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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 01:24:01 -0500, "Ray O'Hara"
wrote: "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. The lease on the base in the Ukraine lasts until 2017 after which it is planned to move it to Novorossiysk, which is Russian and on the Black Sea. Some study of the politics and geography of the area seems indicated. Peter Skelton |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Yes, but Russia has still an acces to the Black Sea !!! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
TMO,
Well-put. Any country with sufficient resources can field a fleet of CVs. Using these CVs effectively is entirely another matter. It required the better part of three decades of ship construction, learning, and doctrine development during the early 20th century before the UK, the US, and Japan were able to prosecute effective large-scale CV operations, and this was back in the days of much simpler technology. The ship construction part is relatively easy when compared with those factors associated with people, especially the development of the requisite "corporate knowledge" and its wise use. These infrastructure demands are so great that even the US has trouble sustaining a viable and up-to-date CV capability. Russia, China, and India are certainly welcome to try, but it will take, again, decades before they approach any definition of parity with the US. -- Mike Kanze "I wrote the story myself. It's all about a girl who lost her reputation but never missed it." - Mae West "TMOliver" wrote in message ... "Starshiy" wrote ... Yes, but Russia has still an acces to the Black Sea !!! No matter the access to the sea or the number of available deep water ports, there's more to carrier aviation than a flat deck (and cats and arresting gear for most technologies).... First comes the need for several decks, since training and maintaining aviators requires substantial practice, and a CV on station far from home or one in the year for regularly required overhauls aren't available for CARQUALS, an absolute requirement for anybody hoping to become an operational pilot. Then omitted from these discussions so far has been the need for a vast shore establishment and "pipeline" for the training of aviators and the provision of a/c. All the extras don't become apparent and are little considered by those who haven't watched the B&A crane offload down birds alongside the carrier berths at Mayport, then watch the yellow tugs head off with them in tow towards the hangar across the way. That's when one suddenly realizes that dismantling an a/c to make it fit on a flatbed, and then pulling it across urban Jacksonville out to now defunct NAS Cecil Field for repair was not feasible or acceptable on grounds of time and cost. Given the teething problems, the blind alleys and the cumulative lack of success displayed by the USSR and Russia in attempting to build and operate anything even close to a successful CV, restarting a long dormant program will not be easy (and will certainly be slow). Ready cash (or the lack of it willingly appropriated by civilian leadership) is a crucial ingredient, but the requisite shore-based facilities - even at minimal levels - are likely to be slow and as costly to develop as are the ships and air groups themselves. TMO |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Nov 19, 2:07 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
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. Indeed. One thing that astonished me when specifications for the Kuznetsov became available in the West was how little they seemed to be getting for their tonnage. Kuznetsov is around 65,000 tons displacement, which is about the same as the Midway class at the time of their retirement- yet the most optimistic size I've seen quoted for her airwing is one squadron of Flankers and another of Yak-141s, which never entered service. Supposedly they were working on a carrier variant of the Su-25 as well, but she would only have been able to carry about a half dozen of those. So you end up with a Coral Sea sized hull that can carry one VF and a few helicopters- sweet. (For comparison, USS Coral Sea's air wing in 1986 was four squadrons of Hornets, one of Intruders, plus one each of Hawkeyes, Prowlers, and helicopters.) Sure, it's great to say that your carrier also totes heavy antishipping missiles and SAMs, but what are you going to do with only one squadron of fighters? As for the schedule mentioned: even the author of the original article seems to think they don't have a chance, and he's right. Ever since the Cold War ended the Russian defense establishment has been notably bad at distinguishing fantasy from reality in its public pronouncements, and this appears to be just another episode in that long and distinguished history. -JTD |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 20:50:28 -0800 (PST), wrote: See: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russ...t_One_999.html Nice plans, but can they be carried out? Very possibly, yes. The Russians are swimming in a river of petrodollars and at $100/barrel they will have the money to do the project. The expertise? They've got some "in house" and might just be able to hire the rest. We're not at war with Russia, and maybe not even in real competition with them. So if a Russian naval attache' offered a retired USN/USNR officer/enlisted, say, $150,000USD per year for a two year gig in some aspect of design, construction, or operation of a CV what might that person say? (These are tax free dollars, by the way.) And also consider that the USN is not the only operator of CVs. How might an RN, French Navy, Brazilian Navy, or Argentine Navy type respond to such an offer? While this would be a real mountain to climb for the Russian Navy it's one that could be conquered if enough greenbacks were piled high enough. Of course there are other "claimants" in Russian society for the petro-wealth they are generating. Thus it's much more a political question for them than a technical one. I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to shove their engineering ability is bloody good. They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
Mike Kanze wrote:
Any country with sufficient resources can field a fleet of CVs. Using these CVs effectively is entirely another matter. It required the better part of three decades of ship construction, learning, and doctrine development during the early 20th century before the UK, the US, and Japan were able to prosecute effective large-scale CV operations, and this was back in the days of much simpler technology. The ship construction part is relatively easy when compared with those factors associated with people, especially the development of the requisite "corporate knowledge" and its wise use. {snip} The "corporate knowledge" is easy to destroy - just get the state security people to send all the officers and NCOs to gulags. This happened in the run up to WW2. Andrew Swallow |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:25:11 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer
wrote: I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to shove their engineering ability is bloody good. At the top end they can be quite good. But, as a rule, their maintenance SUX and the old USSR used to build a lot of something because a lot of it wouldn't work if the "balloon" should ever go up. They relied very heavily on large cadres of draftees for "grunt work" and used the equivalent of senior petty officers and warrant officers to actually fix stuff. If they maintain this model (right out of Tsarist times) then their success is likely to be limited. They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have? I don't think their "secret keeping" ability is all that red-hot anymore! ;-) A successful carrier aviation program is a very expensive, very intensive thing. It takes a long time to build it up. You can read all the books about carreir aviation ever written (including CV NATOPS manuals) and still not know all of the "how to's." And it's not enough to train pilots and aircrews; all those "colored shirt" guys need training and experience, too. A flight deck during flight ops is, perhaps, the most dangerous industrial venue in the world. When flight ops are secured it's only modestly safer. Then there's the interesting drills that occur during respots. And the ever-present threat of "hanger rash." Choregraphing the "ballet" that every CV does several times a day during FLTOPS takes a lot of knowledge AND experience. In my day ('68-'92) the Soviet Navy never did all that well on UNREPS. Did they ever get any better? Again, if they want to spend the money to build the ships and planes and escorts and develop the expertise it CAN be done. I don't know if 20 years is a reasonable window or not. I guess we'll have to just watch and see what happens!!! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Nov 21, 3:27 am, Bill Kambic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:25:11 -0800 (PST), Weatherlawyer I believe they got the details of nuclear physics handed to them gratis. They built better rockets than the US too. A mixture of ideology and money can indeed work wonders but when push comes to shove their engineering ability is bloody good. At the top end they can be quite good. But, as a rule, their maintenance SUX and the old USSR used to build a lot of something because a lot of it wouldn't work if the "balloon" should ever go up. They relied very heavily on large cadres of draftees for "grunt work" and used the equivalent of senior petty officers and warrant officers to actually fix stuff. If they maintain this model (right out of Tsarist times) then their success is likely to be limited. They are better at keeping secrets too so who knows what they have brewing while who doesn't know what the US and the Europeans have? I don't think their "secret keeping" ability is all that red-hot anymore! ;-) No and truth to tell I doubt it was all that good in the first place, just the logistics of the place. But this group is so US centric it aught to be called sci.usa.military.naval And the anti Russian/ Arab/ whoeverelseisn'tmiredinIraqwiththechimp sentiments seems to come straight from the CIA manual on How to Swift Boat a non Republican US Politician school of thought. A successful carrier aviation program is a very expensive, very intensive thing. It takes a long time to build it up. You can read all the books about carreir aviation ever written (including CV NATOPS manuals) and still not know all of the "how to's." And it's not enough to train pilots and aircrews; all those "colored shirt" guys need training and experience, too. A flight deck during flight ops is, perhaps, the most dangerous industrial venue in the world. When flight ops are secured it's only modestly safer. Then there's the interesting drills that occur during respots. And the ever-present threat of "hanger rash." Choregraphing the "ballet" that every CV does several times a day during FLTOPS takes a lot of knowledge AND experience. In my day ('68-'92) the Soviet Navy never did all that well on UNREPS. Did they ever get any better? Again, if they want to spend the money to build the ships and planes and escorts and develop the expertise it CAN be done. I don't know if 20 years is a reasonable window or not. I guess we'll have to just watch and see what happens!!! Didn't the RN open a school for that sort of thing on land during WW 2? I vaguely remember something but wouldn't know where to look. There were an hell of a lot of carriers all of a sudden at some point in WW 2 though were there not. Run by submariners too IIRC, some were. Not very successfully though, so I suppose you are right. What is true is that the Russians need to kick start their economy so that men can afford to get married and women can afford to have babies.and raise them. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Russian Carrier Plans Part One
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 22:54:17 -0800 (PST), Alex Luzhanov
wrote: In all seriousness, I doubt that the Russians will make a committed attempt to match the United States navy, dollar-for-dollar and carrier- for-carrier. I think the Chinese and Iraqi example, of using asymmetric warfare, in this case mines, submarines, and cruise missiles, or leapfrogging the whole "aircraft carrier" stage using UAVs, is more likely and probably more productive. The Russians are not stupid enough to waste their money on matching an obstacle that is easy to bypass. My views exactly. A CV group has an effective strike range of under 300 miles. We are talking about carrier based mass attacks, the only option when attacking a large country with modern defences. At that range the CV group is very vulnerable to land based mass missile counter attacks and land based air strikes. That's a lot of very expensive assets that can sink, and all concentrated in the same small area of ocean. The monetary and manpower investment for the enemy is a lot less than the cost of one carrier air group. |
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 |