Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:47 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
aviation organization.

They don't.

I think not wanting any has more to do with it. Argentina had a
carrier, after all.

Casady

(Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:47 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:aviation organization.
:
:They don't.
:
:
:I think ...
:

No, you don't, and that's the root of your problem.

:
:... not wanting any has more to do with it. Argentina had a
:carrier, after all.
:

Argentina had several (serially). They never built one. They never
operated the old obsolete ones they purchased at all effectively. They
were quite small and operated only small numbers of obsolescent
aircraft.

This is the example you want to use to prove that Russia can ab initio
create modern carrier strike groups faster than ANY nation has ever
managed to do?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:15:16 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

(Richard Casady) wrote:

:On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:09:47 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:If mere money would do it, Saudi Arabia would have a huge carrier
:aviation organization.
:
:They don't.
:
:
:I think ...
:

No, you don't, and that's the root of your problem.

:
:... not wanting any has more to do with it. Argentina had a
:carrier, after all.
:

Argentina had several (serially). They never built one. They never
operated the old obsolete ones they purchased at all effectively. They
were quite small and operated only small numbers of obsolescent
aircraft.

This is the example you want to use to prove that Russia can ab initio
create modern carrier strike groups faster than ANY nation has ever
managed to do?

No mention of Russia anywhere near my post. The comparison was
Argentina and Saudi Arabia. The Russians do seem willing to sell
anything to anybody. And the Saudis have got the cash. The question of
WTF would the arabs want with a second rate carrier force seems to
have been answered: they don't want it. They maybe need a few boats
with 57mm or three inch. They need a coast guard, is all.

Casady

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.

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?

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!!!

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.

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
ne 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.
:

You can throw all the dollars in the world at the thing and they can't
build and field what they're claiming in the time they're claiming.

No matter how hard you try, 9 women cannot make a baby in a month.
This is essentially what you're saying the Russians can achieve.

They can't.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn