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.

"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

Fred J. McCall ha scritto:

[snip]

Hm. Excellent food for thought

(starts ruminating)

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

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.

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

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

"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.

"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.

"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.

"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.