Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

you are a retard.

More than half of Russia's military is contract.  Their wages are also one of the highest in the country.

Russia has been building military hospitals in the last 10 years in drastic numbers. To the point that it was military hospitals that has been helping in this COVID issue for the last year.

Also, Russian military education is considered some of the best in the country and from birdies in Russia itself, there is a high demand to join the military for its education and financial reasoning.

Having a couple of full sized carriers would be nice. But Russia needs to focus on deploying both missile and attack submarines.
Being able to hit key targets on US soil is by far the most important defense asset for Russia. A carrier is a 3rd world policing
tool. In that function, Russia needs to be able to counteract yanqui aggression against 3rd countries.

miketheterrible wrote:you are a retard.

More than half of Russia's military is contract.  Their wages are also one of the highest in the country.

Russia has been building military hospitals in the last 10 years in drastic numbers.  To the point that it was military hospitals that has been helping in this COVID issue for the last year.

Also, Russian military education is considered some of the best in the country and from birdies in Russia itself, there is a high demand to join the military for its education and financial reasoning.

What they pay is a joke compared to what the US pays, Russian healthcare is very low cost. My opinion on Russian healthcare came from my ex-GF when we went to visit my dad in Hospital. Shes from Moscow and her dad is a Col. so she has seen the best Moscow has. Russia has great pharma and vaccine medica tech for sure. Also many brilliant peopel. But the end result is mediocre. Yes I know Russian education is  top notch, that does not mean its expensive. What do Russian docs make? So if half is "volunteer" the USA is 100%  volunteer, they do not get 50% conscript slave labour. Lowest grade Russian soldier is paid $360 a MONTH lol!! you can make FAAAR more working part time at Starbucks. Also I would bet that death and disability benefits are a joke, while in the USA they are a scam.

Yeah, there is a thing called purchasing power parity

US soldiers are paid like shit compared to living standards.

miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, there is a thing called purchasing power parity

US soldiers are paid like shit compared to living standards.

US PPP GDP per capita is 65K, Russia 29K So whatever. 1514/month vs 360? No PPP is gonna bridge that gulf. Yes 1500 sucks, but they get board and lodging as well so its just spending money.

mnztr wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Yeah, there is a thing called purchasing power parity

US soldiers are paid like shit compared to living standards.

US PPP GDP per capita is 65K, Russia 29K So whatever. 1514/month vs 360? No PPP is gonna bridge that gulf. Yes 1500 sucks, but they get board and lodging as well so its just spending money.

Actually, yes it does bridge the gap. I think KVS figured out by a measure of 6.

You are too stupid to even know the difference between PPP and Nominal.  I'll give you a hint - valuation based upon costs within the nation and how far it's currency takes you.  Big Mac index is a good indicator.

And they also get a lot more than you claim.

I think it's time you sit down child. You know not what you talk about

It was Awara group that figured out that what one makes in Moscow let's say is equivalent to one who makes in Chicago.

https://www.awaragroup.com/blog/russia-vs-america-real-income-comparison/

1500 is not bad wheb they get food and sleeping for free. They don't spend everyday as much as a normal guy. That's all kept in bank. And most are young and still don't have family to spend money on.

Isos wrote:1500 is not bad wheb they get food and sleeping for free. They don't spend everyday as much as a normal guy. That's all kept in bank. And most are young and still don't have family to spend money on.

Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.

I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills.  So there is that.

If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.

Some have, walked out rather wealthy. But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.

The claims of wealthy Americans is hilarious.    If every American actually made $50,000 per year that would mean that every
family with a child would be making $150,000 per year.    GDP per capita =/= income per worker.  

Then we have the total discounting by assorted know-it-alls of monthly living costs in the USA compared to Russia.
In spite of accounting dirty tricks that utterly ignore house prices and their rise and the resulting impact on US
standards of living, in the real world we have many Americans walking away from mortages and the houses the "own".
The median US mortgage payment is $1,500 and that does not include the property tax.   The median US rent is
for a single bedroom apartment is about $1,100 and for a two bedroom unit it is $1,400.    The median US family
income is $64,000 (not $150,000).   The median yearly US food cost is about $5,000 (the average is around $9,000
due to skew from spending by the rich).  

So we have 64,000 - 12 * (1,400) = 47,200 family median income which can be used to compare to Russia.   In
Russia, people spend about three times less on food in dollar terms.    They also do not have to spend over $10,000
per year on health care, pension investments and insurance.    So we have a more apples to apples comparison
reference point of $37,200.   Then we consider the costs for food and consumer goods.   Note that I am not
accounting for property tax and utilities in the above discount.   Russians pay much less for those too.   But
I removed all the money that US families never really see as disposable income unless they want to move to a tent
under some bridge.

The average US household is two parents and a child (three people).   So we have a $1,033 per month income per
member or $1,550 per the two workers averaged.   Hardly the usual BS of $4,200 per month.

Those carriers are only designs made quickly by some engineers to sell the idea of a carrier.

If they go for a carrier they will first tell them what they want about its specs and then the design bureau will make few designs to show them what they can create.

As of now those designs are only fiction.

Most are talking here about a 70kt carrier but you must be aware that it would need 70 su-57K and that can't happen just like that. The air force will get its 76 su-57 in about 10 years. So the carrier will cost 5 billion but the sukhois on it will add another couple of billion. Then the developement of an AWACS will also add another few billions and buy 4 of them will easily cost 400 millions more. Electromagnetic catapults decelopement will also cost some millions too.

That's a challenging project for which IMO they are not ready at all. They need to see first how their shipyards handle a 40kt helicopter carrier first. They won't sign any contract for a carrier before they finish the heli carrier for sure which could take 12 years max.

Backman wrote:Russia has a bigger sub fleet than China still I think. Russia has tons of subs and always has. Its overkill.

Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.

They say that the cost of the Project 23000E or Shtorm super carrier would be 5.5 billion which is a bit much. But the Lamantin (project 11430E) is smaller and should be cheaper.

Lamatin pictured here

Russia and China has about the same number of subs today, ~60.  

And Russia needs all new subs it can build, not less. Alot of older Sovet era types need to be replaced.

Chinese nuclear subs are obsolate. Russian soviet-era subs got modernizations and are better than any chinese sub.

A single Yasen can wipe out a big part of chinese fleet, subs and ships. They are getting ten of them. Oscar and Akulas are also modernized and they are getting improved kilos in big numbers.

China can't compete.

miketheterrible wrote:

Yes, it's definately not bad. But having family in military in Canada, where they are paid more and have better benefits, in the end, majority barely has a dollar to spend on at the end.

I know a few who used the years they were in the army to buy a house. Which to that I salute them for their money management skills.  So there is that.

If they were smart, most would invest that money in the stock market, like in dividends in national banks that never fail.

Some have, walked out rather wealthy.  But anyone can do that with even small amount of money.

Canada promotes very quickly and has the highest percentage of officers in any military. I once inquired about joning the pilot program and you start at around 60K a year and are making 90 within a year if you have a university education. Problem with being a pilot in Canada is all bases are in places you would not want to live...except maybe Comox BC.

kvs wrote:
The average US household is two parents and a child (three people).   So we have a $1,033 per month income per
member or $1,550 per the two workers averaged.   Hardly the usual BS of $4,200 per month.

I get that the average may be skewed by very high income earners, so if you look at the mean, that is 68K. Yes there are poor areas in the USA and poor people, lots of them. There are poor people everywhere, even in Norway.

If you look at the PPP median income (2010 PPP dollars) for individuals, in the USA its 35600 and in Russia its 16800. Yes things are more costly but PPP takes that into account. I know enough Russians to know how things are there from people in the Russian upper classes to know people in the West are better of in terms of material wealth. Including people that send money to their loved ones. Also loans in Russia are EXCRUCIATINGLY expensive. Auto loans over 10%!!! OMG.

A carrier is a 3rd world policing
tool.

The west have used carriers to impliment imperial ambitions... but also to secure their own sea lines of communication and commerce.... otherwise why would UK and France need their own carriers? They have them for situations where they can't get the US to join in... in other words when their interests require action but their other allies are not interested.

Russia has no real allies with aircraft carriers that they can rely on, so they need their own carriers.

The alternative is for Russia to rely on others to protect Russian interests around the world and you and I know that isn't going to happen... in fact the US Navy will actively work against Russian interests just to be bastards... the US is in Syria just to be assholes to Russia... they could care less about the Syrian people and what they want or need.... they are supporting terrorists and murderers and criminals in Syria...

In that function, Russia needs to be able to counteract yanqui aggression against 3rd countries.

Russia does not need carriers to become the new world policeman to save the day and foil the evil plans of the US. Russia needs to be able to help allies and maintain contacts with countries otherwise out of reach from other Russian assets and forces.

Why would Venezuela maintain good relations with Russia if the result is going to be crushing pressure inflicted by the US... Russia does not need to be able to defeat the US Navy, but it needs to be able to send ships to support Venezuela and other countries around the planet to relieve any pressure the US puts on them.

Sending them food or medicine or equipment to process their own oil into fuel they can sell on the market... sending them farm equipment so they can develop their own food production capacity... their climate is different enough from Russia that Russia could sell certain types of food that don't grow well there and buy foods from Venezuela that don't grow well or are expensive to grow in Russia...ie mutually beneficial trade and cooperation.

Russia has a bigger sub fleet than China still I think. Russia has tons of subs and always has. Its overkill.

Russia is making excellent progress and is making new subs that are second to none... they seem to have the corvette and frigate designs that they want so now they need to start producing them in significant numbers and to start looking at destroyers and some cruisers.

The upgrades of the old ships... old destroyers and old cruisers should be an opportunity to test new large radar arrays and new large sonar arrays that simply wont fit on smaller ships... on the upgraded ships they can bug test and refine the designs so that when they are ready to lay down new destroyers and new cruisers the sensors and some subsystems will be mature which will reduce risk and make designs easier and less likely to have serious problems.

They need to have destroyers in production and be laying down a cruiser before they consider laying down a new CVN in my opinion.

New equipment tested in the CV Kuznetsov will be interesting and will help in finalising the new design but they need to get the K back in the water and operating for those tests to be done... a couple of years to test in different ports and different climates/seasons and then they can apply what they have learned to perhaps a redesign/upgrade, or prototypes for production which can be integrated into the new designs.

Take some of that sub money and build a brand spanking new carrier decked out with su 57's FFS. It would be a display of Russia's naval and aviation capabilities.

Would look better with the escort of some brand new destroyers and brand new cruisers. The Kuznetsov will look good with two Kirovs and some upgraded Slavas and Udaloys in escort too.

They won't sign any contract for a carrier before they finish the heli carrier for sure which could take 12 years max.

Assuming no cockups the 2 helicopter carriers currently in production will likely be followed by two more the same, so your 12 year estimate is probably rather accurate.... but the fact is that in 12 years time they will have completed production and have about 40-50 Corvettes spread across 5 fleets, and probably about 36 Frigates spread across five fleets and will be in the middle of producing 24-26 destroyers for spreading across four fleets and likely laid down at least one new cruiser of which they will probably produce 8-12 with 2 or three in each of the four fleets and a lot of the cold war boats will be entering the reserve or scrapyard... so by then a new CVN would be a good idea to lay down... but that will take at the very least 6 years... they should be good at the modular production of big ships by then and by the time it is finished there should be a variety of manned and unmanned aircraft to operate from them.

And Russia needs all new subs it can build, not less. Alot of older Sovet era types need to be replaced.

Production is increasing and the new types are very capable. Most subs however have a very specific role and many are only of actual use during WWIII, whereas aircraft carriers will be more useful in both peace time as well as during limited conflicts.

China can't compete.

Fortunately China does not have to compete. Russia is not their enemy and China is not an enemy of Russia... it is the US that is adopting that role, which will be a real challenge for China... though made simpler because for now China is only interested in a fairly limited region but later will expand, while the US has to cover all the worlds oceans... much harder and very distracting.

Even an USN supercarrier has just 48 fighters max,

That is because they also carry strike aircraft... which also require fighters to support which further reduces the number of fighters available to support operations defending the ships.

A good rule of thumb is that for every 1,000 tons of ship weight should equal one fighter aircraft... so for instance the CharlesDG it carries about 30 Rafales and is 40K ton... a 100K ton carrier should be able to operate about 90 fighters...

Obviously most of the time they wont operate with that many fighters on board, but with stores and accommodation for 90 fighters it means 50 fighters can operate for much longer and have more weapons at their disposal and you can always fly extra fighters to an area and out to the carrier to boost numbers.

When the full compliment is on board the deck is usually full so to take planes down into the hangar deck for maintenance or inspection you often have to shift around the other planes to make space... a massive game of 3D tetris... and pain in the ass...