and performance, while the next step above destroyer is cruiser which has a different focus again... so is it just scaled up or a redesign?
Present-day analysts agree that aircraft carriers are useful only if you don’t plan on invading a nation any stronger than a banana republic. In a naval standoff between equal powers, they’d be taken out first because they’re easy targets for guided missiles.
A surface group of ships is much easier to take out if it does NOT have an aircraft carrier. Even Banana republics can have fighter aircraft that could rip to pieces a group of ships without airborne early warning and a combat air patrol of fighters operating with it. Conversely a group of ships with an aircraft carrier has a high speed long range air protection screen and airborne radar coverage from sea level up to space for hundreds of kms around the group of ships that can coordinate defence and attack to massively improve performance in both.
The command and control of an AWACS aircraft is all about maximising your reach and vision and coordinating your defence so everyone contributes effectively so your group of ships is much stronger and better organised and able to defend itself and also inflict effective attacks on targets too.
The Soviet Navy spent most of its budget on weapons to defeat US carrier groups and that was the focus of the force for most of the Cold War.
They achieved some impressive results but it was not until they were able to scale these big fast impressive missiles to a useful size as shown by Onyx and now Zircon that they achieved real progress.
Their new missiles are very impressive... but the only thing more impressive than their capacity to sink ships is their air defence capacity on land.
New ships and upgraded ships will transfer that expertise from land to sea... but an aircraft carrier makes that transfer complete because it properly fills gaps in low altitude radar coverage and also adds fighter interceptor capability too.
But more importantly during peace time or near war type situations if you see a blip on the radar 400km away you can't really launch a SAM at it, but sending a pair of fighter aircraft out to investigate and perhaps another pair to hold back and be available if there is a problem.... without launching a missile you can investigate and perhaps foil the start of an attack, or perhaps identify a potential mistake in the making... a civilian aircraft or balloon for instance or civilian ship or whatever... without the carrier you might wait a couple of hours for the ships helicopter to get there...
Nowadays land based systems that can attack carriers like missiles or aircraft have much more range so even in the middle of the oceans carriers are not safe and will be destroy pretty fast.
Destroy pretty fast... it will be sitting amongst the equivalent of Moscows air defence batteries of SAMs... how vulnerable would they actually be?
As vulnerable as a Russian military base in Syria, or a Saudi Oil refinery?
Subs have proven multiple times to be able to sneak in the carrier formation and sink it. Even during USSR when subs were 60-70s tech and much louder than a modern Yasen.
And if the threat of SSKs is real then they can launch helicopters and their own submarines and hunt for them.
The only subs that have proven a problem for US carriers is SSKs which when running on electric motors are rather quiet...
Any country wanting to sink Russian carriers had better understand that nuclear retaliation will damage their economic growth for the next quarter at least.
When was the last time an aircraft carrier was sunk?
SSKs are not brand new.
Their only safe place is to be used around your shores far away from the enemy.
That is the only place they are not needed.
I don't think carriers will become obsolete. They might change, but the fact that you can use air power to project further away from the ship itself won't change.
Exactly... just like the MANPAD has not made helicopters and CAS aircraft obsolete and ATGMs have not made armoured vehicles obsolete... having an airborne radar system monitoring the airspace around your forces provides critical situational awareness and having supersonic fighters able to respond to changing situations in attack and defence just makes a group of ships with carriers vastly more difficult to deal with than one without a carrier.
A carrier means that force that could have sunk those ships is now inadequate... you need a bigger force... which reduces the number of potential enemies that could successfully defeat you, and also increases the damage they will take in any attempt.
The presence of an active aircraft carrier might be the deterrent that stops the attack from happening in the first place.
Also, the idea that you can just build submarines is kind of pointless. You can't use submarines to patrol the oceans or protect the merchant fleet. Attack submarines are a weapon for sea denial basically.
Like most solutions they are part of a good and useful force but should not be the only solution.
Future boats shouldn't have nearly this problem because the ships will be digitized and the supplies won't come from all over a nation which no longer exists. The know-how was scattered to the seven winds basically.
They can take the opportunity to test new radar and sonar systems and indeed the new 152mm gun could be installed in place of the 130mm guns also used on new Frigates... They can test new systems and equipment for use on new build ships with some of the bugs sorted...
Which new gas turbines? The Admiral Gorshkov uses two diesel engines and two gas turbines in a CODAG configuration. A destroyer could use four gas turbines in two pairs in a CODAG configuration. You don't need to develop new engines. They can use the same gas turbines in the Golovko. What you would need would be to develop the rest of the propulsion system around them.
Not certain, but their destroyers might be nuke powered...
If you look at Russian aircraft engines even the future PD-35 is like 787 class not 777.
The PD-35 will be from 35 tons up to 50 tons thrust...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lancelot
like Bill Browder out of the country and have spent the best part of the last 20 years rebuilding what they lost and also steaming ahead with new things they never had before like 5th gen stealth fighters and hypersonic scramjet powered missiles... of course it will spend most of its time at anchor... it was the west invading countries and murdering people around the globe...