Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:08 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 67):
Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 66):
Understood! Nevertheless, to compare it equally, the US has comparable economic power in other areas and still is supporting a large (and truly impressive) carrier fleet.

The US has, as a truly maritime trading nation with 2 ocean access, maintained a carrier fleet since the 1920's. A carrier navy for the US is not an optional asset.

I seem to have lost my list F4N, could you remind me of the merchant marine that the US carrier fleet is protecting?

Quoting GDB (Reply 95):
An up to date video of CVF;

If I remember my "Yes PM", the soundtrack indicates that the project started life as a rather radical concept (soothing music) but has become rather mundane (agitated main soundtrack). You might want to get that re-mastered with an Albinoni Adagio* or Pachebel's canon track right the way through to demonstrate how new and revolutionary it really is!  Wink  yes 

* Worked well for Gallipoli.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:40 pm

Last time I mentioned this the reaction I got was akin to that one would get after publishing a picture of Mohammed making a bowel movement.....but......

If the Russians did this they would be making a big bet that the aircraft carrier will be the best way to project power from the sea for the next 40-50 years. By the time they have full operational capability something different may do a better and/or cheaper job. Mobile offshore Bases and/or "arsenal ships" come to mind. Or carriers may end up being too vulnerable to new missile and torpedo technologies. Russia could end up being caught in the same situation some nations found themselves in after investing a lot in pre-dreadnought battleships when dreadnought type ships were just around the corner, or in battleships rather than carriers in the time before World War II.

Even if carriers do keep their place, the Russians would need to be able to protect theirs. They would need something as good as Aegis, as well as an anti-sub capability able to confidently defeat modern diesel subs with AIP as well as first rate nuclear boats like the Virginia class. These capabilities would be very difficult and expensive to develop.

All in all, this seems like a Soviet-style ego based program. My guess is the Russians would do a better job spending their money on improved missiles, subs, and long range aircraft. That would seem to better suit Russian geography and experience. But whatever option they choose, training and readiness would be at least as important as their choice of equipment.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:55 pm



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 101):
All in all, this seems like a Soviet-style ego based program. My guess is the Russians would do a better job spending their money on improved missiles, subs, and long range aircraft.

I cannot help feeling this might be correct. On the other hand what would cause the US to spend some more money that it rather rapidly is not having on even newer carriers? Starting or at least appearing to start your own program would be a good place to start.

The question nobody answers is how a carrier group would go if the nuclear subs were really intent on sinking them?
 
GDB
Posts: 13758
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 5:23 pm

Russia of course, is really a land power.
Not that this has stopped attempts to be a major sea borne one too.
However, the first major attempt to project sea power, just over 100 years ago, against Japan, ended in one of the most humiliating defeats in naval history.
It is reckoned that deep down, the Russian navy has never properly recovered from this.

THe next major chance, came in the late 50's/early 60's.
To challenge, not just with subs, the USN carrier fleet, which back then also had a nuclear strike role.
But the planned carrier programme fell foul of Kruschev's reforms, subs were the way to go for him.
(He also made some significant cuts in land forces, though what remained was still huge)

The navy's case was not helped by them presenting him with a model of an ungainly looking mixed jet/turboprop naval strike aircraft, Kruschev literally laughed at it.

But his successor was not quite so hostile, starting with the Moskva class helicopter carriers, to help counter the NATO sub fleet.
To the Kiev class 'Aircraft Cruisers', the YAK-38 Forger they carried, was a lemon though. Good for gaining experience, but little else.
To the 1980's and the carrier programme, but these were really, to be a floating symbol of the massive over-reach, economically, of the soon to be gone USSR.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 8:09 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 103):
However, the first major attempt to project sea power, just over 100 years ago, against Japan, ended in one of the most humiliating defeats in naval history.

Anyone recall the name and origin of the Japanes flagship at that event... ?  Wink

Rgds
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:21 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 100):


Quoting F4N (Reply 67):
Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 66):
Understood! Nevertheless, to compare it equally, the US has comparable economic power in other areas and still is supporting a large (and truly impressive) carrier fleet.

The US has, as a truly maritime trading nation with 2 ocean access, maintained a carrier fleet since the 1920's. A carrier navy for the US is not an optional asset.

I seem to have lost my list F4N, could you remind me of the merchant marine that the US carrier fleet is protecting?

Baroque:

and your point being?
 
johns624
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 12:55 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 100):
could you remind me of the merchant marine that the US carrier fleet is protecting?

Why, Liberia's and Panama's, of course!
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:55 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 104):
Anyone recall the name and origin of the Japanes flagship at that event... ?

Built by Vickers...Mikasa or Mishasha or something like that I believe. Won't lie, I looked it up earlier today while bored at work.  Smile Still kickin around as a museum ship now. Built British Tough.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 98):
Somewhat parochially (as a production engineer), the biggest advantage is in simplicity of installation.
Shaft alignment is a major activity in the construction of a large vessel, and impacts a lot of other activites. Aligning a big electric cable is way easier... (especially if you're building in blocks (as we are..) )

That's what I figured, but the trade off being complexity of the pod mechanisms, etc. Come to think of it, DC might be easier. Take a hit to the bowls of the ship and break a shaft and the ship is SOL. Not sure how big the cables are, but I have images of QM2 crew members "hot wiring" their ship should one of those cables be damaged.  Smile

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 98):
Three main blocks (and a number of smaller upper (flight deck) blocks).

"We" (BAE SYSTEMS Submarines) are currently designated to assemble the centre block, and a dedicated construction hall is under construction as we speak. I'm in the process of developing the business case for another large facility, so I have sat in on the facility development meetings.. (there's little chance I will get assigned to CVF, but latterly, the business has become superb at "cross-fertilisation", to ensure best practice is well transmitted)..

I've watched specials on Nimitz carrier construction...love the footage of giant block assemblies being moved into place and watching the ship come together. Can't wait to see it coming together. How do you tackle systems integration for something so ginormous? For example, would we see "power on" testing of basic ship electrical systems followed by computerized equipment for radars or propulsion after fitting out? Would the blocks be tested individually?

A general question, aside from ease of construction and block joining would the podded propulsion layout have any advantages from full shaft from an operational perspective?

Hopefully we'll get F-35B out on time. It would stink to have a carrier with no planes.  Smile

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:44 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 107):
Built by Vickers...Mikasa

 yes 
Vickers sons and Maxim (as we were then),Barrow  bigthumbsup .
We still get more Japanese tourists to Barrow than any other nationality..  scratchchin 
Some of the stuff we've built here......  faint 
I've a great picture somewhere of two battlecruisers, HMS Princess Royal and HIJMS Kongo, side-by-side in the dock, pre WW1...
Kongo knocks the pants off Princess Royal (as evidenced by the fact that she was still a Japanese flagship in WW2).
Kongo was specced by requirement
Princess Royal was specced the Ministry of Defence. The procurement screw-up problem has been around in the UK a LONG time....  yes 

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 107):
How do you tackle systems integration for something so ginormous?

After nuclear subs, it's a doddle  Smile
(Really)
You've actually got room to fit everything in a carrier...

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 107):
For example, would we see "power on" testing of basic ship electrical systems followed by computerized equipment for radars or propulsion after fitting out? Would the blocks be tested individually?

There'll be a fair amount of block testing, but "Switchboard Ops" (power on) will be after block combination.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 107):
would the podded propulsion layout have any advantages from full shaft from an operational perspective?

Definitely.
360 degree thust for one, and no rudders...
Manouevrable doesn't even come into it.... Smile

Rgds
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 7:17 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 105):

Baroque:

and your point being?



Quoting Johns624 (Reply 106):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 100):
could you remind me of the merchant marine that the US carrier fleet is protecting?

Why, Liberia's and Panama's, of course!

Yep, that IS the point. This whole business of protecting ships is a bit of a tangled mess, now the financial engineers have taken over. Not to mention the virtual slave conditions aboard a goodly few of them.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
HIJMS Kongo, side-by-side in the dock, pre WW1...
Kongo knocks the pants off Princess Royal (as evidenced by the fact that she was still a Japanese flagship in WW2).
Kongo was specced by requirement

Hells, feet, I always assumed that was a new Kongo. I presume Sir George Thurston is still coming in to the office!! Did it really do 30 knots in its WWII manifestation?
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 10:05 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 109):
Hells, feet, I always assumed that was a new Kongo. I presume Sir George Thurston is still coming in to the office!! Did it really do 30 knots in its WWII manifestation?

Everything you need to know....

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm

Quote:
The Japanese battleship Kongô, a ship with a magical name and an important history, was budgeted in 1910 and ordered from the British shipbuilder Vickers in January 1911



Quote:
The Kongôs were built to make 27.5 knots; and when reconstructed in 1933-34, they were brought up to 30 knots. This made them the fastest battleships afloat, except for the Hood (31 knots) and the later American Iowa class (33 knots),

Rgds
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 2:13 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 110):
Everything you need to know....

http://www.friesian.com/kongo.htm

Ta, but nothing about Sir George.  Wow!
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 12, 2008 9:40 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 109):
Quoting Johns624 (Reply 106):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 100):
could you remind me of the merchant marine that the US carrier fleet is protecting?

Why, Liberia's and Panama's, of course!


Yep, that IS the point. This whole business of protecting ships is a bit of a tangled mess, now the financial engineers have taken over. Not to mention the virtual slave conditions aboard a goodly few of them.

Gents:

Good day to you. You both make some interesting observations. I sailed for quite a few years in the US merchant marine, so I can tell you firsthand that the US merchant marine is, unfortunately, not what it could or should be given the amount of seaborne commerce that goes between US shores and practically everywhere else. However, since the Maritime Administration allows US corporations to flag their vessels in "flag of convenience" countries, most businesses will gladly register their hulls in countries where they can reduce costs, even if those countries are not much more than specks of sand in the Pacific or elsewhere.

Back to topic though, there are precedents for using carriers for trade protection although using a CVN as such might not be the best utilization of an asset. They are, of course, instruments of power projection per se. Nevertheless, the US is more dependent on seaborne trade than ever before, regardless of where it is registered, so part of US maritime strategy has to involve open access to the US. It is not necessarily a problem of similar scope for the Russians, whose economy, geography, political institutions & military obligations fundamentally differ from those of the US. Would carriers be of benefit to them? Don't know. If they are to be nothing more than a chapter of Putin's memoirs ( "The Putanic Verses", to wit) to commemorate his restoration of Russian power to Soviet levels, they would be an enormous waste. If they represent a long term strategic response to China, that would make some sense although one would think that their 2000 mile comman border with China would be a bit more of an overriding concern. Carriers would not help much there. Power projection? That could lead to far more speculative theories.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
After nuclear subs, it's a doddle
(Really)

Astuteman:

Allright, I'll ask. What's a doddle?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Some of the stuff we've built here......

How about the battleship Vanguard?

regards,

F4N
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:03 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Princess Royal was specced the Ministry of Defence. The procurement screw-up problem has been around in the UK a LONG time....

Check out DD-21/DD(X)/DDG-1000, KC-X, and CSAR-X to name a few and get back to me. Not sure how long our procurment problems have been, but we are out to dethrone you if there's a title. That's the American way!  Wink

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
After nuclear subs, it's a doddle
(Really)
You've actually got room to fit everything in a carrier...

I can imagine. Not too much different from a commercial aircraft...just where the pressure is coming from. (Fluid and deadline)  Smile

Now, have they started modeling how the human element will interact with the machinery, for example the tight spaces a mechanic would have to squeeze into to access something for maintenance?

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 108):
Definitely.
360 degree thust for one, and no rudders...
Manouevrable doesn't even come into it....

I picture something like this...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/USS_Reagan%3B071030-N-6074Y-053.jpg

...flopping around like a jet ski.  Smile

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:47 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 112):
Allright, I'll ask. What's a doddle?

The phrase "doddle" implies that it's very, very easy.

It isn't.
60 000 tonne aircraft carriers are big, complex bits of kit.

But I've seen nothing in my experience (which includes (to varying degrees) submarines, warships, aircraft, nuclear power stations and petro-chemical plant) anything that is anywhere near as hard to integrate as a nuclear submarine.

I've learned, from comments made by colleagues in those other work areas, not to presume that nuclear submarines are the hardest thing to integrate. There may be something out there that's harder. But I've not seen it....  Smile

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 113):
Now, have they started modeling how the human element will interact with the machinery, for example the tight spaces a mechanic would have to squeeze into to access something for maintenance?

 checkmark 
Human factors, Operability, Maintainability etc are built into the requirements set, and working groups are already growing to develop the functions (just as we did on Astute)..

Rgds
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:22 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 114):
Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 113):
Now, have they started modeling how the human element will interact with the machinery, for example the tight spaces a mechanic would have to squeeze into to access something for maintenance?


Human factors, Operability, Maintainability etc are built into the requirements set, and working groups are already growing to develop the functions (just as we did on Astute)..

Just the other day at work an ex-navy guy was talking about how you could tell how old a submarine was by how many reaching poles where one board for turning valves (There was a name for these I am not remembering). They older subs had more because there where more valves hidden behind other machinery and in other difficult to access spaces.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:14 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 114):
The phrase "doddle" implies that it's very, very easy.

Perhaps you should score a few of these "bits of kit" on your own "DODDLE INDEX". Might be interesting if controversial to see where those other "doddles" the A380 and B787 would come.

Would the DODDLE INDEX be linear, or logarithmic?

Quoting F4N (Reply 112):
"The Putanic Verses"

Brilliant!! If it gets to the stage that a carrier group is needed to protect the merchant marine, it is probable that the insurance industry will have already decided the outcome.

I think it has to be odds on that cunning old Putin is running a distraction strategy. You put missels next to our fence and we will get you worried about one of your "prides and joys"!

The contrast between the ownership of shipping and freight aircraft is rather marked. One way and another, the shipping industry seems to hide more scandals than just about any other.

Every 5 to 10 years we have a stir up here about rust buckets and various other things on foreign crewed ships. Much be just about time for another set of "revelations". Especially as our shiny new government is a pawn of the unions - or so the opposition keeps telling us!
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 4:16 pm



Quoting L-188 (Reply 115):
Just the other day at work an ex-navy guy was talking about how you could tell how old a submarine was by how many reaching poles where one board for turning valves

You mean they allow Poles on NATO submarines now????  duck 

Like the metric, though  thumbsup   Smile

Rgds
 
GDB
Posts: 13758
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 13, 2008 6:02 pm

F-4N, good points.
It is also greatly unappreciated here, the utility and economic importance of sea power.
Considering our own history and geography, that's bizarre.

In 1982, there was no way we could have re-taken the Falklands, without the large number of merchant ships requisitioned by the RN.
Not the just the high profile QE2, or Canberra, even the doomed Atlantic Conveyor either, a whole plethora of vessels were used.
That only one was lost, (or even hit), was a graphic illustration, albeit in an extreme situation, of the RN's core role, whether as a worldwide deployed force, or as in 1982, one largely equipped for ASW in the Atlantic.

You heard it all the time in the run up to CVF being confirmed, why do we need these carriers, or even a half decent Navy, when we are stuck in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan?
Ignoring the fact that these assets are for the next four or more decades.
The world has changed plenty in a similar preceding time-line.

Churchill reckoned the tougher times of the Battle Of The Atlantic worried him more than the Battle Of Britain.
Certainly no liberation of Europe by the Western allies had the U-Boats not been defeated, Donitz's surface fleet neutralised.
No victory in the Mediterranean would have meant the Axis could have grabbed vital oil supplies, but Rommel lost in part due to the interdiction of his supply lines.
The Arctic Convoys helped keep Russia in the war in their desperate times too.

But one thing the RN could not do, while so heavily engaged in Europe, was to protect the British influence in the Far East against the Japanese.
But had there been no war in Europe, you have to wonder if Japan would ever have started the Pacific War, even if the main threat to them was of course the US Fleet.
In 1940, the RN was still the largest in the world after all.

Even in WW1, now rightly known for the carnage in the trenches, saw the eventual grinding down of the Kaiser's war effort on his home front, due to the RN blockade that his prized fleet never broke.
It was in this respect, more successful at eroding the enemy populations morale, than WW2 bombing.
But against a land power, this effect could never be overnight.

Russian however is perhaps the ultimate land power, you have to question their need for a very substantial carrier fleet that this thread is about.

Today, there is the modern day piracy, the best answer to which are vessels like the Planned USN LCS, or the bigger USCG assets.
The RN are looking at a range of smaller, simpler vessels, under the FSC programme too.
A 76 or 57mm gun, 30mm cannon, Future Lynx chopper, Fire Scout UAV, Royal Marine party, fast inflatables.
Provision if need be, for SSM's and a basic SAM, like the ASRAAM derived CAAM now under development.

Almost weekly, we hear of the RN's West Indies Guardship, usually a Type 23 Frigate, carrying out substantial drug busts.
A role which a FSC Corvette style vessel could do just as well, but more economically.
Leaving the fewer higher end ships now available as escorts for carrier/amphibious groups.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 14, 2008 2:20 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 102):
The question nobody answers is how a carrier group would go if the nuclear subs were really intent on sinking them?

Modern diesel boats may be a greater danger than nuclear boats are. They are much more quiet then nukes when running on batteries. New forms of air independent propulsion are giving them almost as much tactical endurance as nukes. Many countries have them, and they are probably the main worry a battle group commander has when fighting a smaller country. A Chinese diesel boat has already gotten within torpedo range of a US carrier at least once, without being detected until it would have been too late. A nuke would probably not be able to do this. It would have to use missiles.

Another danger is a mass missile and air attack, especially by a western power. US bombers, in particular, can carry a dozen or more tomohawk-sized cruise missiles. Other powers (notably China) have a large number of anti-ship cruise missiles that can be fired from mobile shore launchers. The US has the Aegis system, which was specifically designed to counter that kind of attack. The Russians don't have anything like it. But even Aegis and modern anti-sub weaponry may not be enough to reliably defend a carrier against an attack by a major power with modern weapons. Carriers are particularily sensitive because even a single hit stands a good chance of preventing a carrier from using its aircraft for a long time(It is hard to actually sink a carrier, however).

For Russia, carriers seem to have no military utility that would justify their cost. Missiles, subs and land based air would seem to offer far more bang for the buck. But they maybe useful as a political tool. Carriers would boost Russian pride domestically, and increase their prestige overseas. Many countries built battleships for that purpose, even when many smart people were warning that the end of the battleship era was coming.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:27 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 117):
You mean they allow Poles on NATO submarines now????

As a matter of fact they do, much to the consternation of the former Soviet Union! Why do you think Putin wants 6 carriers now?  Wink

The screen door technology is in the hands of NATO now! Big grin

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:29 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 119):
A Chinese diesel boat has already gotten within torpedo range of a US carrier at least once, without being detected until it would have been too late. A nuke would probably not be able to do this.

Perhaps not. Then again.........  Wink

Rgds
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:47 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 119):
But even Aegis and modern anti-sub weaponry may not be enough to reliably defend a carrier against an attack by a major power with modern weapons.

I had in mind a stand off attack and probably synchronized between at least three nuclear subs. Three (or more) main vectors and numbers might make life difficult for Aegis??

And then again reply 121 is probably not your average off the cuff guess!
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:52 pm



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 90):
but if the French build PA2 then we will see what CVF really cn do.

Agreed.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 93):
but for the RN, these two carriers will be a vast improvement.

Agreed again.

The RN is doing the right thing (for them) and will have a significantly enhanced capability if they complete the two carriers and their air wings on schedule and full capability. My comments, again, were solely to point out how hard a task the Russians will have to pull of a program 3x larger than CVF.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 119):
Modern diesel boats may be a greater danger than nuclear boats are. They are much more quiet then nukes when running on batteries

Do you have a source for that? While I may conceed that an electric motor "may" be theoretically less noisy than nuclear-steam-turbines, a nuclear boat can throw size, weight and power to quiet the boat (double isolated hulls and the like). Any diesel sub attempting that would have severe speed and endurance limitations.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 119):
A Chinese diesel boat has already gotten within torpedo range of a US carrier at least once, without being detected until it would have been too late

Really? You have a source for that? What range did it get to? How dit or would it have gotten a torpedo firing solution? Are you sure there was not at least one escort between the sub and the carrier? At the so called "within range" range distance, what makes you think the entire carrier battle group countermeasures would not prevent the torpedo from hitting the carrier?

Mind you that I find your entire account of "within torpedo range" and "not detected until it would have been too late" highly, highly unlikely, and even more so it the US was at war.

You may want to read this paper on what it takes to successfully sink a US carrier, in case you haven't already - http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/591.pdf - it is not that easy as it seams. 'We should not, by any means, dismiss the threat of assymetrical naval warfare. But on the same token, lets not over hype it either.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12965
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:31 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 123):
Do you have a source for that? While I may conceed that an electric motor "may" be theoretically less noisy than nuclear-steam-turbines, a nuclear boat can throw size, weight and power to quiet the boat (double isolated hulls and the like). Any diesel sub attempting that would have severe speed and endurance limitations

Well the US has been leasing a diesel from the Swedes HMS Gotland along with a crew for the last few years, this boat is highly feared and has in training sunk a few carriers, it's a very quiet boat.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:00 pm



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 124):
HMS Gotland

Thanks for that info'.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:28 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 123):
The RN is doing the right thing (for them) and will have a significantly enhanced capability if they complete the two carriers and their air wings on schedule and full capability. My comments, again, were solely to point out how hard a task the Russians will have to pull of a program 3x larger than CVF.

Agreed. Didn't really mean to drive the whole thread OT with CVF, but as you pointed out it does illustrate that the US, UK, France and to a lesser extent Italy have that Russia doesn't. Ehh, well, they prob. have a better carrier brain trust than Italy come to think of it.

As for current Russian carrier designs (it's hard to have a meaningful discussion on vaporware), what's the status of that ex-Russian carrier being converted for use by the Indian Navy. Last I read the Russians upped the price and delayed the program significantly.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:28 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 123):
While I may conceed that an electric motor "may" be theoretically less noisy than nuclear-steam-turbines, a nuclear boat can throw size, weight and power to quiet the boat (double isolated hulls and the like). Any diesel sub attempting that would have severe speed and endurance limitations.

Not sure what this meant.....
Any UK built SSK would have the same noise reducing/eliminating characteristics as an SSN..  scratchchin 
(FWIW the need to keep essential reactor systems running at all times is usually the SSN's disadvantage relative to an SSK, not motor or turbine noise - but there are ways to overcome this..  Wink )

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 123):
You may want to read this paper on what it takes to successfully sink a US carrier, in case you haven't already - http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/591.pdf - it is not that easy as it seams.

It IS possible, though...  Smile

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 126):
Didn't really mean to drive the whole thread OT with CVF, but as you pointed out it does illustrate that the US, UK, France and to a lesser extent Italy have that Russia doesn't

I'll refer to my previous comment.
The single biggest constraint to programmes like this are usually the "coherence" of political and commercial willpower.
Current events, like the Georgia invasion, and the nuclear threat to Poland indicate to me that Russia will not be lacking the willpower to do this.
I wouldn't underestimate their industrial capability, or potential.

I suspect, like the RN will find out soon, their biggest issue will be obtaining SQEP crew in the necessary quantities..

Just my  twocents 

Rgds
 
GDB
Posts: 13758
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:53 pm

In the mid 1960's, the newly re-fitted carrier, HMS Eagle , which now had a Type 184 sonar, was shadowed by a RN (conventional) sub, the sub being directly under the carrier in the Mediterranean.

This reporter visits one of the main yards for CVF, finding a shipbuilding industry smaller, but much more modern.
He's no expert, note the false anecdote about HMS Hermes in the South Atlantic in 1982, but it's an interesting insight into how CVF's will be built, as well as the fact that these methods are effectively being prototyped to an extent, on the Type 45 Destroyers;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...2008/aug/16/scotland.manufacturing
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:13 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 128):
but it's an interesting insight into how CVF's will be built, as well as the fact that these methods are effectively being prototyped to an extent, on the Type 45 Destroyers;

HMS Ocean was "block-built" in Govan in the early '90's, and more recently, Albion and Bulwark were likewise assembled in Barrow.....  Smile

Rgds
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 4704
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 3:53 am

One thing that offers me some comfort about Putin's military buildup is that the Chinese are also expanding their military. Russia and China have been scrapping for centuries. They have suspicions that go much deeper than anything they could possibly feel towards the west.

The confrontations with the west may get all the press but that's because they both want to be accepted by the west. When it comes down to who they'd rather see turned into a glass table, they will always look north and south first.
What the...?
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 4:18 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 127):
I'll refer to my previous comment.
The single biggest constraint to programmes like this are usually the "coherence" of political and commercial willpower.
Current events, like the Georgia invasion, and the nuclear threat to Poland indicate to me that Russia will not be lacking the willpower to do this.
I wouldn't underestimate their industrial capability, or potential.

It's not so much as I doubt Russia's industrial capacity, but it comes down to a little more than just willpower, namely priority. Russia's navy was always big on submarines. After the embarassment with the Kursk, and the recent launch of the new Borei class SSBN, I suspect Russia will rather bolster its subsurface fleet. For the better part of the 20th century, the Russians were more content with giving US admirals something to fear in attack subs unleashing a nuclear weapon in the middle of a CVBG rather than countering with carriers of their own. Priorities may changes, but Russia's main intended sphere of influence is still rather "local" for them by accident of geography. They don't need to travel as far to have a major global impact.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 6:14 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 131):
It's not so much as I doubt Russia's industrial capacity, but it comes down to a little more than just willpower, namely priority. Russia's navy was always big on submarines.

Wouldn't disagree with that, my friend...

Rgds
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:21 pm



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 131):
the Russians were more content with giving US admirals something to fear in attack subs unleashing a nuclear weapon in the middle of a CVBG rather than countering with carriers of their own

Exactly right. As a matter of fact, if you think of it, this is the most likely use of a nuke. If we were at war with Russia, and they dropped a nuke on one or two CVBG in the middle of the ocean, what would we do??!!?? The nuke was in open waters. Assuming it was a high burst, there would be little radiation. The target would have been 100% military with NO civilian casualties. The US territory itself was not touched. There would be NOTHING to show in the evening news. Nothing.

How could we respond? Would we nuke a base in Russian territory proper with all the civilian casualties and the evening news footage, etc, and the risk of a like counter stack? I think not.

Would we nuke the oceans to sin soviet subs? Maybe, but we would have to detonate the nukes underwater with a lot more radiation, against much less valuable targets.

I thin the CVBG was always viewed by the Russians, rightly or wrongly, as the only high valuable target they could nuke without facing MAD scenarios. Why woud they want to put themselves in the same position as they see us in now?

Answer: for reagional comflicts, not with the US. But then you ask, with their GEO-reach, why not launch strikes from land bases anyway?
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:50 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 133):
Exactly right. As a matter of fact, if you think of it, this is the most likely use of a nuke. If we were at war with Russia, and they dropped a nuke on one or two CVBG in the middle of the ocean, what would we do??!!?? The nuke was in open waters. Assuming it was a high burst, there would be little radiation. The target would have been 100% military with NO civilian casualties. The US territory itself was not touched. There would be NOTHING to show in the evening news. Nothing.

Baron95:

A nuclear strike on an American warship is an attack on sovereign US territory. If a CBG was destroyed you would be talking in the neighborhood of ~10,000 sailors and marines being KIA.
It would be tantamount to a declaration of war. No US administration could ignore the implication and the response would be nuclear. It is probably why nobody has chosen to execute such a strategy however attractive it may seem in theory.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 126):
As for current Russian carrier designs (it's hard to have a meaningful discussion on vaporware), what's the status of that ex-Russian carrier being converted for use by the Indian Navy. Last I read the Russians upped the price and delayed the program significantly.

It is difficult for me to understand the on-going willingness to under-estimate Russian capabilities. They build some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. The have a successful space program that is an integral part of an international effort. These are not stupid people...

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 130):
One thing that offers me some comfort about Putin's military buildup is that the Chinese are also expanding their military.

I personally find the idea of rival states with authoritarian governments and a 2000 mile common border engaging in an arms race to be very, very disturbing.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 127):
The single biggest constraint to programmes like this are usually the "coherence" of political and commercial willpower.
Current events, like the Georgia invasion, and the nuclear threat to Poland indicate to me that Russia will not be lacking the willpower to do this.
I wouldn't underestimate their industrial capability, or potential.

Astuteman:

Very well put. The seeming shift in Russian politics towards a more aggressive, authoritarian approach does not bode well. However, the incursion into Georgia allowed to Putin to engage in an almost risk-free opportunity to expand the "Putin Doctrine" of Kremlin intervention from intimidating Russian and western business firms and leaders to openly attacking smaller states with whom the Kremlin has a disagreement. There is a difference in overunning parts of Georgia and attacking Poland. One presented the Kremlin with
a propaganda coup with virtually zero liabilities. The other means war with NATO.
Putin is no fool. Nevertheless, this whole unfortunate incident should put to rest the idea that Russia is a benign, enlightened state looking to integrate itself in the community of nations. It is a right-wing, highly nationalistic country with an inscrutable government which apparently is not adverse to using commercial, economic or military means to achieving policy objectives. It does seem to indicate that the cold war is returning.

regards,

F4N
 
bilgerat
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:43 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:59 pm

Interesting discussion, especially with regards to CVF.

The first of MSC's T-AO vessels went to sea with Systems Engineer officers from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the reason being MSC's lack of experience operating high voltage systems. The MSC is now repaying the favour by running an exchange programme for RFA junior officers who are being invited to sail on MSC vessels to gain experience of operations supporting large carriers in preparation for the RFA receiving the new MARS vessels. I'm thinking of applying for it next year after I (hopefully) get my Class II Certificate of Competency.

Now a question for Astuteman regarding the MARS boats...

I was on Wave Knight earlier this year and we found an article on the MoD intranet that was very interesting. Apparently the go-ahead has been given for the first class of MARS vessels, and none of the bidders will use UK shipyards! If I recall correctly there are four bidders - one Spanish shipyard, one Italian shipyard, and two Korean shipyards, one of which is bidding in partnership with BAE Systems.

I believe I am right in saying these will be the first RFAs built outside of the UK (notwitstanding the likes of Contender Bezant and Stena Inspector which were converted to RFAs in UK shipyards). This caused quite a stir among the engineers and lots of discussions about getting assigned to a new-build in Spain/Italy/Korea. I certainly wouldn't mind it!

Do you know anything more about this? Will the new MARS boats really be built outside the UK?
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:38 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 133):

You raise a good point. But, attacking US ships is an act of war. I think you're right about a nuclear counter strike not really being an option. But it would touch off a massive conventional war. I think of course that that is your point. And that is a major drawback of the CVBG. Designed to fight a convetional war, yet easily destroyed by non-convetional means.

I find it hard to believe though that the conflict wouldn't escalate to the use of nuclear weaponry.

Quoting F4N (Reply 134):
It is difficult for me to understand the on-going willingness to under-estimate Russian capabilities. They build some of the most advanced weaponry in the world. The have a successful space program that is an integral part of an international effort. These are not stupid people...

I'm sorry, but where in that statement does that imply underestimating the Russians? You did read on my other comments concerning their priorities and naval doctrine didn you?

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 4:41 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 133):
I think the CVBG was always viewed by the Russians, rightly or wrongly, as the only high valuable target they could nuke without facing MAD scenarios. Why would they want to put themselves in the same position as they see us in now?

Interesting point although on balance I think that the US might have to admit that a battle group had "disappeared", or been Blackbirded as one might say. What was possible for the Japanese Navy after Midway, might not be quite the same nowadays.

However, I think you are right to point out that while the carrier is a powerful projection of force, it is vulnerable in a way that the home territory (so far) is not, whoever owns the carrier.

So arguably, the US should offer assistance to the Russians to ensure the Russians are equally vulnerable. If (when) push comes to shove, they might be useful in the Taiwan strait!!.

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 135):
Apparently the go-ahead has been given for the first class of MARS vessels, and none of the bidders will use UK shipyards! If I recall correctly there are four bidders - one Spanish shipyard, one Italian shipyard, and two Korean shipyards, one of which is bidding in partnership with BAE Systems.

Will they give rise to a new TV series of "Life on Mars"?
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 9:50 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 136):
I'm sorry, but where in that statement does that imply underestimating the Russians? You did read on my other comments concerning their priorities and naval doctrine didn you?

I have been following this thread since the beginning. Perhaps I've interpreted your use of "vaporware" incorrectly. Nevertheless, if you review some of the responses here by various folk, it seems to imply that the Russians couldn't build an aircraft carrier. They can build parts of the ISS, but they couldn't build a ship....amazing.

Sorry if I've offended.

F4N
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 11:47 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 138):
I have been following this thread since the beginning. Perhaps I've interpreted your use of "vaporware" incorrectly. Nevertheless, if you review some of the responses here by various folk, it seems to imply that the Russians couldn't build an aircraft carrier. They can build parts of the ISS, but they couldn't build a ship....amazing.

Thanks for clarifying. "Vaporware" doesn't always imply an inability to build...though the state of their infrastructure for such large ships currently isn't up to snuff. But in light of Soviet naval doctrine, 6 carriers may be more for public consumption. They are however constructing what they construct best...new submarines.

Hey, we can land on the moon, but we can't even make a decision on a refueling tanker and stick to it...

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
Mortyman
Topic Author
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:29 pm



Quoting Olle (Reply 83):
So what will they use the new fleet for?

Is it to control the sea north of Russia?

Control the North sea, Atlantic and Barents sea and hold precence in the Pacific.

The aircraft carriers will be deployed to the Northern fleet and the Pacific fleet

( It's all in the first post  Smile )
 
Mortyman
Topic Author
Posts: 5856
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:34 pm



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 119):
Modern diesel boats may be a greater danger than nuclear boats are. They are much more quiet then nukes when running on batteries. New forms of air independent propulsion are giving them almost as much tactical endurance as nukes. Many countries have them, and they are probably the main worry a battle group commander has when fighting a smaller country. A Chinese diesel boat has already gotten within torpedo range of a US carrier at least once, without being detected until it would have been too late. A nuke would probably not be able to do this. It would have to use missiles.

As I posted in a different tread, regarding diesel electric submarines and the danger of them...


Diesel electric submarines are something that one has to look out for. Very dangerous. Something that our NATO allies can testify too... Some info about the Ula class submarines of the Royal Norwegian Navy:


" The Ula class submarines are among the most silent and manoeuverable submarines in the world. This, in combination with the relatively small size, makes them difficult to detect from surface vessels and ideal for operations in coastal areas. During the annual NATO Joint Winter exercise in 2004, the HNoMS Utvær had to be disqualified from the exercise because it kept the entire landing operation at bay. It simply "sank" too many vessels. Including the Royal Navy flagship HMS Invincible. The Ula class submarines are regarded as both the most effective and cost-effective weapons in the RNoN. "
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1010
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:44 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 134):
[...] with an inscrutable government which apparently is not adverse to using commercial, economic or military means to achieving policy objectives

And this stands direct in line with the means of politic the United States of America use with the same unscrupulousness.

With that said, does your next statement then consistently is valid for the US?

Quoting F4N (Reply 134):
Nevertheless, this whole unfortunate incident should put to rest the idea that Russia is a benign, enlightened state looking to integrate itself in the community of nations.

Is the US integrated attacking Iraq while Russia is not attacking Georgia?

Don't get me wrong. Its no Anti-US, but at least the same gauge must be used.

And to come back to the power projection thing from the beginning...  Smile

Quoting F4N (Reply 112):
They are, of course, instruments of power projection per se.

As I said.

Quoting F4N (Reply 112):
Nevertheless, the US is more dependent on seaborne trade than ever before,[...] so part of US maritime strategy has to involve open access to the US. It is not necessarily a problem of similar scope for the Russians, whose economy, geography, political institutions & military obligations fundamentally differ from those of the US.

That is of course true.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12965
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:35 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 128):
This reporter visits one of the main yards for CVF, finding a shipbuilding industry smaller, but much more modern.
He's no expert, note the false anecdote about HMS Hermes in the South Atlantic in 1982, but it's an interesting insight into how CVF's will be built, as well as the fact that these methods are effectively being prototyped to an extent, on the Type 45 Destroyers;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...uring

He forgot to mention that shipbuilding is also coming alive in Tees, Tees Alliance Group has bought and starting to refurb the old Furness Yard at Haverton Hill where they will be building topsides for 2 possibly 3 semi sub drilling rigs.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12965
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:49 pm



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 139):
Thanks for clarifying. "Vaporware" doesn't always imply an inability to build...though the state of their infrastructure for such large ships currently isn't up to snuff.

Completely correct, Russia does not have the yards of the ability to build a ship of this size and type. I'm in Russia now and have been visited yards already with another 3 to go, any talk of carriers bring howls of laughter, they simply can't build them.

You would never think there was a war going on, as far as I can tell Russians in Moscow, Astrakhan and Nizhny Novogorod don't give a damm and generally believe (quite rightly in my opinion) that the parts of Georgia that are being fought over are Russian, plus they all say Stalin was a Georgian, go figure.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:00 am



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 142):
Is the US integrated attacking Iraq while Russia is not attacking Georgia?

You certainly are determined to push your "one size fits-all" superpower theory, aren't you?

OK, I'll give you an example. Whatever you think of the Iraq war and American motives for it, bear in mind that the justification for it was Iraqi non-compliance of UN Security Council resolutions requiring Iraq to disarm, acknowlede their WMD programs and allow for independent verification and destruction under UN supervision. After ~10 years of non-compliance, a multinational force attacked Iraq.

How long did it take Putin to deal with Georgia?

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 142):
Don't get me wrong. Its no Anti-US, but at least the same gauge must be used.

Apparantly Putin doesn't see it that way.

F4N
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:17 am

One other thought.....

If the Russians have six battlegroups in the time leading up to war, they can send 2-3 of them to areas where the US is not as likely to have tracking assets. This would allow them to keep at least one near the main battle area. When the war starts, they attack recon assets - especially satellites. They would do everything possible to hide the the 2-3 CBG's they send far out.

During a shooting war, this would force the US to keep a lot of its own ships in a position to protect critical bases like San Diego and Norfolk, as well as the rest of the country. We would also have to keep more tactical fighter wings at home, and army units in strategic places to protect against amphibious raids. Plus, we would need to use more assets to protect convoys. This could critically impact our ability to project power to the main battle area.

In a new cold war, the possibility of attack by enemy CDB would force the Pentagon to spend a lot of money to counter the threat. We would have to have lot more air assets like the P-8 or we would need to add naval strike capabilities to home based airforce units. We would have less to spend on our own CBG's.

IN SHORT.....Perhaps a few CBG's could force an opponent to keep other assets away from the main battlefield, even if by the end of the war they are all sunk by subs and stealth missiles. That could make a difference if the cost to maintain the carrier groups in the "cold war" period doesn't cripple warfighting ability in other areas.
 
johns624
Posts: 2794
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:06 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 146):
If the Russians have six battlegroups in the time leading up to war, they can send 2-3 of them to areas where the US is not as likely to have tracking assets.

I'm sure that anytime one of those Russian CBG's leaves port, it'll have at least one USN SSN tracking it.
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:48 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 134):
A nuclear strike on an American warship is an attack on sovereign US territory. If a CBG was destroyed you would be talking in the neighborhood of ~10,000 sailors and marines being KIA.
It would be tantamount to a declaration of war. No US administration could ignore the implication and the response would be nuclear.

If you ready the scenario I put forward, I started by saying that "if the US was at war with Russia" already...If Russia found itself boxed in and getting beat up by a bunch of CVBG, it could issue an ultimatum and if that failed, detonate a single high burst war head over a CVBG.

Yes, it is an act of war, but I was assuming war was going on already. Yes 10K+ sailors would be lost. Yes the US had to respond.

But the point is that there is NO equaly valuable target the US could take out without risking a nuclear attack on the US main soil. So, my point is that the Russians may believe that this is a nuclear scenario they'd have an upper hand.

What is the US to do? Nuke the oceans to get a Russian sub? Those are underwater bursts with a lot of radiation that would eventually land on many countries. Nuke the Russian territory with all the civilian casualties the radiation babies on the evening news, all the lines of "The US remains alone as the only country to have used nuclear weapons against civilians"?

Think about it. If you were the US president, what would you do? No good options right? And if you press on and they take out another CVBG? Then what? think it through.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:34 am

This thread is really depressing. We are still friends with Russia. There is nothing they can really do to us. If they invade Poland, obviously their forces will be obliterated... from the sky, if nothing else. We could eliminate these ground forces within 24 hours. At least that is my understanding of the USAF and RAF and AF France etc's capabilities.

This is all a bunch of gibberish. Russia may yet realize that if they take Georgia, they lose everything else. This is a powerful disincentive for Russia to take Georgia. I don't see that much fundamental instability in the region, sorry. Cold War.... over what?! What is there to fight about?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos