Wolverines got it dead on the nail for the most part. In the highly artificial world of forum combat if these two groups are seeking to attack each other and can’t draw on any inorganic resource we get the strangest naval engagement in history!.

Two groups sniffing around each other trying to get an ESM fix and both doing everything possible to deny the other precisely the same or decoy it into a trap!. It’d be ludicrous or hilarious depending on your perspective. Think Midway with jetfighters!.

The one thing I disgree with would be the ‘Once you detect something with so many electronic ears you cannot hide for long.’ part. Not so – both would do very, very well to actually hold a contact for long enough to assemble a weighted long-range strike and the possibility that the contact being ‘held’ might just turn out to be a group of area-SAM ships waiting to absorb an AShM strike and direct in an airborne ambush on the strikers might make the proposition decidedly dodgy!.

Would be one hell of an exercise to try and model!!.

Fascinating work Clear War. Utter tosh, but, very detailed tosh for it.

The key point in that seems to be that humans cant work outside of the Earths atmosphere no matter what protective suits/vehicles are employed to prevent them becoming a boil-in-the-bag-human culinary delight?.

Well humans seem to have effectively assembled large sections of the International Space Station in vacuum conditions and in direct path solar illumination. Seems to me that the backyard experiments proving manual dexterity in a vacuum is impossible could stand some re-examination. I’m told the ISS can be seen in orbit with a conventional telescope so thats a damn good hoax if the global aerospace community has pulled it off! :rolleyes:

Sort of disproves the whole thermal regulation problem as well doesnt it?. As does the existence of Salyut, Skylab, Mir etc!. Surely if irreversible solar heating was the problem you describe there would be lots of dead astronauts and cosmonauts baked in those platforms – or was the real reason for the crashes of Skylab and Mir to hide the bodies perhaps?? 😮

These platforms were all obviously inside the envelope of the Van Allen so the radiation issue isnt addressed here, but, we go back to my original point. A respected British astronomer is on record saying, early in his career, he observed the missions progress out to the moon with some of the most advanced equipment then available to mankind. Jodrell Bank certainly wasnt tracking something in a studio in the continental US!.

I repeat the issue of definitive physical evidence of the presence of humans on the moon, physical evidence in the form of an experiment that is actually in use today primarily by the French and was augmented by Soviet space technology, and you come back with the statement that the Soviets lied too???! 😮

Can you not see how far you are stretching credibility here. Your statement now has the Soviet Union as an accomplice to their own ‘defeat’ in one of the greatest challenges in the Cold War. Further they spent the lives of highly trained people and huge amounts of national treasure in propagating the myth that humans could exist in space pursuing their space station programmes and are still doing it with the ISS?.

…and the best you can offer to support this extravagant fairy-story is a few photo’s that could be at best 50-50 and some backyard science performed by people who’re striving to prove their own agenda?!.

I can only speak for myself but you’ll have to do a lot better than that!.

Your point being?

So let me get this straight – you are ignoring, utterly, the evidence of a respected astronomer who was onsite at one of the foremost radio observatories of the time during the actual mission. Further you are ignoring the physical evidence of those manned missions by the international use of the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector system.

Instead you are pointing out miniscule and tenuous details in photographs that could easily be explained away by the vagueries of the environment they were taken in?.

Despite this you are suprised, shocked and offended when people call your judgement into question here are you?.

Edit: I just realised whats really wrong with these photo’s that SSS is so bent out of shape about. Neither of them have ‘USA’ emblazoned all over them. Proves his earlier contention rather false doesnt it!!! :rolleyes:

Erm Gollevainen take look at Kuznetsov. It has a VLS fit for P-700 SSMs intruding into the spaces where the for’d section of hangar should be. Removing the VLS and adapting the belowdecks structure in the forward section – should allow for the extension of the hangar.

Perhaps I chose a poor term in ‘hangar stretch’ and you assumed I was meaning a hull-plug or something (though I have seen this performed very successfully on liners and merchies) which clearly wasn’t where I was going.

But what comes the possiple aircroup…theoretically Gorhskov can field about 30 MiG-29 (wiht only few plane guard Helos) and the theoretical ammount of Su-33 in Varyag can be counted from the ahngar measures and the available deckparking areas

Just to get this straight you are suggesting that Gorshkov can embark 30 MiG-29’s?. In what configuration?. Would you expect them to be able to maintain a flying programme with that number of aircraft embarked?. What about radar-picket choppers?. Need a very good source before I’ll believe that one I’m afraid!.

Star49

Which aircraft carrier on stand alone basis can face Flanker force backed with AWACS? aircraft carrier planes will be busy defending itself let alone doing any kind of offensive operation which needs external fuel tanks or refuelling.

A Charles de Gaulle class should be able to do it, PA-2 should be even more able. A US CVN group practises this sort of thing regularly. Remember were not talking about 200 Flankers here – we’re talking about the deployable airwing of a Kuznetsov class carrier.

Turbinia,

Why do these threads on a imaginery battle between A & B always assume you can judge a ship and it’s performance by published brochure figures? What about crew training, mechanical reliability, true capability (as opposed to brochure capability, a very different thing), tactical doctrine, will to fight, location of the fighting, logistics, condition of the vessels etc. etc? All of these tend to be a lot more important than the published brochure figures, half of which are little more than wishful thinking.

Valid points all. It is legitimate to ‘assume’ parity in those areas you highlight for the purpose of comparitive evaluation though. At a, greatly simplified, level the size of airgroup does factor in to the combat potential of a vessel and the size of the vessel does place limits on the size of that airgroup.

The permutations of how that airgroup size effects the efficiency of air ops – more aircraft=more deck movements per reconfiguration=greater load on consumable stores etc – are hideously complex and far beyond the level of what could be done for an aviation enthusiast forum like this. Probably if anyone did actually have the time to attempt such an analysis (if certain factors actually could be calculated seeing this is all theoretical anyway!) they would bounce up against IN or PLAN OpSec regs anyway!.

Basically Scooter’s been around long enough to know his question will only be answered at the most basic and superficial level. Once you accept that then, hopefully, you’ll see that the critical factors you’ve identified can be glossed over to some extent.

There is NO Laser Rang Reflectors on the moon, it’s a NASA lie, think about it, if they never went then there should’nt be any up there, my 2 arguments are proof that NASA faked it. “How come NASA never “TESTED” a remote controlled Lunar Module “HUNDREDS” if not “THOUSANDS” of times before actually sending real “Humans” on it (Apollo 11-17) haven’t you noticed that?? come on man, you don’t really believe Armstrong and them, plus NASA would have really sent Humans WAY out to the moon with out first testing this Technology “HUNDREDS” of times do you??,

Utter cr@p. The initial experiments set up by Apollo 11 proved so valuable that additional reflectors were sent on the follow on Apollo 14, Apollo 15, and even on the Russian Lunakhod 2 missions.

The units reflect lasers generated from earth stations in Texas, Hawaii, France, California, Australia, Russia, and Germany. So this conspiracy of the Americans seems to be pretty all encompassing suddenly doesn’t it!. Now they even have the french and Germans lying for them – good trick that one!.
The Russians are obviously just using the reflector they sent up as, surely, they wouldn’t be complicit in a fraud that saw them ‘lose’ the space race!!!. For chrissakes man do some basic research before you make yourself look an utter clown.

SSS-666

Not interested in speaking to a man who tracked the progress of the Apollo 11 vehicle to the moon then?. Thought you might not be – that would require too much intellectual honesty!.

Pretty pictures by the way. Did it never occur to you that other photo’s from the mission exist that dont show the ‘stars and stripes’ so prominently but NASA chose to release the ones that do for PR reasons?. Just a thought! :rolleyes:

Short answer, Scot, is that it depends where the fight takes place. Neither carrier offers sufficient capability to conduct offensive operations in the face of the opponents land-based AWACS coverage (which presumably by the time both of these vessels would be operational both would posses!!).

You could argue that a Chinese Kusnetsov would survive longer in the IO than Vikramaditya would in the South China Sea by virtue of a (theoretical) larger airgroup and the higher combat persistence of Su-33 over Fulcrum-K but it’d be a largely academic advantage.

Why is this Lunar landing hoax thing so hard to finally debunk?!.

Living in the north-west of England the Jodrell Bank Observatory is a place I’ve visited frequently since I was a small boy and I’ve spoken to astronomers there who remember the moon landings clearly. They were tracking unmanned Soviet lunar orbiters/landers years before the Apollo 11 mission and they tracked that mission all the way out.

This is a quote from an astronomer, Ian Morrison (now the noted astronomer Prof. Ian Morrison), who was at the Observatory during the mission. Prof Morrison, IIRC, still actually works at Jodrell under the auspices of the University of Manchester and I’ve seen his work email address on the net. Perhaps you’d care to mail him SSS and ask his opinion of what he saw on the day in question?.

IAN MORRISON:
At the time of Apollo 11 the, the first American craft to land, the Eagle, in fact the Russians were attempting to soft land a craft, to scoop some soil up and bring it back to Earth and perhaps actually beat the Americans in doing so. Sadly it crashed in the Sea of Crisis. So it was really quite exciting and quite tense. We were actually observing both of these things simultaneously and trying to see who might win that particular race.

So, if its indisputable that we (humankind) had the technology to dispatch vehicles capable of orbiting the moon and had the technology to set landers down on the surface why is it hard to accept that this could be evolved to send men?.

There is also the matter of the Laser Ranging Retro-Reflector system which seems to be repeatedly ignored here, least I’ve not seen it answered. Should I take it, to the conspiracy theorists this system was placed up there on an earlier unmanned mission to provide fake proof of the manned landings? :rolleyes: