Because, I think such a debate is total nonsense……..

Yet, for one more second just to humor you. Why did Russia not go for Catapults on the Kuznetsov and go with a Ski Jump instead? Because it’s somehow far more efficient………Because the Aircraft that use a Ski Jump carry heavier payloads and have higher storie rates. PLEASE

Sorry, this whole debate is boarding on ridiculous.

Steam catapuilts were invented in the 1950s, you can’t argue with that no matter how hard you try. It’s also pretty much common knowledge that the USSR were to use aircraft carriers in different ways to the Western navies; fixed wing aircraft of the Kuznetsov were there primarily for air defence, so less need for heavy payloads of air to ground munitions, so no need for USSR to develop their own steam cats. Also worth pointing out that the USSR was intending to use catapuilts on its follow up design project 1153.

Sorry, not interested in debating this point anymore. Your position hardly holds water in my opinion.

Will just have to agree to disagree….

All fine with me, I’ve given you examples and explained the facts, you haven’t given anything in return except unsubstantiated opinon.

Are you really trying to tell the members of this forum. That the Admiral Kuznetsov Class Carriers. Wasn’t a massive Technological and Complex untaking for Russia. Which, was a leading World Power at the time!

BTW If, Launching and Recovering Fixed Wing Aircraft was so simple. Why do you think Russia. (i.e. Former USSR) Didn’t include them when it designed and developed the Kuznetsov in the first place???:confused:

No I’m not trying to tell the members of this forum anything, I’m telling you since you’re the only person arguing.

Regarding you’re points about the Kuznetsov; I’m a little confused why you’re even bringing them up, what does it matter if it was a complex undertaking or not? it’s a 50,000 tonne ship combining the capabilities of an aircraft carrier and a missile cruiser and the countries first ever proper aircraft carrier, there will always be challenges when building a ship like this for the first time, but not because the launching of aircraft requires anything particularly technologically demanding.

As for your point about the Kuznetsov not being designed as an aircraft carrier from the off, I don’t know, perhaps the USSR did not believe it required an aircraft carrier, the history of the USSR navy suggests raethr strongly that SSNs were a much greater priority. The fact that USSR has huge land borders rather implies that it didn’t need the expeditionary power that aircraft carriers provide, the fact that the USSR surface fleet was designed around sea denial rather backs up the point.

You still haven’t provided proof that the launching of fixed wing aircraft requires any particularly demanding technology, ships have been launching and recovering aircraft since the 1910s, all of the technology that necessitates this has been around for decades, even the technology that refined it (steam cats and optical landing aids) has been around since the 1950s.

I listed the HMS Ocean because it was a simple Carrier (Air Capable Ship) built to Commercial Standards.

As for the Invincible and Kuznetsov are both over 30 years old and were complex for their time. The Cavour is brand New and it’s half Carrier and half LHA. Which, I would consider complex.

BTW If, Carriers were so simple. More countries could afford to design and build them.

The ships you list are complex by design not by necessity.

The only thing that seperates an LPH from an aircraft carrier is the ability to operate fixed wing aircraft.

The reason that more countries don’t operate them is because they are expensive not because they are technologically advanced.

LOL:rolleyes:

The Largest and most Complex Warships ever built……..PLEASE

Large and complex does not necessarily equal technologically advanced. The USN might build 90,000 metric tonne technological monstrosities but there is nothing that says an aircraft carrier has to be technoligcally advanced in the slightest, in fact there are a number that exist which are significantly less advanced than some navy’s escorts.

Thanks Swerve,

There have been some discussions on ARRSE, Think Defence and couple of other sites when I have googled the subject suggesting that FAC’s where a good way of cheaply deploying force. The most realistic suggestion was from Think Defence, which if I understood correctly, it was suggested that FAC’s might provide naval fire support during amphibious assault’s. I think the FAC’s they where discussing were a lot smaller than the Roussen’s, which seem to be at the upper limit of a FAC, and I may have confused the idea with large combat boats equipped with NEMO.

However I generally could not see a need for FAC’s, but I assumed it was simply my personal distaste for ships which lack full spectrum capabilities, so I had a long hard think and in the end the only environment I could see them be useful is the Falkland Islands and as you say they would need to be covered by RAF to be useful.

A separate discussion might be what is going to replace HMS Clyde when it goes into refit next year.

Sounds like what you really want is a monitor (or a modern equivilent), outside of a total war scenario I don’t see how the MOD could justify the expense of building any.

I don’t really see anywhere that the RN could usefully employ a proper FAC.

6 won’t fit in a -B.

Not really relevant anymore since we’re not buying the B anyway.

Selling second hand equipment to buy new would not raise the money that would be required.