StevoJHProof is plenty. The second batch of Sov has upgraded Mostkit. Just the pirce of single ship is $700M in 1998 dollars. In today prices it is $2B per ship.
And last time i checked, only the Chinese have them. They still don’t have a long range SAM similar to the Burke, T45, Horizon, Kirov or Slava though.
Tu-160 is added at 1 per year. Tu-22 has role to play for next 30 years. the new bomber is PAK-DA.
As i said, neither a “new” aircraft, the Tu22M is of the same generation as the B1A, and the Tu-160 is the same generation of the later B1B.
[quote]Road and Rail can carry alot more and faster than Ships if all nodes are connected. Russian and Chinese railways budgets are far higher than what they are spending on Ships. ur looking at minimum of $20b per year capex for each of them.[quote]
Possibly, but for trade between countries, Sea is faster, and for trade with countries on a different continent or that are islands, it is the only option. Its also the only reaslistic way to carry bulk cargos. Maybe that would change if most countries used the same gauge of Railway line, but they don’t.
The role of MIG-31 is protect other bombers and fighter bombers but in upgrades it is become multirole but it wont need that as other platforms are plenty. why u need persistence? Job of persistence is for satellites or AWACS to provide real time data of sitution. for preparation of mass attacks round the clock with fighters. Single ship can barely fire couple of antiship missiles or if it is large cruser couple of subsonic crusie missiles that can be easily shot down. while it is sitting ducks for Submarines and airpower.
Are you talking about a blockade or just trying to wipe out anyshipping coming through a particular point? The problem with Airpower is that high operational tempos are hard to keep up, not to mention that the enemy can alway assemble a convoy and give it a heavy aerial and sea based escort through the danger zone, the presence of sea units of your own makes this much more difficult.
Russia has alot more money than any country on earth to spare. There is complete new bomber coming up.
Ok, found the Budget report released by the russian government last year, its slightly scary actually (glad i don’t live in russia). Based on values released by the russian government, based on todays (very favourable) exchange rate, the 2007(Jan-Dec) GDP was 1.268 trillion US. Government Revenue was 90.8% of this amount, or 1.15 trillion US. Of this amount, government expenditure was roughly 801 billion, leaving a surplus of 349 billion dollars US.
F-18/Rafale are barely Mach 1.6 and with weopons hardly it can go over Mach 1.5. Compare this with upgrade Flankers and Foxhounds. where passig Mach 2.5 is not big problem Nor is superonic long range missiles for both Sead and Antiship. They have the right approach. Land based AWACS has several times the raw power of carrier based AWACS.
Speed is irrelevant in combat except for the ability to get off the deck and up to altitude quickly. Maneuverability and the presence of good avionics (which the western planes have, the russian planes are slowly being upgraded from their 1980’s level electronics).
Venuzuella is resource rich country. No need to travel cargo. And If Venzuella needs Russia can provide permanent readiness of Airforce units. No need for carrier.
They export their Oil by Tanker, and a lot of their goods would be imported from the US and China……..by Ship!
Thats the point ur not getting it. Carrier is usefull against third rate power.
And against third power u can just send bombers as they have no ability of intercepting it as EW and communication suite of bombers alot more powerful
But dominant foe that can thriow every thing from Billistic missiles to submarines to mines to mass attacks against carriers on continous basis. Carriers are sitting ducks. What Would have happened to those Seaharriers if RN would faced first rate airforce. that can generate thousands of sorties per day. i am not going into sub lauched torpedoes and missiles guided by satellites with real time information coming for land based AWACS. This thing is pointless.
-Bombers are much more vulnerable then fighters are, and even the most third world of countries can afford to buy naval mines.
-Ballistic missiles are useless against a maneuvering target at sea.
-You have ASW ships and your own Submarines to fight off enemy submarines.
-The number of countries in the world who can currently generate over 1000 sorties per day on an anti-shipping attack profile is currently zero.
-You would have to be very unlucky to hit a mine in a blue water situation where you will find the carriers, they are mainly useful in the littorals such as for example the Persian Gulf, or to use your example, san carlos bay in the falkland islands where the Marines and Para’s landed in 1982.
-The problem with Anti-ship missiles launched over the horizon is that in order to ensure they find the target, the targets location must be continually tracked with the data passed on to the missiles, this requires that their is a satalite continually overhead, or the targets are being makes by a helicopter (suicide).
-Land based AWACs are not a problem for a Carrier as long as it has its own AWAC’s or even an ELINT aircraft capable of tracking the enemy AWAC’s transmissions.
-The sea Harriers were very capable aircraft, the FA.2 version introduced in the early 1990’s was for example the first european aircraft able to launch AMRAAM missiles.
-But i suppose if you really want to make the point, i guess that in that situation the UK would have taken Reagan up on his offer and the Argentinians would have been facing the “HMS Forrestal” or “HMS Midway” carrying a full load of F4K’s and Buccaneers reacquired from the Royal Air Force.
StevoJHThey are in perfect operational condition infact they have improved upon them. The second batch of Sov that were delivered to PLAN has enhanced capability of Moskit. It is not the 80s era missiles. u should understand that Russia under capitalism is alot more power than entire West under capitalist system just like Soviet Union under communist system was alot more powerful than East Germany and China.
Proof please.
These are the best and most efficient platforms. thats why they will stay in operational service for next 30 years. But no Western ship has 50 year life to compete with Backfire. It is fundamental concept that is sound. u go fast and high and restock for next mission. It is the superiority of Russian systems thats why they dont need to spend that much of defence to produce the same effect.
These aircraft being in service for the next 30 years is more because you cannot afford to replace them with a more modern alternative such as an upgraded Tu160 on cost grounds.
By the time the B-52 is retired, it will have been in service for 70 or 80 years, same reason, its cheaper to maintain and operate then the B1’s and B2’s.
U dont need to buld ships to achieve the desire economic blockade result. As i said ur living in bygone area.
First u remove ur trade dependence from Sea. than sent MIG-31BM/Su-27SM with antiship missiles to punch certain Oil and raw material Supertankers and insurance rates goes up for that country or just airdrop mines. The key thing is establishing air superiority. Upgraded Flanker can go upto 7000km with one airrefuelling and since it has deep tanks it can be refuelled far away from battle zone. u can have all the ships in empty water they are sitting ducks like tanks for airpower as airpowr gives alot of energy to missile system. Every country is looking for overaland routes. from SK/China/Turkey/Iran/Mongolia. Russia is the center of the world both for air travel and land transport.
Road and Rail cannot carry the same quantity of goods over the same distances that Sea Transport can.
Mig-31 is an interceptor and the probability of it ever being given an anti-ship missile and given an offensive role is something along the lines of 0
Aircraft do not have the persistance of Ships and due to things such as maintenance and crew rest that cannot be avoided, many squadrons of fighters would be needed to carry out the same role as a single ship. Not to mention that you can’t exactly board and inspect a cargo ship from a Mig or SU.
Aircraft u can built in much greater quantity. So u can alternate between bombers. Thats why there is 5th generation bombers coming from Russia and production capapcities are increasing in very massive scale. u can invest more money in 5 th generation SAMs. hardened the military infrastructure so that small bombs and cruise missiles cannot penterated.
No aircraft carrier or combination aircraft carriers can challenge a dominat airpower with more powerfu missiles. Aircraft carriers based aircraft donot have the range, support and AWACS size to match what land foe can thrown at them.
it is the investment in airpower that pays off from passenger travel to round the clock survellence., air refuellers. Cargo is by trains/trucks any way. and if Russia has to support its friends in Latin America. It is better to base 200 to 300 combat aircraft from land bases with Strategic SAMs. Aircraft carrier cannot operate without friendly countries or support land bases. No matter how big is the aircraft carrier.
-Only if you have the money to produce them in quantity (Russia doesnt).
-What 5th generation bomber? TU-22M and TU160 are of the same vintage as the B1A and B1B. (1970’s & 80’s).
-Many carrier based aircraft do have the range of their land based counterparts, and the E2 is a good enough AWACS for what it does.
-Both landbased and sea base aircraft use the same missiles, so i dont know what “more powerful missiles” the Russian Landbased aircraft have over the US or French sea base aircraft.
-Cargo cannot travel from Russia to Venezuela by truck, and the quantities transportable by air are to small.
And finally, the very point of having an aircraft carrier is so that you CAN operate without the aid or friendly countries or land bases. For example the Falkland island taskforce was entirely supported by tankers with everything brought down from the UK by ship, they did not have to use any land bases in south america.
StevoJHAs much of a joke as a carrier that’s been hit by even ONE SS-N-19? 😀
Of course they have to know where the target is first……..
StevoJHThere are some other French inputs. For example, IIRC crew accommodation design & positioning was revised after seeing French proposals.
The bow was redesigned to increase speed.
StevoJHSurely if u can pass the ring of MIG-31 and mobile SAMs system of Russian air defence while Russia is practically free to maul the whole Middleast along with tankers in open seas.. EU is completely at mercy of Russia. Turkey knows it and Israel knows it but deluded politicians of EU havent catchup with this reality. Always find themselevs in situation with pants down.
Sure, and turkey alone have 48 medium range and 86 short range SAM batteries that are relatively modern.
Of course they also have 218 F16’s, 123 F4’s and 87 F5’s. The F4’s and F5’s all heavily upgraded by israel.
Plus there are not all that many Mig 31’s and their long range missiles (their only advantage) are designed for shooting down bombers not fighters.
One thing is for sure they are far better than any EU force anywhere in the world. They spent 10 to 20 years fighting wars that EU can only dream off if Russia chose to take on the other side.
Wait, when you LOST in afganistan? or when you let irregular troops run riot in Chechniya to finish off the seperatists that the russian army couldn’t beat?
What do you call Northern Ireland?
Dont have the money to moblize even 100 tanks.
And you have proof of this?
Read Iran/Algeria/ Suez canal crisesVietnam. It is Soviet Union(Russia) efforts that decolonize the whole Africa.
Once Russia put its foot on Syria and turn the screws on afghanistan there is little West can do but ask for mercy.
ROFLMAO
Decolonisation was going to happen anyway, it began in the 1940’s straight after World War 2, the british just stuck around long enough in their former colonies to remove the insurgent before giving them independence, and the wonderful people from Afghanistan are if anything going to hate Russians more then they hate NATO.
StevoJHwhat is mean by neutral environment. russia can create neutral enviornment as its oil fields are far away but all the neigboring nations pipelines and sea fleests are under its nose.
Surely u havent been to this year crimean exercises. Thousands of airdrops were involved.
These countries will not survive for single day for full frontal assualt. Turks knows it and Isrealis knows. Poles have 5 decades to go to match these two countries. Chinese are living on left over pieces of Russian science. Simply no match for them.
This from person who claimed that Russians cannot find carriers. didnot they collapsed the Georgian army in less than 3 days without overhelming force in mountainous train. which UK/France cannot do in a decade when opponent is supported by Russia.
1) and your pipelines, airforce bases and naval ships are under their nose.
2) And how long were they in the field for? having them jump out of an aeroplane and spending 1 or 2 days out in a relatively tame (non-combat situation etc) is slightly different then several thousand men combat jumping out of an aircraft, then having to be supplied completely by air, in an area completely dominated by opposition air cover.
3) Play the numbers game, then look at the quality of the equipment both sides have and maybe you wont be so boastful.
4) Which carriers did Russia find? Wait, your 4,000-5,000 landing force on poti and 10,000 or so soldiers coming from overland did not outnumber their adversaries? Most of whom were probably still sitting in their barracks around Georgia (not that georgia is a big place, its absolutely tiny by australian standards). What Russian supported enemy can’t the UK and France defeat?
StevoJHSo, will the CVF’s be the second largest warships after the USN Nimtiz Class Carriers?
Only ship that would come close would be kuznetsov.
StevoJHRemind me when the last time was that Russian (Soviet) aircraft had to fight in any contested air environment against a hostile airforce?
And when the last time that European NATO countries did the same was? Because there’s over a decade between those. In favour of NATO.
Don’t mention the fact that their “new” SU30 and SU35’s first flew in the late 1980’s or early 90’s and there is still only a squadron of each in service. 😉
StevoJHSure.
What planet are you from? Their defense budget for 2009 is $92 billion.
England was 2008 was 68, France 74. Hmm. . . And then knowing prices . . .:rolleyes:
Russia is more like 40-50 billion max, most likely quite a bit lower..
LMAO! 747’s and 400 SAS on each – wet dreams!
I assume you realise that there arent even 400 people in the SAS at any one time right? The UK does have quite a few light infantry units that can be relatively quickly airlifted though.
Again, where have you been lately?
Yes, the Kh-555 is in service, and is the main part of the Tu-95/Tu-160 upgrade. The Kh-101 is in low level service and very secretive, with a massive 5000KM range – carried by Bears and probably Blackjacks. (vs 3500KM for Kh-555).
Erm……right…..very secret, it just came up with a few hundred thousand links when i googled it, that missile has been around for a long time (Kh-101)
StevoJHOh this again. Feeling small?
Not really, no.
Down for maintenance? No you have it the other way around, it’s the NATO aircraft that are down for maintenance! This bull**** argument again. . . :rolleyes:
What about all those Russian airline jets? :rolleyes:
Firstly i’d like to ask how Russia is supposed to keep all those aircraft operating and maintained, with all the aircrew fully trained and doing hours in the air when their military is operating on a budget that is half that of france and the UK which have much smaller number in terms of quantity, but much higher quality.
BA and AF are both much larger then their Russian competitors, BA has 57 747’s alone, not to mention their smaller aircraft, the entire Aeroflot fleet has 83 aircraft, most of which are midsized air liners rather.
Not sea skimming? They are terrain following with low flight. Kh-555, Kh-101, etc.
Wait, you mean Kh-555 is in service? 😮
Kh-101 sounds very similar to Tomahawk or Storm Shadow but with a bit longer range, though considering its launched from Bears it probably needs it.
StevoJHur seriously mistaken of either Turkey or Greece will chose UK/France over Russia. Infact Turks have thrown out French from any business project because of Armenian issue. It is the enormous economic and military power of Russia that it cannot do anything.
UK does not control anything. Russia has 500 Strategic airlift capability. It can airlift massive amounts of troops and supplies to libya and Algeria and its submarines/ships/fighters are equiped with much longer range cruise missiles. Not only date real time space assets that it can quickly concentrate on zone of interest.
Yeah try to base it in Turky against Russia anything. Even US will be not allowed to do anything against Russia. U havent seen 3 visits of Turkish leaders in less than 5 months to Russia.
Russia is doing it very fast and can airlift stuff. I doubt US can spare airlift capability for UK/France on scale required. as it is tied down in Irak/Afghanistan.
1) Please compare the combat strength of the russian airforce with that of Turkey, Greece, Germany, Italy etc combined. Same for Army.
2) Russia has around 260 Transport aircraft total, the most of which would be either down for maintenance or because the aircrew don’t have enough hours up. <– UK has 59 counting the 6 C17’s but not counting the 57 BA 747’s which can carry over 17,000 people at a time if all in the air at once plus the numerous freight companies. France has 81 Transport Aircraft (most are smaller though), again not counting Air France or the aircraft of any other airlines.
3) Most of the Russian Cruise missiles are not sea skimming so plenty of warning would be given from AWACs aircraft if a missile strike from long range was attempted by russian submarines (a launch from surface forces would be suicidal). Oh, and a launch by the black sea fleet would have to fly over turkish airspace and would be a declaration of war on all of NATO, not just the UK + France.
StevoJHI think that title is more appropriate for starting this ridculous thread. Both UK/France combined do not have the will and capability to oppose Russia in Blacksea or any other place in the World nor they are increasing marine. these can only fight small scale wars on there tiny budgets. No mass invasions. On other hand Russia taking practicall steps for next Blacksea/Mediterrnain conflict by first building port and transport infrascturcture in North and far east on massive scale. u dont do trade where u want create warzone and blockades. Other Black sea nations donot have that choice. they have to live with it. what i read they want put 11 SSK permanently. It is very likely peace agreement between Israel/Syria as Israel doesnot want to take sides in this conflict and has initiated visa free travel with Russia so Russia can obtain and exploit Western technology much easily.
France and the UK both have the will and capability to oppose Russia both in the eastern mediteranean as well as the black sea. The UK have an Airbase and naval base in cyprus for one thing, a base that could match any proposed russian base in Syria.
The UK controls the entrance to the mediteranean sea because it holds the rock of gibraltar where it can base both aircraft (big RAF base there) and surface ships to blockade the entrance to the mediteranean. The UK has two carriers with a third available with notice, and the french have one, a total of 4 carriers available with warning, 2-3 without warning.
Additional to that, as turkey is a NATO power, both the UK and France could potentially also base assets in turkey itself, not to mention when you add in Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey with several dozen frigates and 3-4 Aircraft Carriers between them.
By the time Russia was able to find the funding and men to reactivate and modernise that base, the UK will probably have all its T45’s in service, the FSC ships will be entering service, CVF will be entering service and most of the Astutes will be in service.
France and Italy will have all their FREMM’s by then as well.
(sorry for the bad grammer, posted in a hurry)
StevoJHWell, we all know now where the awards for ‘most ridiculous post‘ and ‘most ridiculous poster‘ are going! :diablo:
No fair!! I want those awards!! :diablo:
StevoJHIf and when Russia enters Syria it wont be limited. It will have all the airsupport/airsfence support with thousands of tropps permanently stationed with long range billistic and cruise missiles. Russia has recognized that Syria is the choking point for all Black sea states epecially Eastern EU.
Russian Admiral has clearly stated that Black sea fleet at Crimea alone will be increased to 100 Warships and 25,000 armed men. u cannot expect Turkey that has bend on its knees without even Russia cutting gas supplies to do fighting for West when bankrupt EU cannot economically support Turkey when Russian tightens screws.How u can discount black Sea fleet .where the whole purpose of Black sea fleet is to contain EU trade and energy supplies? Russia will never again allow EU to stand on its own feet for the same purpose they entered libya to control gas supplies to Italy. and will soon support Oil and gas pipelines from Iran/Irak to Syrian ports bypassing Persian gulf and Turkey.
100 Warships? I assume most of those will be FAC’s with SSM’s and no Air Defenses that will receive the same treatment as Iraq’s FAC’s in both Guilf Wars? Sea Squa and Penguin FTW!
StevoJHDunno.
My most ambitious proposal in this regard was having two LPHs (which is how we seem to function now, when Ocean, Illustrious & Ark Royal are all operating), because I thought that the more floating helicopter decks the better, and big floating hangars with maintenance facilities could be a useful backup to the ASW ships. i.e. do what the Invincibles were originally intended for, IIRC, but LPHs rather than Ise-style dedicated ASW helicopter carriers because they’d also be useful when the RN isn’t fighting bears.
I can’t see the sense behind big increases. I reckon the RN has plenty of amphibious ships. Short of almost everything else, though.
I was suggesting more LPH’s because if you gave them a ski jump you could use them as mini carriers in an emergency, but mainly because they’d make good ASW platforms along the lines of the Invincibles original task, would be a bit overkill and a bit risky to use an expensive CVF for ASW ops.
Sign In
