sealordlawrenceSo why don’t they call it a NPAS?
Good question, to which I confess I do not know the answers.
sealordlawrenceWot’s a SSN?
Nuclear powered attack submarine.;)
sealordlawrenceWot’s a SSN?
Nuclear powered attack submarine.;)
sealordlawrenceFrightening how quickly the target went down. I had a cousin who was on HMS Matabele and apparently she went down in a minute or so when she was torpedoed in arctic waters. Suddenly makes a family story more chillingly real – I gather there were only a couple of survivors and I can see why.
Torpedoes against unprotected ships are devastating as the video proves. Even armoured vessels are vulnerable, remember the Belgrano?;) A modern heavy weight homing torpedo will easily break a ships keel and send it to the bottom in very short shrift. The most powerful anti ship asset in the Falklands was not the Exocet but the British SSN’s.
sealordlawrenceFrightening how quickly the target went down. I had a cousin who was on HMS Matabele and apparently she went down in a minute or so when she was torpedoed in arctic waters. Suddenly makes a family story more chillingly real – I gather there were only a couple of survivors and I can see why.
Torpedoes against unprotected ships are devastating as the video proves. Even armoured vessels are vulnerable, remember the Belgrano?;) A modern heavy weight homing torpedo will easily break a ships keel and send it to the bottom in very short shrift. The most powerful anti ship asset in the Falklands was not the Exocet but the British SSN’s.
sealordlawrenceComments? Start building ADs and get the fastmovers out of the desert. Five years ago!
I wonder what the ops budget will look like with a maintenance hog like the Tornado in a location like Afghanistan.
Yes, yes ,yes. Incidently the last time the RAF had a proper CAS aircraft (and that was only very briefly if at all) was 1918.:eek:
sealordlawrenceSince your English is lacking, I’ll have to explain this a little more in depth. You suggest that the Gorshkov would be put out of active duty soon after the IAC was up, and therefore suggested that the vessel is a waste of money for India. Since the IAC is no where to be seen, this is clearly nonsense (the point I was making). That is all.
No, I never said that Gorschkov was a waste of money for that reason, if I did you would be able to qoute me, once again you have resorted to lying.:mad:
sealordlawrenceWhat is so western about having a CBG and even if it is , it is suppose to solve a problem at hand or a couple of them.
Western CV’s, in their current form, are offensive, Russia has never posessed an offensive CV. Russian carriers are designed for a very specific role.
Russia has global power ambition , it needs Carrier and all that armada for it , what Russia needs is defined by its armed forces , the RuN has time and again mentioned they need Carrier fleet in long term .
Russia straddles, both Asia and Europe, it will soon have an open and smallish sea border with the Americas, it does not need carriers to be a Global power.
Carrier is certainly the best way to protect ones asset from air attacks in the open sea and gives the flexibility to attack land asset any where without having need to establish military base close by.
Only if your fleet is going to be going a very long way away from your own coastline, given the range of Russian land based fighters and the current naval procurement plans there seems to be little if any need for organic ship based naval air defence.
The flexibility and power projection offered by CBG is tremendous.
But not as tremendous as land based assets within range.
The plan is certainly for long term may be by 2025-30 they manage to build 2 carrier it would be nice.
No it is in the minds of the Russian Admirals, just as it is in the minds of most of the worlds other Admirals.
Russian will upgrade yards to build the new carrier , did India have any yards to build an aircraft carrier , till IAC ( 38,000 T ) project came and they upgraded the Cochin yard for it.
Well they had better get on with it then, but your own projections have already contradicted what the Admiral said.:rolleyes:
Russia has still some 6 years when they start building these carrier ( ~ 2014-15 ) , sufficient time to upgrade their yards to build big ship.
Except there is no evidence in existing procurement plans for the construction of these carriers.
Sure , it also mean RuN can use Naval version of PAK-FA for its future carrier fleet.
Emphasis on the word CAN.
If they didnt have plans the admirals would not have gone public with it , they know their limitations and requirements and hence they said they would start building by 2014.
Yes they would, its called internal politics, fact is that there is unlikely to be any Russian carrier laid down prior to 2015 and even after that is dubious. The Admirals might want carriers but the government is not coughing up.
Every admirals have their dreams 😉
Exactly, and they rarely come true.
The late model Victor III were as good as well , hence they were dedicated for ASW operation against US fleet ( this is per ONI and Norman Polmar )
I never said that they were not good, just not as good as an LA.
I am talking about 88-89 they had 4-5 Akula and 2 Sierra by then
Wow, huge fleet, now go and count how many SSBN’s the the US had by then and you realise why the Russians had to use the Victor III.
sealordlawrenceWhy do you think having a CBG is of dubious use for RuN , when the US/UK/French/India/Italy finds it as an instrument of maintaining forward presence at sea , providing Air Cover to assets at sea and influencing battle at land.
Why are you obsessed with turning the Russian navy into a western one? The Russian navy is based upon a unique situation and consequently has a unique set of doctrines and operational techniques. This is seen in the history of Russian carrier development.
Infact RuN would think building a fleet of Carrier as their next goal in ship building and a way to modernise its navy and keep it abreast with the other powers and powers to be ( china , india etc )
Not at all. Th fact is that there are absolutely no plans whatsoever for new build Russian carriers for at least a decade. The current Russian navy modernisation has yet to see anything larger than a frigate laid down and there are no shipyards in Russia with any experience of building carriers. And, as I have explained before, it is the Russian government that determines Russian defence procurement not the wet dreams of the Russian admirals.
The fact that India will also develop a Naval variant of PAK-FA ( per Janes ) means that future RuN carrier will also have something similar.
No it means that India will develop a carrier version of the PAK-FA.
Yes the plan 2007 – 2015 has no provision for carrier and has preference for submarine and surface ship.
That is the point, no plans.
But if they think its important and certainly a Carrier take good 8 years to be build they can have budgetary grants outside such plans and may start building it by 2014 as the admirals suggested
Pure fantasy, there is no evidence in the procurement plans that any such thing will happen.
Certainly they are serious about having a carrier fleet , when that translates into action remains to be seen.
Yes the Admirals are dreaming about it very hard.
The late model Victor III is certainly as quite as the late model LA class , perhaps this may be due to Malakhit cross polinating from what they learnt building Akula and Improved Akula class SSN ( incorporating SOKS etc )
No it is not, the early Akulas likely match the late model LA’s but the Victor III’s do not.
Infact according to Malakhit chief designer ( in reference to Akula SSN ) that there were no batch production of Akula , every new Akula had technologies and improvements made by scientific organisation during the period made and incorporated into it. hence each sub had difference from the previous launched sister sub.
I never mentioned the Akula’s but it is common knowledge that each individual unit is essentially a class to itself.
according to ONI the Soviets extensively used their latter Victor III in dedicated ASW operation ( tracking SSBN/SSN ) of the US coast in late 80’s ( according to Norman Polmar )
Of course they did, how many Akulas and Sierras did they have then?
sealordlawrenceSorry to dig this thread up but I found this excellent picture today and thought that it was worthy of a post, i just hope the link works!
http://www.transportarchive.org.uk/getobject.php?rnum=G1984&searchitem=&mtv=G1&pnum=32
In addition does anybody have any details on the planned Bristol Britannia Series 4?
Thank you in advance sealordlawrence.
sealordlawrencesealordlawrence , why do you think the Russian Government would not like the RuN to have an Aircraft carrier ?
Atleast 2 Russian admiral Mosorin , and the present guy advocated Aircraft carrier , so some where the General Staff in the RuN has some common opinion on what the RuN needs in the future.
I never said that the Russian government did not want the Russian navy to have an aircraft carrier, just that they have not funded one for the foreseeable decades. The chiefs of staff of all the worlds armed forces will tell you what they think they need but that does not mean they will get it. The procurement plan to 2015 has been published and there is no aircraft carrier in it, rumour has it that there is not one in the plans to 2030 either.
As for the Victor-III, Neptunes posts explain it pretty well, but remember, just because a submarine can track another it does not mean that it is quieter than the one it is tracking.;)
sealordlawrenceHi Snake65 , couple of quick questions
1 ) What is the fascination of RuN to build large displacement SSN , like the nearly 12000 T Akula2 or the ~ 11000 T Yasen , Even in US the Seawolf has been criticized for its large size.
2 ) What about the plans to build smaller ~ 5000 – 6000 Tons submarine , this is something future RN and French SSN force of SSN would be like.
3 ) Are there any figures for future SSN and SSBN force the RuN would like to keep , ex RuN Admiral have quote figures of 50 SSN and 15 SSBN ?
What about maintaining number of SSK force ?
4 ) Are there any plans to overhaul newer Victor 3 SSN ? since these are very capable SSN as good as American improved LA class SSN.
2)The British and French SSN fleets are nothing alike, the Astute will be 3000tonnes+ the size of the Barracuda. The Astute are far and away the biggest SSN’s the British have ever built.
3)Ignore what the Russian navy says it wants (as I mention in my response to the Aircraft carrier article) and look at what is actually in the procurement plans to 2015 and later. It is the Russian government that decides what the Russian navy gets and not the Russian navy.
4)Victor III is unlikely to be as good as the improved LA class despite what the fan boys might like to hear, the Akulas are probably a better match.
sealordlawrenceRussia to have 5-6 aircraft carriers in Northern, Pacific Fleets
ST. PETERSBURG, July 27 (RIA Novosti) – Russia will create 5-6 aircraft carrier groups in the Northern and Pacific Fleets, the Navy commander said on Sunday.
Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said the Navy command had decided to build sea-borne aircraft carrier systems for these fleets instead of simply aircraft carriers.
“Everything must work in a system, including aircraft carriers. We have called them sea-borne aircraft carrier systems, which will be based in the Northern and Pacific Fleets. The construction of such systems will begin after 2012,” Vysotsky said before reviewing a military parade on the occasion of Navy Day in Russia.
Vysotsky said new sea-borne aircraft carrier systems will operate in close contact with Russia’s orbital group of military satellites, and also with the Air Force and air defense.
At present, Russia has only one operational aircraft carrier, the Nikolai Kuznetsov, which was commissioned in the early 1990s and has recently re-entered service after a prolonged overhaul.
The ship, also known as Project 1143.5 heavy aircraft carrier, is currently deployed with Russia’s Northern Fleet and has recently participated in a two-month tour to the Mediterranean as part of Russia’s plans to resume its continual presence in different regions of the world’s seas.
Dont get carried away with this, the Russian navy repeatedly raises the spectre of carrier procurement but none are funded to 2015 and it is reported that none are in the shipbuilding plans before 2030, plans for after that period having not been made yet.
On the issue of SSN missiles, do we know that a sub launched version of the Kh-101 has been developed, or is the Kh-555 a more likely contender?
sealordlawrenceOnly a answer to this stupid troll post!
We should not forget:
1. One YF-22 irreparable damaged, considered a total loss.
2. One F-22 total loss!
And, they are both stupid Troll posts which makes you a stupid Troll as well, as does the above qouted Raptor obsessed post.:mad:
sealordlawrenceWell when there is no casualty it isn’t nearly as bad.
For once I agree with sens, accidents are not funny and the original post was nothing but a pathetic troll.
Sign In
