What's new

Will Russia ever have its own aircraft carrier?

Say what...??? :lol:

The versatile Tomahawk had an anti-ship variant: RGM/UGM-109B. We now have something better: Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM). Besides, who says aircrafts cannot be used to attack ships? The Russian Navy? :lol:

Subsonic missiles? Against modern ships? However, this is enough against the Bedouin.
 
.
Subsonic missiles? Against modern ships? However, this is enough against the Bedouin.
Only a clueless person would laugh at a low level subsonic attack. You are of the usual suckers who thinks that faster is always better.

Clue for you...Ships are line-of-sight limited. At best 30 km visual range.

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The greater the speed, the greater the demand on the sensor/guidance integration to have a no-miss first pass solution. Low altitude high subsonic cruise missiles either have little odds of that need or if the design is capable of loiter, a no-miss attack is virtually guaranteed. You think that just because you use the word 'modern' that would make you credible?
 
.
Only a clueless person would laugh at a low level subsonic attack. You are of the usual suckers who thinks that faster is always better.

Clue for you...Ships are line-of-sight limited. At best 30 km visual range.

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

The greater the speed, the greater the demand on the sensor/guidance integration to have a no-miss first pass solution. Low altitude high subsonic cruise missiles either have little odds of that need or if the design is capable of loiter, a no-miss attack is virtually guaranteed. You think that just because you use the word 'modern' that would make you credible?

And why do you Americans, such stubborn? I can accept the objective reality - American ships better Russian. But Russian missiles better American. It is a fact.
 
.
And why do you Americans, such stubborn? I can accept the objective reality - American ships better Russian. But Russian missiles better American. It is a fact.
Hey...Desert Storm...Soviet/Russian weapons...:lol:

Anyway...You are dodging. You asserted that the US never developed anti-ship missiles. I proved you wrong. Then you mocked that what we had was subsonic. I proved you ignorant of the technical and tactical aspects of the issue.

IEEE Xplore - An intelligent radar predictor for high-speed moving-target tracking
Due to rapid the increase in missile speed, the air-defense radar system faces severe challenge in tracking these high-speed missiles. During tracking, the radar data are read into the system in a real-time manner sequentially, and thus only few data are available for trajectory estimation in every short time period.
A missile's nosecone do not have much volume. Nosecone shape will dictate sweep freedom of movement. The sharper the nosecone, as often in supersonic vehicles, the less the freedom or sweep angle either side. High speed approach will rapidly fill the radar view and worse if the tactical situation involves countermeasures. The Mach attacker will not have the time to try to discriminate countermeasures from target. The ieeexplore article essentially stated so. Do not interpret the article to mean the target is moving at high speed. In terms of radar detection, even if the target is stationary, when the vehicle is moving, its perspective will be that both itself and the target is closing.

Take your ignorance back to whatever Russian forums where you will be believable.
 
.
Hey...Desert Storm...Soviet/Russian weapons...:lol:

Anyway...You are dodging. You asserted that the US never developed anti-ship missiles. I proved you wrong. Then you mocked that what we had was subsonic. I proved you ignorant of the technical and tactical aspects of the issue.

IEEE Xplore - An intelligent radar predictor for high-speed moving-target tracking

A missile's nosecone do not have much volume. Nosecone shape will dictate sweep freedom of movement. The sharper the nosecone, as often in supersonic vehicles, the less the freedom or sweep angle either side. High speed approach will rapidly fill the radar view and worse if the tactical situation involves countermeasures. The Mach attacker will not have the time to try to discriminate countermeasures from target. The ieeexplore article essentially stated so. Do not interpret the article to mean the target is moving at high speed. In terms of radar detection, even if the target is stationary, when the vehicle is moving, its perspective will be that both itself and the target is closing.

Take your ignorance back to whatever Russian forums where you will be believable.



The United States developed a cheap and low-power missles to attack weak countries, such as Iraq and Libya. The USSR developed giant supersonic monsters with tactical nuclear warheads, which is almost impossible to intercept - to attack American fleet.
That's the difference in our approaches.
 
.
The United States developed a cheap and low-power missles to attack weak countries, such as Iraq and Libya. The USSR developed giant supersonic monsters with tactical nuclear warheads, which is almost impossible to intercept - to attack American fleet.
That's the difference in our approaches.
A typical response from a 12 yr old. You have yet to show how a subsonic missile cannot cripple a ship. By the way, the Exocet is not Mach or at best barely Mach, and look what it did. Go back to wherever Russian forums you came from and spew your ignorance there. Probably all of the people there are equally ignorant.
 
.
A typical response from a 12 yr old. You have yet to show how a subsonic missile cannot cripple a ship. By the way, the Exocet is not Mach or at best barely Mach, and look what it did. Go back to wherever Russian forums you came from and spew your ignorance there. Probably all of the people there are equally ignorant.

Okay. Keep on bombing bedouins. Maybe it raises your self-esteem and may think that the war with those who are not able to answer you, makes you invincible.
 
.
Okay. Keep on bombing bedouins. Maybe it raises your self-esteem and may think that the war with those who are not able to answer you, makes you invincible.
Not only Bedouins. The fact that the Soviets collapsed and its military is only a shadow of its former self, that helps our self esteem as well. :lol:
 
.
Not only Bedouins. The fact that the Soviets collapsed and its military is only a shadow of its former self, that helps our self esteem as well. :lol:

And you think that you won the USSR?
Let's see how you will survive after the collapse. That is, you know, a very painful procedure even for the people, accustomed to the wars and revolutions.
 
.
Aircraft carriers are useless in this age.They are just floating targets for missiles and submarines.

If employed properly, aircraft carriers are lethal machines. The air fleet of a carrier is a mini air-force in itself. This is especially true for super-carriers. Carriers are not floating targets. They have some defensive systems themselves and the carrier battle group contains many other heavily armed ships to protect the carrier.

If you are at war with a country 20000 km away then carriers are necessary if you want to attack them with fighter aircrafts unless of course all the countries along the route are so friendly that they are ready to support your war effort which is highly unlikely.

Carriers are a must for a true blue water navy.
 
.
Aircraft carriers are useless in this age.They are just floating targets for missiles and submarines.

If employed properly, aircraft carriers are lethal machines. The air fleet of a carrier is a mini air-force in itself. This is especially true for super-carriers. Carriers are not floating targets. They have some defensive systems themselves and the carrier battle group contains many other heavily armed ships to protect the carrier.

If you are at war with a country 20000 km away then carriers are necessary if you want to attack them with fighter aircrafts unless of course all the countries along the route are so friendly that they are ready to support your war effort which is highly unlikely.

Carriers are a must for a true blue water navy.
 
.
Aircraft carriers are useless in this age.They are just floating targets for missiles and submarines.

If employed properly, a carrier strike group is a lethal force. A carrier air wing is a mini air force in itself. This is especially true for supercarriers.

Carriers are not floating targets. They have defensive capabilities themselves and a carrier strike group has a range of heavily armed ships, aircrafts and sometimes submarines to protect the carrier.

Aircraft carriers are a must for a true blue water navy.

PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report
 
.
Will Russia ever have its own aircraft carrier? - English pravda.ru

It seems that water and air are incompatible as natural element. However, there is such a thing as naval aviation. Judging by modernization plans, Russian naval aviation will see great changes in the future.

After years of debate about whether Russia needs a fleet of vessels with aircraft on decks or surface ships and submarines would be enough, Russian admirals have chosen a sort of "American" model of the fleet: naval groups with an aircraft carrier in the center.

Here is a bit of history. In general, naval aviation per se in Russia has nearly 100 years of experience. On 30 November 1916, the Chief of Naval General Staff, Admiral A.I. Rusin approved "Regulations on the division of naval aviation."

During the Great Patriotic War, for example, naval aviation proved to be most effective of all naval forces. Combat aviation destroyed 407 enemy ships, which accounted for 66 percent of enemy losses. Almost all of their victories took place in 1944 -1945.

Yet, the first Soviet bombing of Berlin in 1941, was carried out by the crews of the 1st mine and torpedo regiment of the Baltic Fleet Air Force.

Today, naval aviation is a branch of the Navy of Russia. Before 2011, the branch consisted of missile-carrying, ground attack, fighter, anti-submarine, search and rescue, transport and special aviation. It is divided into naval aviation and land-based aircraft.

After 2011, naval aviation was divided into coastal, deck-based, strategic and tactical. From the point of view of the management of military units, this division of naval aviation is quite logical.


Back to aircraft carriers. Here is an opinion from naval expert, historian and publicist, first-rank captain, Sergei Aprelev:

"Whether Russia is going to have its own aircraft carriers or not depends on the nation's Maritine Doctrine. Does it involve the solution of problems in the ocean or is it limited to covering up the coastal zone? According to the latest edition of the doctrine, the presence of Russia in the ocean is not going to be canceled, and we intend to position ourselves as a great sea power. This is what we should proceed from.

"By the way, the notion of a single aircraft carrier is absurd - any expert will tell you that! One single aircraft carrier is only needed to create a prestigious image - that's all.

"Speaking of sea power, the meaning of it starts from a group based on an aircraft carrier that would be capable of solving not only the tasks of demonstration, but also operational and strategic tasks. This stipulates a completely different procedure of budgetary expenditures: coastal infrastructure, logistics, carrier-based aircraft, pilot training system for deck-based aircraft, extensive monitoring and targeting systems, including satellite monitoring.

"Finally, aircraft carriers themselves should have reliable power-generating units that would enable such vessels to address all its tasks. Most likely, the creation of the fleet of aircraft carriers will, perhaps, be just as expensive as the creation of a virtually new nuclear submarine of the fourth generation, which is now underway.

"It is clear for me that the prospective construction of aircraft carriers has been related to the distant future - it is not fully included in the state program of armaments, which will last before 2020. This is too costly a case. The state budget will not be able to cope with several areas of fleet modernization...

"A year ago, I remember, the Command of the Navy sent the draft of Russia's first nuclear aircraft carrier with estimated displacement of 60,000 tons to further development. The project was developed jointly by the Krylov Shipbuilding Research Institute and Nevsky Design Bureau. The project was based mainly on the technology of the 1980s.

"The offered the Russian Navy, in fact, the old Soviet aircraft carrier, Ulyanovsk, which was never built due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes, at the end of the 1980s, it would have been a modern aircraft carrier, an adequate response to U.S. aircraft carriers, such as Nimitz. But by 2020, the U.S. will already have state-of-the-art floating airfields of Gerald Ford series that are almost twice the size of the ship proposed by the above-mentioned designers. So there is a lot of work to be done."

Russia does not have key technologies to produce a full-fledged aircraft carrier. There is no, for example, full-fledged airplane catapult. The only current heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, Admiral Kuznetsov, which became part of the Northern Fleet in January 1991, is equipped with a take-off ramp, rather than a catapult.

In general, a full-fledged domestic aircraft carrier is basically a matter of distant future. But once they have decided to build them, adequate measures should be taken already now.

The state program of armaments before 2020 does no contain anything about the construction of new aircraft carriers. In the long term, it was decided that Russia would have two carrier battle groups - in the Pacific and Northern fleets.

It was also decided that new aircraft carriers will be nuclear-powered vessels, although their number has not been specified. To crown it all, it was determined that the construction of the new Russian aircraft carrier will be conducted at two different shipyards in a modular fashion.

In was previously reported in specialized shipbuilding press that the Russian Navy was completing specifications for a new aircraft carrier. It initial appearance will be determined as early as in 2015, and the final draft of the ship should be ready by 2018.

The first ship of the real aircraft carrier class was expected to be lowered on the water for finishing works in 2024. By this time, the navy has to complete the formation of escort groups for each aircraft carrier. The group will consist of missile cruisers, destroyers, submarines, frigates, corvettes, landing ships and support vessels including icebreakers for the Arctic zone - about 10-15 ships in each group.

Along with the construction of aircraft carriers, the military will create new bases for their maintenance, as well as pilot training facilities.

Under to the state program of armaments before 2020, it is planned to conduct a large-scale modernization of Project 1143 Admiral Kuznetsov (before 2020). The not enough reliable boiler-turbine power plant will be replaced with a gas-turbine or nuclear power plant.

The aviation fleet of the modernized ship will consist of 26 new MiG -29K. Plus, the Navy has the intention to extend the resource for heavy carrier-based fighters Su-33 (20 aircraft) for at least five years, or before 2025. In addition, it goes about helicopters and the naval version of the fifth-generation fighter PAK FA T-50, which is now being developed.

In early 2012, Russia launched the modernization of ten transport and combat helicopters Ka-29 designed for deployment on Russian Mistral vessels (purchased from France). The on-board equipment and weapons systems of the helicopter will be upgraded to modern standards.

By 2014, the Navy of Russia will adopt the naval version of the Ka-62 Killer Whale chopper. They will be based on smaller ships, particularly on 20380 Project corvettes.

From 2014 to 2016, MiG Corporation is to deliver 20 single-seat MiG- 29K fighters and four double-seat MiG-29KUB to naval aviation. The aircraft will be part of a separate naval regiment of the Russian Northern Fleet and will be based on the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.


he he he he poasters like you are realli hillarious lolzzz


who made the Waryag/floating casino/or now the so called"training ship ":azn:

apka wahi haal hai bhai jaan = ;jo muft me de uski jay jay kaar aur jo na de uski aisee ki taisee;:omghaha:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
That's it. You did not develop anti-ship missiles . You built aircraft carriers. And we have been developing missiles that can fight aircraft carriers.

Right...we never developed any anti ship missiles and just only built aircraft carriers. You never read my response on what I put out.

Or can't comprehend.
 
.
Right...we never developed any anti ship missiles and just only built aircraft carriers. You never read my response on what I put out.

Or can't comprehend.

I did not mean that you did not make anti-ship missiles at all. I mean, at that time while Americans developed direction of aircraft carriers, Russian developed direction of missiles capable of destroying aircraft carriers.
Someone makes a sword, someone shield - right?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom