I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly.
The Russian Navy has not been a priority... the Army and Air Force were ahead in priority and of course the strategic nuclear forces were top priority.
The Russian Navy was lucky last.
Russian military shipbuilding is taking place at the same time modernisation and upgrades for the shipyards is taking place so of course it is slow.
It is also transitioning from the old cheap basic single use single design ships, to no work at all for 20 odd years and now they are expected to make state of the art brand new corvette sized ships that are more multirole that Cruisers were in the 1980s.
They have worked out some new corvette designs and they built some frigates but made some changes to that design to increase missile capacity... they need to get that new design into the water and tested before they can decide if they want the original frigate design or the new upgraded frigate design.
They might find the new ships are more expensive and the older smaller ships are fine for the Baltic and Black Sea/Med operations, while the bigger ships are better for the Arctic and Pacific Oceans... or they might decide the bigger ships are just better all round and only make the bigger ships.
They are not going to know until they test them, which means this takes time.
No ships and no submarines were delivered on time, with the exception of project 636.3 submarines.
They are under sanctions and their main engine supplier just screwed them over and wont supply anything... even engines they paid for.
If you think they are doing bad look at the UK military and compare them ruble to ruble and you will see they are getting amazing value for money... the UK might have two carriers, but compare submarine fleets.
* ZVEZDA; If we already see that Zvezda is working on the modernization of the Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk submarines, as well as the Nerpa submarine, then it is clear that nuclear-powered ships and submarines could also be built here. The catastrophic mistake is that many years ago the construction of nuclear submarines was entrusted only to Sevmash, because that way the shipyard was overloaded, and the Amur Shipyard and Krasnoye Sormovo were excluded.
Well that is probably going to have to change in the future if carriers and cruisers and destroyers are all likely to be nuclear powered.
The economic and political shift away from the west will force Russia to look to the rest of the world for trade which is going to require a shift in priority regarding their navy.
They wont need dozens of carriers, and they wont need anything like the Nimitz or Ford class ships, but a 70-90K ton ship or two would be valuable.
Their helicopter landing ships might also be interesting in the sense that the second one under construction appears to be drone focused which might be very interesting... depending on what sort of drones it could embark...
This thinking outside the box is good.
If the Chinese needed catapults, and Russia made them, I doubt they would not have been sold as well. China made their own EM catapults for Type 003. And who knows, they might be the first to perfect them, since even the US hasn't gotten the bugs out of EM cats yet as can be seen by the activity (or lack of) on the Ford carrier.
I would think it would make sense for China to try to buy any system Russia might have developed, but I don't think they would have wanted to spend too much because they were already funding their own version... a purchase of a Russian system could have been a backup in case there were problems with the Chinese version, but I suspect the Russians said no because the Chinese probably didn't offer enough money... why spend a lot of money on Plan B when Plan A might be going OK.
You never know if a system works till it is properly tested in the real world. The Americans have shown you can spend all the money in the world and still get it wrong... but if anything they have also shown if you throw enough money almost anything can be fixed... and ironically it is when solutions start to be found that contracts are cancelled and everything gets tied up in secrecy agreements so the taxpayers never learn how much money is being wasted.
Especially that Su-75 was designed more less in the same time. Strikingly similar to Yak-201. What if can me modular a bit on F-35, yes without US ventilator but light small engines (on yak 14 their weight was 700kg) in the front it doesn't have to be bulky like a pregnant penguin. F-35.
Unless that nose mounted engine is electric then it burns fuel and has super hot exhaust with oxygen depleted hot gas... as the aircraft comes down closer to the deck or as it tries to take off... that hot oxy depleted air goes in the main engine intakes and the rear engine stalls and it drops like a rock and bursts into flames...
but here we do agree, that's why imho small number of smaller airraft carriers with Su-75 shall do the trick.
They already tried that with Kiev class mini carriers and VSTOL fighters which were awful.
Small carriers are expensive too and having to have more of them makes them more expensive than fewer bigger carriers... and the point is smaller carriers with shit VSTOL fighters are worse than nothing because nothing would be free.
sure they might want to have whatever they want but need to focus not to live beyond their means. That's why Sthorm was shelved.
Their means will increase dramatically if they have the navy to defend their rights globally.
If you want to keep corvettes and frigates then Russia will be contained and isolated just as the west wants... if Russia can't send ships to break the blockade of countries that are trading with them then they will eventually find no one will trade with them.
Britain might have saved a billion pounds or so going from a fixed wing carrier to the Hermes class dinky toys and the cost in ships was enormous and the Hermes class ships were not cheap and neither was developing the Harrier.
Damn I got to second that! Yet me thinks Russian aircraft carriers will be even smaller . Cost of smaller AC can be 1/3 to 1/4 costs of Gerald Ford CVN. One big is not better then 3 small. That's why smaller jet fighters will be welcome. And here it comes Su-75.
But again only speculation
Look at their experience... Kiev, Kuznetsov, Ulyanovsk... the Kiev was way too small and its VSTOL fighters were a joke, the Kuznetsov is still too small because it lacks decent AWACS, and Ulyanovsk is to be a nuclear powered 75K ton carrier with steam cats... which was state of the art at the time... 35 years later it is EM cats and probably more drones.
The point is that another Kuznetsov is not going to be that much cheaper to operate or buy and will actually be more expensive to operate and less capable.
Not really more expensive since this one demonstrator is to fly in 2023 ... it's called Su-75
More likely 2025, but the Su-75 is a single engined fighter and it is intended for export first and foremost... and it is not VSTOL either (which is a good thing in my opinion).
As for VSTOL - adding 2 engines of vertical thrust (in Yak-141 2x290 kg) and got VSTOL. I guess Su-75 was designed with assumptions to be modular and easy to be unmanned or VSTOL.
If it was just that simple the Yak-141 would be in service...
I actually like this airship AWACS idea. I would be great seeing Russians experiment with this.
It is very much a neglected technology... if you could make it out of ultra light strong materials you could potentially take advantage of the trade winds to move quite rapidly around the place too.
A very green way to travel with solar panels and electric motors and new battery technology.
China is no longer a third-rate country or military power. Even in the automotive industry, many brands are joining forces to reduce production costs.
In the car industry I think China has enormous potential and could replace Japan as the best car maker in my view... but with more affordable cars.
Any talk about aircraft carriers is redundant until the issue of the construction of enlarged project 22350M frigates is resolved and the construction of SSN submarines is increased.
That is where I think you are mistaken... talk of carriers is ongoing and all their experience should go towards their new carrier designs... construction of submarines and enlarged frigates should both be going on at the same time, but I don't see how the topic of enlarged frigates can be adequately addressed till they hit the water and can be properly tested... so increasing sub production... I think SSKs will be more useful than having a huge explosion of SSNs (so to speak)... the new Lada class looks very promising and they need to get more subs and ships into proper regular serial production like the improved kilo class SSKs currently are.
Yes, I agree that it is not all the fault of the shipyards that build the vessels, which is why I wrote that Russian shipbuilding is not up to the task because it was and remains the weakest link of the military industrial complex
It has been the least useful... but use of precision guided missiles from corvettes and submarines has made Russia realise what a potent power it is and having them on subs and ocean going ships is extraordinary. Their disengagement from the west and so called pivot to the rest of the world will make their navy and merchant marine more important and a source of important revenue for the state, so the money and focus will come.
The Russian Air Force received all ordered planes and helicopters on time, all contracts were fulfilled. As for frontline and strategic aviation, there are no problems. I am 100% sure that the deadlines for the delivery of the Su-57 will also be met on time and within the stipulated period.
Yes, the problem is transport aviation and the Il-112 project is a tragedy. The only ones that are a little late in delivery are the Il-76MD-90A, as well as all its variants; tanker and AWACS variant. There is not even a completed prototype for the first Il-276 yet. In any case, the VVS is far better than the Russian Navy.
The Air Force was properly funded, but even they have serious problems... they got the Su-57 into production but at the cost of delaying the lighter fighter in that component... they are supposed to work together but the Su-57s are trickling in to service and the lighter fighter hasn't even flown yet that is going to be the numbers aircraft that makes up the bulk of the air force.
Their transport aircraft situation is terrible and is suffering because of the situation with their engines... their helicopters are in trouble too... not enough light helicopter engines... Ansat and Ka-226 using foreign engines, Mi-26 using Ukrainian engines... An-2, An-24/25/26/32, An-12, An-22, An-124 all needing urgent replacement... An-2 and the An-24-32s and An-12s are about to start falling from the skies... the An-22s already gone meaning the bigger heavier more expensive An-124s doing that job less efficiently... The An-2 is being replaced by the Baikal and L-410, the An-24-32s are being replaced by L-610s and Il-112s and Il-114s, the An-12s are supposed to be replaced by the Il-276 which has not been seen yet, the Tu-330 is nowhere to be seen either yet would be useful now the Tu-204 is in production, and of course the Il-476 is struggling to get into service and the Il-106 is nowhere to be seen as a replacement for the An-22, while Slon is just talk to replace the An-124.
Most are waiting on engines... how many crashes are we going to see before something happens and things start moving properly...
To be fair most of the aircraft were sabotaged by pro Ukraine pro motor sich factions who didn't want to see Il-106s or Il-476, or any replacement for any of the Antonovs not made by Antonov... and of course to keep the An-70 fiasco going too.[/quote]
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
if it wasn't possible then space rockets would never land vertically. But they do. Technology really advanced over last 50 years!
.
