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

Yes, but Russia has still an acces to the Black Sea !!!

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

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

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?

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

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.

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.