Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Roman Alymov

    3224

  • Simon Tan

    1633

  • Stuart Galbraith

    1215

  • Josh

    889

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't think either country is buying. China is building its own from scratch already. India the same, and more over they already had a bad experience with used Russian CVs. Me personally I suspect she goes into refit and never comes out. In the time it takes for her to be refitted most of the skills necessary to operate her efficiently will be lost and I suspect that will be really clear as the refit drags on. Russia is better served by its SSNs which are much more world class than its CV (I'd scrap the Kirov too, but that appears to be a prestige project).

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is he going into refit when he gets back? I believe there is a Kirov in refit currently; does Russia have the capacity for both projects?

No idea. I hope it will be sold to India or China, as aircraft carrier is clearly useless for Rus Navy.

 

Didn't it just prove its value? Sure, for Syria it was superfluous, but what if Russia would want to intervene in a place where they don't have active bases in place (for example, Libya or Somalia)? A mobile airbase is still an important asset.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he going into refit when he gets back? I believe there is a Kirov in refit currently; does Russia have the capacity for both projects?

Refit has been 'imminent' for many years, but I think Syrian situation delayed it, plus obviously financing.

Admiral Nakhimov is indeed in middle of thorought modernization and it won't be finished until 2019. They likely could do both at same time, but I think Kuznetsov modernization is going to be delayed a bit instead. They could do preparatory work on Kuz for a while before moving her into the basin once work on Nakhimov is completed..

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Didn't it just prove its value? Sure, for Syria it was superfluous, but what if Russia would want to intervene in a place where they don't have active bases in place (for example, Libya or Somalia)? A mobile airbase is still an important asset.

 

I do not think we need to intervene in places so distant. Let US &EU waste resources on that, while we have our main business concentrated right next to our borders, or in places where we have regional allies. Re “prove its value” – it is hardly the case when operating outside of the coast full of good airbases standing empty. As far as I understand only ~500 combat missions were flown by Navy aviation (and it is not clear what % of them was from carrier and what % from Hmeimim).

The very concept of Kuznetsov-class air defense carrier was based on technology and needs of USSR of late 1970th-early 1980th. Now, when Russian submarines could fire at targets on another continent right from their bases, while Russian single-seat fighters could fly around Europe to Gibraltar and back, there is no need for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrier's value is to rapidly move striking power onto a critical region, without the need to go through all the practical and diplomatic hoops necessited by deploying land-based air. (In fact very presence of carrier often makes latter easier, since basing countries know that the operation is not completely dependent on their approval.) Carriers are also useful in disaster relief operations, though full-blown carrier is bit of overkill here - a helicopter carrier (like Mistral) is much more cost-effective.

 

As it currently stands, Kuznetsov is a relic of the Cold War doctrines and not well suited for modern operational needs. Air group is too small for carrier of that size, and it has only few strike-capable aircraft (basic Su-33 is limited to small number of dump bombs). Modernization would address there problems and make the carrier much more useful, comparable to Western European carriers in utility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrier's value is to rapidly move striking power onto a critical region, without the need to go through all the practical and diplomatic hoops necessited by deploying land-based air. (In fact very presence of carrier often makes latter easier, since basing countries know that the operation is not completely dependent on their approval.) Carriers are also useful in disaster relief operations, though full-blown carrier is bit of overkill here - a helicopter carrier (like Mistral) is much more cost-effective.

 

As it currently stands, Kuznetsov is a relic of the Cold War doctrines and not well suited for modern operational needs. Air group is too small for carrier of that size, and it has only few strike-capable aircraft (basic Su-33 is limited to small number of dump bombs). Modernization would address there problems and make the carrier much more useful, comparable to Western European carriers in utility.

It would require switching to smaller aircraft (Mig-29 family, as originally supposed, not huge Su-family fighters) . But still leaving open the question of where are this critical regions for Russia out of reach of regular aviation….

Link to post
Share on other sites

Su-33 actually has shorter folded wing span than MiG-29K, though the former is obviously much longer.

However, the problem is small-ish hangar, due to space requirements of Granit cruise missile system. It is expected this will be removed (or replaced with smaller Kalibr), providing more space for planes, fuel and munitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Turks need any support\cooperation from RusAF? Turkish Air Force assets in the area are much greater and more than enough for any practical needs.

"Turkish, Russian aircraft destroy Islamic State targets in Syria: army"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-idUSKBN14M05W?il=0

 

"Airstrikes by Russia Buttress Turkey in Battle vs. ISIS" http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/08/us/politics/russia-turkey-syria-airstrikes-isis.html?_r=0

Edited by Roman Alymov
Link to post
Share on other sites

Su-33 actually has shorter folded wing span than MiG-29K, though the former is obviously much longer.

However, the problem is small-ish hangar, due to space requirements of Granit cruise missile system. It is expected this will be removed (or replaced with smaller Kalibr), providing more space for planes, fuel and munitions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ISIS destroyed NG distribution centre, leaving ~1.5 mln Syrians without heating in the middle of winter

https://youtu.be/99fMYhKHg_g

Losing Palmyra seems to have some nasty additional downsides.

 

Seems like it is not about Palmyra (as this vulnarable installation in the middle of the desert was in risk anyway) but about radical wing of IS taking upper hand. Most likely Government was paying ransome for IS to avoid installation destroyed, but now they want revenge, not money....

Link to post
Share on other sites

The radical wing of IS? How would you characterize the rest of the organization?

The leadership has abhorrent and largely unattainable aims but mostly pursues a somewhat rational strategy. I take Roman to mean relatively 'impatient' or 'aggressive', and not to imply some attribution of less than radical ideology on the part of any wing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Su-33 actually has shorter folded wing span than MiG-29K, though the former is obviously much longer.

However, the problem is small-ish hangar, due to space requirements of Granit cruise missile system. It is expected this will be removed (or replaced with smaller Kalibr), providing more space for planes, fuel and munitions.

 

 

That thing is gimongous, longer than both the F-4 and F-14 and just a few cm shorter than the FB-111.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That thing is gimongous, longer than both the F-4 and F-14 and just a few cm shorter than the FB-111.

 

 

I'm curious why the Russians didn't go with the MiG29 all along? The Chinese I know didn't have a choice; if they wanted something produced domestically with sufficient T:W ratio and slow enough stall speed there basically wasn't anything else in inventory. But given the lack of hanger space on the Kuz, why weren't 29's the first choice?

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

MiG-29 is a frontal 'light' fighter. SU-27 series is a long-endurance heavy fighter. The SU-27 series could not take off with a full load of gas and weapons, it had so much internal tankage. For long transfers, it takes off then tops up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That thing is gimongous, longer than both the F-4 and F-14 and just a few cm shorter than the FB-111.

 

 

I'm curious why the Russians didn't go with the MiG29 all along? The Chinese I know didn't have a choice; if they wanted something produced domestically with sufficient T:W ratio and slow enough stall speed there basically wasn't anything else in inventory. But given the lack of hanger space on the Kuz, why weren't 29's the first choice?

 

 

Mig-29 was a disappointment. Too expensive for a light fighter.

Su-27 gave much more performance with little more cost.

 

Source: "Russian military expert comparing F-35 and T-50 (PAK-FA) (English subtitles)"

Interesting video. Surprisingly gives F-35 good remarks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question "does FSA have night sights for their TOWs?" is answered.

 

"

Legendary #FSA 1st Coastal Division #ATGM gunner Abu "TOW" Hamza spotted with rare TOW Night Sight [~ 1 month ago]

"

https://twitter.com/badly_xeroxed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...