With current Russian spending for it's military it's suffice to build what they are building;
Russias current position is that they are building Ladas as fast as they reasonably can but they can still pump out a few improved kilos to fill gaps in fleet.
The Improved Kilos are still effective subs... who gives a shit what a type 212 sub can or cannot do... Russia has plenty of subs that have unlimited submerged range. The subs they are making are good enough.
Should they stop making all aircraft and just make An-124s, Su-57s, and nothing else till Checkmate is ready?
That would be stupid.
Russia needs more new motorways and trans Siberian rail, forget about those carriers - Borei is cheaper and more effective.
Boreis have zero capacity to provide air defence for Russian surface ships operating outside the range of Russian ground based air defence.
Sorry but 10 more Bories would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do... the new start treaty limits the number of SSBN subs they can have and the number of warheads they can have... having 10 more SSBNs means you can't have any more Bulava missiles so each sub would only be able to carry 8 Bulavas instead of 12... or 16... what a stupid idea.
I've always liked that forward island aesthetic like WWII Escort carriers.
Moved back on most designs and not for aesthetic reasons for practical reasons.
Obviously compared to a big proper Carrier its no good but I think you need to look at it from this view point: What do you do with an LHD when you're not doing naval invasions or using them as very expensive cargo ships?
A helicopter carrier is useful for a variety of purposes, but apart from refits and upgrades and of course training... how much free time do you expect it to have?
I've long been very perplexed by the massive emphasis on amphibious ships by pretty much all navies regardless of how tiny & minimal likelihood of doing a naval invasion, from this viewpoint, rather than building a couple of bigger carriers & a couple of LHDs you could build say 6 Varans & have either 6 LHDs, 6 light carriers, 6 ASW carriers or any combo between depending on the current situation.
Having 50 Iglas does not equal having 5 BUKs...
Plus logistically 6 ships = 2 available at any time, with 4 intermittently.
With 4 ships of 2 types you'd average only 1 available most of the time with a 50:50 chance of it being the type you need.
As has been previously discussed the fact of being fairly small means its easier to find a shipyard to build it or dock for maintenance, also individually much cheaper to build.
Russia has no plans to fight two different wars on two different fronts at once... bigger more useful ships are better than smaller less useful ships in larger numbers.
On the downside & again as mostly previously stated: the big cost as depicted is developing & fielding EMALS cats and a bunch of CATOBAR aircraft, if you're going to spend the $$$ for that, the cost of building a bigger hull is proportionally small.
With the angled flightdeck coming so far forward it makes a ski-jump hard to fit but if it could be done then you can build these without that large development cost, using existing STOBAR aircraft.
I don't like it having no notable armament as depicted.
Yes it allows to maximise the displacement fraction used for airwing/fuel/munitions but you have a big expensive ship crammed with a bunch of expensive aircraft/pilots or vehicles/troops so leaving all that $$$ entirely dependent on escorts is a bad idea IMO, it'd definitely need at least a couple of Pantsir-M.
And yes, much more important is having a lot more 22350, 20380 & Yasens in service before considering building something like this.
Its lack of weapons makes me think this is for export.
That is actually one of the aspects I do like about the Hind. As an example - its troop capacity made it perfectly suited to cover the flanks with an anti-tank team/s or whatever and using its own weapons in support. A fantastic helicopter!
The problem they found was that its fire power was negated by having to land. One soldier said you knew how dangerous the landing zone was by how many men were in each Hind... which indicated how long the pilot was prepared to stay on the ground while they got out. One mission he said there were two of them...
I don't think they would use ship borne fighters like that. A simple helicopter (Ka-31 - like) or a dedicated AEW aircraft/UAV would be a much more viable option.
To operate from a helicopter carrier then it would have to be either a Ka-31 or a Ka-52K... the latter has a modern capable AESA radar and can be used to support other operations and could carry bundles of MANPADS like Igla-S missiles under its weapon pylons... the four pylons could carry four Iglas each for a total of 16 AAMs that would be fine against incoming subsonic Harpoon or Tomahawk missiles.
The sole requirement for any interceptor is high dash speed - that automatically disqualifies the Ka-52.
They wont operate their helicopter carriers without a fixed wing carrier like Kuznetsov.
The requirement for air power is being able to see out to a much greater radar horizon... a Ka-52K getting airborne and immediately climbing to 4km altitude can use its nose mounted AESA radar to spot targets out to 200-300km at sea level... which could be used by nearby corvettes to launch 9M96 ARH SAMs of the 60km range or 150km range variety... they fly at about mach 5... how is that for dash speed?
Second point is the Iglas would serve no purpose as the Russians ships and fighter aircraft would have vastly more capable missiles and other means at hand to fend off any attack.
The American Searam is a mishmash of a range of weapons but ultimately its performance isn't much different from the Igla-S...
As I said - justice prevailed.
The American way... the 1% super rich got slightly richer... everyone else got screwed.
The name "Mig-33" was first used for a single-engine, lightweight strike fighter similar in capabilities to the F-16 Fighting Falcon known as "Izd.33".
Lucky they went with the MiG-29 with better capabilities than the f-16 fighting falcon.
The aircraft you are talking about is the Mig-29M/M2
No I am not... I am talking about the single seat MiG-29K that was developed from the MiG-29M in competition for the Su-27K for use on their new carrier... it was tested and the Flanker was chosen.
Any association with the fictional "Mig-33" here is incorrect as this Mig-29M/M2 was developed from the Mig-29K. This aircraft is a land based variant of MiG-29K with whom it shares avionic and other components and now belongs to the "new unified family" of Mig aircraft.
The old MiG-29M and MiG-29K... the latter of which would have become the MiG-33 if selected for service is not related to the MiG-29M2 and MiG-29M and MiG-29KR and MiG-35 which are three aircraft of unified design based on an upgraded MiG-29M original single seater.
The obvious change is that all the three new aircraft are two seater designs whether they have one seat or two seats fitted.
The old MiG-29M and MiG-29K were single seat only aircraft.
You keep on comparing the Ka-52K to the Yak-38. Even though the Yak-38 would beat it in most aspects (like taking off much quicker and getting to the target much quicker) - you should rather compare it to a 4th gen aircraft like the Yak-41, Mig-29K or Su-33.
I am comparing it with the Ka-52K because it is being made and they are going to have them... ie no extra expensive of designing a new VSTOL fighter aircraft... the Kamov can take off vertically and while it might not have the speed or range of the Yak-41 or 38 it is already paid for... and its radar and missile capacity is actually the same... except it carries more 30mm cannon rounds than the Yak-141.
The Yak-38 doesnt have a radar and couldn't carry any decent air to air missiles except short range IR guided missiles and its ability to exploit them in combat would be poor with no radar or IRST or optics.
In comparison the Kamov has a modern AESA radar and the capacity to carry a range of weapons.
The Yak-41's supersonic speed was perfectly within the actual air-to-air combat "dogfight" zone and it's thrust vectoring engine would have made it a very dangerous opponent to even something as capable as the Mig-29 - which currently has no thrust vectoring engine fitted.
Achieving supersonic speed burns a lot of fuel and requires the aircraft to fly straight and level for quite a distance at altitude to achieve... which dramatically reduces the flight range of the aircraft... most planes wont do it.
There is no evidence the main engine of the Yak-141 could be used in flight to improve manouver performance while its IR signature would be enormous.
I do not believe that it is impossible to destroy a floating airport over 330 meters long in 2022. I really don't believe in those ships. Sorry guys, thats just my opinion - nothing else.
Russia is already spending money in infrastructure... but spending money on an aircraft carrier is an investment to ensure international trade access for Russia and Russians and is worth every penny.
Do you think Su-57s are bullshit.... how about Russias IADS network? Do you think their air defence forces which used to be a branch of the Air Force and is now called Aerospace forces would work without aircraft? Should it be only surface based missiles because airfields are so easy to target?
The point is that AWACS and fighter aircraft are a critical part of any air defence network and if you are going to deny them to the Russian Navy just because new missiles make big ships a little less safe than they used to be... well I suppose they should get rid of attack helicopters because MANPADS exist... and of course all the anti armour weapons there are... get rid of tanks and armoured vehicles too because there is no way they can guarantee they would be safe.
Stop using helmets and flak jackets because they are heavy and expensive and might not always work...
In any case, it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than 12 aircraft carriers.
And how are those 12 submarines going to protect Russian ships in far away places? I rather doubt a submarine could even effectively engage a patrol boat sized target... but then if you are giving up on air power then enemy MPAs will destroy your subs fairly quickly anyway.
Can you imagine a situation in which neither the United States nor Russia has nuclear weapons, but there is still a NATO pact and both countries have (US and RU) 10 aircraft carriers each ? I think this current situation is better after all because the NATO pact would attack Russia immediately if Russia is without nuclear weapons. One Borei and one Yasen or one aircraft carrier - one BOREI and one YASEN !
WTF would Russia want 10 carriers for? Are you insane?
1. Zumwalt class; the Americans wanted to build dozens of ships of this class , but the construction of Zumwalt's was completed after only three ships were built. And what they have done ?
The Zumwalt was F-35 part two... the solution is to save money... the F-35 was going to replace all existing fighters and be made in so many numbers and be cheap to buy and operate... Zumwalt was going to have a gun instead of missiles.... those terrible tomahawk missiles cost a million dollars each... you can't shell shore targets with Tomahawks... they are too expensive. The new gun teh Zumwalt was going to have would have made delivering a heavy payload 250km with great accuracy really really cheap so put two guns on each ship and make 100 ships and you can shower cheap artillery shells on the enemy positions with the precision and accuracy of air delivered bombs but without the risk of being shot down.
Except the stupid gun they made each shell that no other gun used cost $800K per shot... they screwed the taxpayer yet again... but the taxpayer didn't realise till three ships had been made and now they are useless.
But what does this shit have to do with Russia?
Russias Coalition 152mm gun is a joint venture between their Army and Navy... it fires 70kms with excellent accuracy and will be upgraded to fire 180km in the near future... the fuse mounted on the round contains control fins and a GLONASS guidance system that costs $1K dollars per shot and is a totally affordable and reliable way of supporting troops ashore... it is cheap and available 24/7 and in any weather... they just need to give you the coordinates of the target and boom.
Russian Aircraft carriers are AWACS and fighters to defend their ships... anything needing to be attacked on land they have cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles in an enormous range of types and sizes.
but in total US will not increase its total firepower in in the foreseeable future.
That doesn't matter.
Right now Russia cannot mount a naval force to operate away from Russian controlled airspace... they need to be able to show the flag around the world to say we are here... trade with us. They don't need to invade a single country or threaten anyone, but being able to go to Venezuela to support a pro Russian government there and to boost trade and relations has monetary value.
Having lots of high speed rail links and highways means nothing to a country in Africa... there is no point in highways across Russia... it is just too far... people would freeze to death all the time if their car breaks down... it is just too far between populated areas... take the train or a plane.
No, you didnt understand. I just wrote that it is better for Russia to have 12 strategic submarines than to have 12 aircraft carriers, but without ANY of those strategic submarines - world without nuclear weapons and with only conventional weapons.
Russia needs aircraft carriers to support surface operations around the world, but having 12 would be dumber than having none.
These surface operations are not invasions... I am not saying Russia needs to turn into the same sort of nazi bastards that the west is/are.
But to stand up for themselves they need ships to be present... destroyers and cruisers... not corvettes and frigates... and with destroyers and cruisers they need a carrier to stop them being vulnerable.
Learn from the British... they had a fixed wing carrier with Phantoms and Buccaneers and AWACS... and they got rid of it for a small little VSTOL carrier with Harriers on it to save a few billion dollars. The money they saved with the smaller carrier they lost in ships because the smaller carrier didn't have a proper AWACS platform so it had to sit further back from the island to give it more warning of attacks which meant the ships it was supposed to be protecting became targets.
With Buccaneers there would be no need for that stupid risky Vulcan mission... those Buccs could have made that runway look like swiss cheese with phantoms making sure no one stopped them.
The speed and range and BVR missile capacity of the Phantoms would mean the air combat would have been even more one sided and likely no anti ship missiles would have been launched at any British ship... the island radar shadow would have been removed and the buccs could have supported teh ground operations and made it much safer for the British soldiers too.
Even with the shit pocket carrier they won... but at the cost of quite a few ships... so they really didn't save much money in the end with the cheap little carrier.
Each carrier also requires escort ships. Ships are missing elsewhere. Such a fleet costs over the year 2 to 3 billion US dollars. There is no construction yet.
Key there is American... a Russian carrier is an ESCORT. It is providing AWACS and fighter protection for the cruisers and destroyers it will be operating with.
Cruisers and destroyers by definition don't hang around Russian ports... that sort of work is what corvettes and frigates are for.
Russia will be making destroyers and cruisers... and they will want aircraft carriers to make sure they are hard to kill... and don't get killed.
Not having aircraft carriers is saying your crusiers and destroyers are expendable... despite not being cheap either.
If Russia wants to build carrier, it should build three ships. Northern fleet, Pacific and Mediterranean (Crimea and Syrian base plus dry dock). The current carrier would be well suited as a training session.
I suspect they will build two CVNs with one in the Pacific fleet and one in the Northern fleet and probably the Kuznetsov in one or the other.
With all the icebreakers they will have not to mention the global warming sailing across the arctic will make it quick and easy to get two carriers into the Pacific or Atlantic oceans if they wanted.
I think along with the western swing to Asia that Russia is not going to be too fussed about the Med... an Ivan Rogov class helicopter carrier in the Black Sea and likely a second of the class loaded up with all sorts of drones and helicopters including a lot of suicide drones taking up the space of all those naval infantry and their armour, would be good enough for north africa... would be interesting to see them with Egypts Mistrals...
The Baltic Sea is not a carrier suitable water.
Totally agree and would say the same about the Black Sea and Caspian Seas as well.
An aircraft carrier is not going to intimidate anyone when it burns to the waterline and rolls onto its back with its screws high in the air... Laughing
If the US carriers get involved in a shooting match with a peer competitor (China or Russia) then these thing will get SUNK, and the murkans will not be starting WW3 (and getting their cities nuked in response) in a fit of pique. Claims from the Pentagram that attacks on a CVN will amount to a declaration of war won't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the other big boys...
Would agree but would also argue that a new Russian carrier with Su-57s and MiG-35s embarked would likely give quite a bit of punishment too... and the sort of cruisers it could have with it with literally thousands of SAMs of all types from MANPADS to missiles that will be bringing down satellites from orbit... would be very hard work for any enemy force...
Subs would be an issue but then anti sub helicopters on a carrier are a the best solution too.
I didn't even write that those 636.6 submarines were not quiet, but the underwater radius of navigation is not sufficient. weapons and sonar are certainly good. why else would they develop a new class of submarines.
They are short range subs because that is what they want... German subs might have longer range because their longer ranged SSNs don't exist.
It is like complaining that the pistol bullets in your pistol are not effective to 300m range... well it is a pistol... it is designed for short range use... if you want to kill at 300m then an AK-12 or SVD would be fine.
The Ladas were originally going to be AIP powered, but as most countries have found out AIPs are generally weak and not as effective as just carrying more Lithium Ion batteries.
Other technologies on the sub also needed work, but its performance is supposed to be rather astounding... but they can only make so many of them right now... the design is new and lots of changes have been made so getting them up to Kilo productions speeds will take a while so in the mean time any incomplete Kilos can fill gaps.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
Big_Gazza
