Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

New Carriers

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 08 Feb 2009, 08:29
With Russia and China getting ready for new carriers and India getting a revamped carrier what are they going to Fly off these things. I heard a Mig 29 variant. How well will they preform against F/A 18 super hornets, and later against the mythical F-35?
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 Feb 2009, 02:49
The MiG-29K is impressive, but ultimately behind late-gen Block II SH, they're also an India only purchase. New Russian carriers will likely carry something more advanced (if they ever see the light of day). China is likely to use an upgraded Su-33, or an indigenously designed Naval Flanker. I don't know what that will look like, it may or may not be up to the task with the SH. The F-35 will turn both into oatmeal from the looks of it.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3873
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 Feb 2009, 03:32
TRL, I read on that warfare.ru website you mentioned somewhere else, that Argentina was interested in buying some Yak-141s. I couldn't find anything about it on argentinian sites. Have you heard something about it?
It would be our first time with v/stol airplanes and a nice option, since our carrier (the "25 de mayo") has been decomissioned in 1997
You wouldn't need a carrier for this kind of plane, would you?


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 09 Feb 2009, 04:05
Quote:
You wouldn't need a carrier for this kind of plane, would you


Yes, it is a carrier aircraft.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3873
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 Feb 2009, 04:24
Yeah.. I thought so. But what I tried to meant is that you can use them on smaller carriers, not the big ones with the catapult and all that.


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 Feb 2009, 05:53
You can even use them land-based. However it's highly unlikely that the Yak-141 will be ordered. Consider that it's old. Upgrading it would cost a small fortune in R&D. Production lines are closed, so per unit cost would be high (restarting production etc.). You would be it's only operators so spares availability would be poor, upgrades would be rare, if any. Overall it doesn't seem worth it. If you're looking for cheap carrier-based planes that don't require a full carrier, the MiG-29K or the F-35B (I think B is st STOVL variant, but I could be wrong) would be plenty depending on how much money you wanted to spend, and what capabilities you would be looking for.

EDIT: Why do you think Argentina needs carrier-basing capability? I mean ultimately some MKI-style Flankers would do the job just fine given it's neighbors.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3873
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jun 2006, 02:14
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Politburo
Post 09 Feb 2009, 13:58
No, I dont' think we need carrier-basing capability. We just used to have it. I asked this because it surprised me that in that website it said that Argentina was considering buying it.
We don't have any conflict hypothesis, since we're in pretty good realtions with our neighbours. The only possible threat comes from outside the region, being the Malvinas conflict or regional defense.
Our current attack naval airforce consist of 3 operational and 8 back-up Dassault-Breguet Super Etendard, and our land based airforce has Mirage III, Mirage V, IAI kfir and A4ar-Skyhawk. So.. we're stuck in the 70's....


"Where Argentina goes, Latin America will go".
Leonid Brezhnev

Forum Rules
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 09 Feb 2009, 23:16
Yes you are. If you're looking to buy something inexpensive and modern, you can try used F-16, possibly refurbished. If you want something high end and shiny, you can try the Block II Super Hornets. Alternatively MiG-29SMT are decent, fully multi-role, cheap, and BVR capable. Or on the shiny end you can get Su-35BMor Su-30MKI depending on how soon you want it, and how much you're willing to cough up. You could also get the Euro-bird but it's expensive. Or the Gripen, but further upgrades are likely to be rare and lagging. The article about you consider to buy it is probably old. Checking dates is typically a good idea. Also when aircraft that are long out of production and are dead projects are mentioned, it's also typically a hint that the paper is out of date.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 13 Feb 2009, 01:19
I do not know much about the Soviet Navy, my only reference is an outdated DOD publication "Soviet Military Power" circa 1983.

If a current Russian carrier group was in a combat environment and stumbled across an American cruiser taskforce one Ticonderoga, with two Arleigh Burke class destroyer in support how would the Russian force fare.




THeir was a special on the Soviet Navy on the military channel about six months ago, missed it though.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 13 Feb 2009, 10:56
Current carrier group? The VMF doesn't operate a classic CVBG. I don't know that the Northern Fleet has ever even coordinated more then 2-3 combat ships together at any given time. All the recent international cruises have been by 1-2 ships. Typically one main ship, flag ship, like the Kuznetsov, or Pyotr Velikiy, one secondary ship, typically ASW destroyer, and one-two supply ships. The Black Sea Fleet did deploy a significant number of ships to the Georgian coastline in the August war, but they faced no real opposition, and were more there for demonstratory purposes then real military presence (though they did shoot up some Georgian patrol boats).

If the US taskforce is within Naval Aviation range, then it's Backfires and Tu-142s with nuclear cruise missiles that you have to worry about, not the rusty Kuznetsov.
If it's not, I doubt the Russian Navy would even be operating in war time outside of coastal air cover.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 14 Feb 2009, 06:02
During the Georgian conflict wasnt there an American Naval(note: not trying to be classic arrogant american, I believe i remember something in the news about a US navy destroyer delivering aid or something along those lines) presence in the region. I believe it was under the pretense of a aid mission of some sort. I have been googleing aircraft carriers recently. I noticed that most of the world operates small aircraft carriers. I have an american military mind set, so im partial to our big ships like Kitty-hawk, or Harry S Truman. I understand the logic to the aircraft carrying cruiser, it must be a loss of prestige to see them all sold or scrapped.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 14 Feb 2009, 06:27
Very few countries in the world operate aircarft carriers or aircraft carrying cruisers as far as I know. The US is the only one to operate large scale aircraft carriers.
banistansig1
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Feb 2009, 13:19
A guy I knew once said, carriers are like the muscles on a body builder, the body builders won't necessarily use his muscles to choke any one to death, they bring him daily glory, which, in most instances, is far more useful than actually choking anyone to death.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 02 Mar 2009, 02:28
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 02 Mar 2009, 02:52
Oh yes. Russia has published the requirements for the new Russian carrier project. India is set to have two operational carriers by the 2020 timeframe.
banistansig1
117
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 41
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Dec 2007, 01:01
Pioneer
Post 07 Mar 2009, 10:53
Quote:
A guy I knew once said, carriers are like the muscles on a body builder, the body builders won't necessarily use his muscles to choke any one to death, they bring him daily glory, which, in most instances, is far more useful than actually choking anyone to death.

Before WWII the US had plans to build 5 battleships each weighing 60,000 tons, along with the british with their 45,000 ton battleships. Had it not been for midway the Japs would of built 5 Yamato battleships and +2 super Yamato battleships. We're in the same position as we were in the late 30's, it will just take major war between naval powers for countries to realize that in a naval battle aircraft carriers are nothing.
Soviet cogitations: 6887
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Nov 2007, 08:37
Unperson
Post 08 Mar 2009, 03:04
Would you like to substantiate on that?

Or better yet, have you considered that the US military budget is almost as large as the rest of the world combined? It hardly matters what the US uses. The money and effort put into the military are so large, that it will outmatch rivals on an enormous scale.

I strongly suspect you don't know what you're talking about.
banistansig1
Soviet cogitations: 163
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 23 Jan 2009, 15:02
Pioneer
Post 08 Mar 2009, 04:15
The days of Big naval gun fire are over. Most modern warships are armed with either a 76mm or 57mm cannon, a naval ship today depends on anti-ship missiles or crusie missiles.
The Falklands War is a good example of what airpower can do to a post world war two navy. Argentina's aircraft took a heavy toll on the british task force.
117
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 41
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Dec 2007, 01:01
Pioneer
Post 10 Mar 2009, 06:15
:Would you like to substantiate on that?

r better yet, have you considered that the US military budget is almost as large as the rest of the world combined? It hardly matters what :the US uses. The money and effort put into the military are so large, that it will outmatch rivals on an enormous scale.

:I strongly suspect you don't know what you're talking about.


Do you even know what i was trying to imply? My point was that the carrier isnt the capital ship as it was during WWII, and for the US navy to realize that they'll need to be involved in some big war with a naval power in which all of their carriers would most likelly get sunk in the first few months of the war. Just like right before WWII most of the nations mentioned above still had this belief that big guns were important until airpower was given a chance to prove otherwise. During the 80's most naval experts gave all the USN carriers less then a month before they were all sunk in a war against the Soviet Union.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4953
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Feb 2008, 15:25
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 10 Mar 2009, 06:44
Quote:
Do you even know what i was trying to imply? My point was that the carrier isnt the capital ship as it was during WWII, and for the US navy to realize that they'll need to be involved in some big war with a naval power in which all of their carriers would most likelly get sunk in the first few months of the war. Just like right before WWII most of the nations mentioned above still had this belief that big guns were important until airpower was given a chance to prove otherwise. During the 80's most naval experts gave all the USN carriers less then a month before they were all sunk in a war against the Soviet Union.


I agree mostly with your conclusion. However, aircraft carriers can be useful to project air power when invading a nation, something the U.S. does on a regular basis. They are very vulnerable though and I don't doubt that many US carriers would have been destroyed early on in a conventional war with the Soviet Union. They wouldn't be very safe in a war with Russia either (unless they stayed away).

But carriers have a point which has little to do with their effectiveness in a war. Prestige. They are a sign of a powerful and intimidating military, just like Battleships used to be. That's why we have Russia, China, and India wanting their own carriers.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.