If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above. Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than you ever will. Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups. Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment, more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they are going to sustain. Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin Villages. Dear Fred: Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? IMHO this is the key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ? Let's leave trolls and loons aside, and keep on Naval course Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:
:Fred J. McCall ha scritto: : : I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own : ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above. : : Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than : you ever will. : : Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and : suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups. : : Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment, : more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything : associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they : are going to sustain. : : Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very : few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin : Villages. : ear Fred: : :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? : The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned) through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft. The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time). : :IMHO this is the :key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian :Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from :the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ? : Oh, I don't doubt they can design and engineer a carrier. The Kutnetzov isn't a good starting point, though. Russian design preference up to now has been to try to build 'battle group in a single hull' ships (like Kutnetzov). This leads to some serious compromises in virtually all areas of capability when compared to specialized ships. The first casualty of getting real carrier strike groups needs to be that design philosophy. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Fred J. McCall ha scritto:
[snip] Hm. Excellent food for thought (starts ruminating) Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Nov 19, 3:21 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote: Fred J. McCall ha scritto: [snip] Hm. Excellent food for thought (starts ruminating) Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. The other reason was that cruisers are the largest ship that can transit the Bosporus. Russia is basically landlocked, especially in the West. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
In message , dott.Piergiorgio
writes Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? IMHO this is the key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ? Given the condition of the Kuznetsov when she deployed in 1996, she may not be a model to emulate. The difficulty the Russians seem to have is that their first big-deck carrier is not very successful, has been laid up for much of her life, and has been unable to generate much by way of carrier-capable aircrew or experience in carrier ops. (The few who did fly from her were talented: I've seen some excellent pictures of fast-and-low Flanker flybys taken from HMS Sheffield, who was marking her, but there were very few of them). -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote: :Fred J. McCall ha scritto: : : I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own : ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above. : : Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than : you ever will. : : Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and : suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups. : : Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment, : more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything : associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they : are going to sustain. : : Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very : few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin : Villages. : ear Fred: : :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? : The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned) through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft. The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time). Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short years of war. : :IMHO this is the :key issue, after all the Kutnetzov seems to be active in the Russian :Navy, so, it's feasible that they can design & engineer starting from :the existing prototype (Kutnetzov) ? : Oh, I don't doubt they can design and engineer a carrier. The Kutnetzov isn't a good starting point, though. Russian design preference up to now has been to try to build 'battle group in a single hull' ships (like Kutnetzov). This leads to some serious compromises in virtually all areas of capability when compared to specialized ships. The first casualty of getting real carrier strike groups needs to be that design philosophy. -- "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." -- Charles Pinckney |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
"Ray O'Hara" wrote in message ... "Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Mr.Smartypants" wrote: :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote: : See: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...t_One_999.html : : Nice plans, but can they be carried out? : : :Why not? : :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas. : If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier aviation organization. They don't. The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians claim they want to. What reason is there to believe they can do it? I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II. Thousands of tanks. Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns. Ammo. and all while under attack. And quite a bit of that stuff came from the US under Lend-Lease ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns. any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located anywhere a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
"Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 8:27 pm, "Ray O'Hara" wrote: "Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message ... On Nov 17, 7:09 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: "Mr.Smartypants" wrote: :On Nov 16, 9:50 pm, wrote: : See: : :http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...t_One_999.html : : Nice plans, but can they be carried out? : : :Why not? : :Russia has billions and billions of EUROS worth of oil and gas. : If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier aviation organization. They don't. The United States, with a stronger economy and much more experience in carrier aviation didn't build at anything near the rate the Russians claim they want to. What reason is there to believe they can do it? I guess you didn't notice what they did in WW II. Thousands of tanks. Hundreds of thousands of sub-machine guns. Ammo. and all while under attack. ships require a bit more infrustructure than tanks or submachine guns. any locomotive ot truck factory can make a tank and they can be located anywhere a shipyard has to be in a spot with deep water access.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep water ports. sure they have some, but not many. leningrad/st pete is one. the black sea ports are now in the ukraine. the ukrainians aren't about to let the ruskis back in after just having gotten rid of them. siberia/kamchatka would need some serious bulding programs to become useful as a home for any modern fleets. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message ... On Nov 19, 3:21 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote: Fred J. McCall ha scritto: [snip] Hm. Excellent food for thought (starts ruminating) Best regards from Italy, Dott. Piergiorgio. The other reason was that cruisers are the largest ship that can transit the Bosporus. Russia is basically landlocked, especially in the West. the bosporus is irrelevent as sevatopol now belongs to another country. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
"Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message ... On Nov 19, 12:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote: "dott.Piergiorgio" wrote: :Fred J. McCall ha scritto: : : I guess you're just a stupid troll who is unable to correct his own : ignorance and so has to engage in stupid strawman arguments, as above. : : Hint: I know more about the Soviet Navy and Soviet shipbuilding than : you ever will. : : Hint: There's a big difference between 'naval shipbuilding' and : suddenly building and operating a bunch of carrier battle groups. : : Hint: The United States, with a bigger shipbuilding establishment, : more money, and a long history of carrier aviation and everything : associated with it, NEVER build at the rate the Russians claim they : are going to sustain. : : Hint: The Russians talk about a lot of things. They actually do very : few of them. Just think of it as a modern version of Potemkin : Villages. : ear Fred: : :Let's return to the topic. I known that you known well about soviet :Navy, in your opinion, the (relatively) little knowledge in CV :construction accrued by the soviet, through Moskvas, Kievs and :Kutnetzovs is lost in the last 15 or so years or not ? : The problem isn't pure construction. However, none of those ships are actually aircraft carriers. They range from helicopter carriers that the USSR quickly discovered weren't big enough for the job (hence only building a pair of Moskvas rather than the 12 originally planned) through a strike cruiser with aviation assets (Kiev, with a handful of very limited fixed wing assets) up through what I would call an aviation-capable strike cruiser (Kutnetzov) with a few dozen relatively capable fixed-wing aircraft. The real issue is that they won't be able to come up with crews and infrastructure on the scale they're talking about even if they can design a real carrier and build them that fast (keeping in mind that they'd also be cranking out escorts and such at the same time). Funny how the Allies managed to build literally hundreds of warships and thousands of freighters and managed to man them all in 6 short years of war. and none of them russian. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Long EZ plans, Mini IMP plans, F4U Corsair plans, materials, instruments for sale | reader | Home Built | 1 | January 26th 11 01:40 AM |
Duster Plans For Sale - BJ-1b fullsize sailplane plans | WoodHawk | Soaring | 0 | April 25th 05 04:37 AM |
Russian Carrier puts to Sea | Tiger | Naval Aviation | 27 | April 9th 05 10:02 AM |
Russian Airlines Prefer Used Boeings to New Russian Aircraf | NewsBOT | Simulators | 0 | February 18th 05 09:46 PM |
Old Plans, New Part Numbers | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | December 16th 04 10:25 AM |