A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Russian Carrier Plans Part One



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old November 25th 07, 09:45 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

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
  #32  
Old December 2nd 07, 04:04 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article a86ec029-67d2-48c9-916b-4fd3b945b993
@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com, says...
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.


None with ready access to the worlds oceans.....

  #33  
Old December 2nd 07, 04:05 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article ,
says...

"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



Not to mention the food and steel to feed the workers and furnaces
  #34  
Old December 2nd 07, 04:06 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article 704fd56f-c3d6-4cf4-b5a1-
, says...
On Nov 17, 8:38 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Mr.Smartypants" wrote:

: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.
:

I guess you don't know the difference between manufacturing bullets
and building carrier strike groups.



I guess you believe that the Soviets never had any kind of navy and
now Russia is venturing into naval shipbuilding for the very first
time EVER!!


Were you to actually study Russia a bit you will find they never really
have operated a Blue Water navy successfully...
  #35  
Old December 2nd 07, 04:08 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
tankfixer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

In article 25981310-6d6d-4057-8871-4fc6e6e776c3
@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
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.


Funny how the Russians didn't......
  #37  
Old December 2nd 07, 04:44 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

tankfixer wrote:

:In article 25981310-6d6d-4057-8871-4fc6e6e776c3
, says...
: 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.
:
:
:Funny how the Russians didn't......
:

Also funny how there is, from
's view (gotta love those
odd Candahoovian names - 'bcpg'), there is apparently no difference
between merchants and cheap escorts (both easy to build and relatively
easy to man) and an entire carrier aviation organization that doesn't
even exist right now.

One more time for our stupid Canadian friend's benefit. *NOBODY*,
including the United States, has ever produced anything like modern
carrier strike groups at the speed Russia claims they're going to
produce them. If nations with long histories of carrier aviation are
unable to do it, what makes him think the Russians will somehow manage
it?


--
"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
  #39  
Old December 2nd 07, 06:04 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 107
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

tankfixer wrote:

:In article ,
says...
: tankfixer wrote:
:
: :In article a86ec029-67d2-48c9-916b-4fd3b945b993
: , says...
: :
: : Now you're trying to tell us that Russia has NO shipyards and no deep
: : water ports.
: :
: :
: :None with ready access to the worlds oceans.....
: :
:
: Sorry, but you need to buy a map. Once you do, find Murmansk and
: Vladivostok. Unless you maintain that the Atlantic and Pacific are
: not part of "the worlds [sic] oceans" your comment above stands shown
: as false.
:
:Funny how to transit out of Vladivostok you have to pass through fairly
:narrow straits not under the control of Russia.
:

This pretty well applies to any port anywhere, if someone is waiting
for you. If they go north they can stay in waters controlled by them
until in open ocean.

:
:One of which has a bit of bad karma when it comes to the Russian
:Fleet...
:
:Murmansk has a bit of a problem with year round access too.
:

Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
free from what I could see.


--
"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
  #40  
Old December 2nd 07, 06:14 AM posted to sci.military.naval,rec.aviation.military.naval
Bill Kambic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default Russian Carrier Plans Part One

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 22:04:28 -0700, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Don't tell them that. They go in and out of there year round. I've
been up there in October and November and it all looked pretty ice
free from what I could see.


The long term Russian goal has been reliable warm water ports. During
WWII were there not periods where Murmask could not be used due to
ice?

IIRC Vladovostok is mostly ice free, but not strategically well
situated.

Of course, with the Earth getting warmer, maybe Murmask will become a
tourist destination and they'll start homesteading in Siberia! :-)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:40 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 10:46 PM
Old Plans, New Part Numbers [email protected] Home Built 3 December 16th 04 11:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.