Russia Eyes New Aircraft Carriers Next Decade

Some times when you have a country with factions fighting to pull the country in different directions, the best thing to do is just demand your programe and the rest will adjust to the new reality. When negotiations are in order , each side starts with a completely unrealistic position to bargin from.

I never said they couldn't build the damn things, I said it's dangerous enough to operate them and that they're not experienced enough to do it right now.

There is only one way to get the necessary experience: by building, deploying, and operating the things. Which is what they've been doing with Kuznetzov. Will they be in a better position if they wait 20 years and do nothing? I doubt it.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
OK so what makes you so qualified? Years of experience as a...?

I am qualified to read and i do.

I never said they couldn't build the damn things, I said it's dangerous enough to operate them and that they're not experienced enough to do it right now.

I know exactly what you said ( since i can read) and that is why i did not say anything about them being able to build " the damn things". It is a dangerous business no matter how much experience you have and the only way to gain any is to keep doing it no matter the dangers.

Yeah we've lost in the low hundreds, nowhere near thousands. If you're considering pre-angled deck, or shootdowns/training mishaps this discussion is pointless.

Lost 140-160 F-14's in 30 odd years alone ( but not all accidents happened at sea) so mabye it's not thousands but it's not a few hundred either.

Per hours flown, the USN has a good safety record. No $hit you lose more over a few DECADES of flight ops with TWELVE CSFs with LARGER CVWs, deploying regularly as opposed to ONE CSF, deploying only when they need a national pick me up on the news. Oh...night landings. The Russians didn't do those either.

So you just dislike Russians i guess. If there was another Navy with so many aircraft carriers deployed we could compare the safety records but for now claiming such a thing just shows where your head is.

They have too much excess. They have some good units, and plenty of terrible ones. They need to slim down and organize their civilian and military bureaucracy first to support the warfighters worth supporting in a logical way. This is something even they admit to.

Yes, SIR. Anything else you want the Russian armed forces to do while your busy giving orders?

Stellar

]

[edit on 13-1-2006 by ORIEguy]

I don't dislike the Russians, I'm just a realist. Unlike some people who're convinced all is still rosy over in Moscow.

They don't play the same game, and they don't go out to sea enough. That's life.

The Hornet is a "fair" comparison to the Russian naval Flanker as both saw service about the same time. Comparing say Tomcat A or Prowler loss rates to Flankers is simply idiotic.
Digitial flight systems have significantly reduced accidents throughout the board, for non-naval air as well.

And those weren't orders, it's what's coming out of Russian officials.

And it is only a few hundred losses. Tomcats have had among the highest loss rates ever before the B/D upgrades in the early 90's. And those engine upgrades were far from universal in the Tomcat community. Hornet loss rates are much lower. Prowlers have bad loss rates as well but there aren't as many overall that deploy. Hawkeyes, Viking, and the helos are all very safe at landing.


[edit on 13-1-2006 by ORIEguy]

Originally posted by ORIEguy
I don't dislike the Russians, I'm just a realist. Unlike some people who're convinced all is still rosy over in Moscow.

Well you may not dislike Russia/Russians but your certainly not being realistic either. I never suggested everything was rosy in Moscow either.

They don't play the same game, and they don't go out to sea enough. That's life.

Unless you go to sea you will not get practice whatever your accident rate. Why talk about it if it's a given?

The Hornet is a "fair" comparison to the Russian naval Flanker as both saw service about the same time.

Actually the F-18 saw" combat" service rahter earlier ( Libya 1986 for instance) so why try compare the two? The Su-33 can almost be called a second generation fleet defense fighter but was still only adapted from a land based fighter ( with not much time invested either it seems) so why you would compare it to the F-18 ( wich was very much designed for what it is currently doing) i simply do not understand. Your either not so well informed or your taking cheap shots.

Comparing say Tomcat A or Prowler loss rates to Flankers is simply idiotic.

And the reason why i did not compare the two. The Tomcat's always had high accident rates ( might just be the airframes aging) but once again it's a much older design than the F-18.

Digitial flight systems have significantly reduced accidents throughout the board, for non-naval air as well.

Wich is a great thing but it's still people behind the systems and people must get trained the old fashioned way in the end.

And it is only a few hundred losses. Tomcats have had among the highest loss rates ever before the B/D upgrades in the early 90's. And those engine upgrades were far from universal in the Tomcat community.

True. So you really still believe that this Russian accident is somehow unique enough in carrier operations to insult them over? If you insist i can go get the exact numbers of losses at sea per aircraft deployed on modern carriers.

Hornet loss rates are much lower. Prowlers have bad loss rates as well but there aren't as many overall that deploy. Hawkeyes, Viking, and the helos are all very safe at landing.

All things i did not mention. You might want to look at a complete list of aircraft wich have flown from modern US carriers in the last 70 years and then tell me it will only be a "few hundred" accidents that enabled the US navy to currently operate such a relatively safe naval carrier operations. If you were not so biased to start with you would have been able to realise what is still in store for Russian carrier based aviation as they learn.

Stellar

Originally posted by Senor Freebie

I also explained that since Russia is the best nation at knocking out carriers and other naval vessels with aircraft this explains why Russia and China have never focused so hard in this area. Why build a huge fleet of carriers to knock out incoming enemies when normally you only need to have some land based naval aircraft hanging around just off the coastline.

the average amount of years spent training Russian pilots is at least triple that for their US Navy counterparts. Besides they have the best carrier aircraft in the world.

it doesnt matter if russia have the best naval aircraft in the world if a seawolf sneaks past all the russian defences as it will do and sinks the russian carrier and all the aircraft on board then you are compleatly screwed. best carrier based planes or not. in a war the american navy would wipe out the russian navy very quickly and would still remain a formidable fighting force.

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by ORIEguy

They don't play the same game, and they don't go out to sea enough. That's life.

The Hornet is a "fair" comparison to the Russian naval Flanker as both saw service about the same time.

Stellar

one of the reasons that napolean was beaten at sea by lord nelson was that nelsons navy spent 8 years at sea practicing unlike napoleans navy who spent 8 years in port. its a fact practice makes better. more practice makes even better

you cannot compare planes from the US navy with planes from the Russian navy because the US planes have far better avionics and far better weapons. doesnt matter how good your plane is if it get hit by a missile then your dead however good your plane is.

"Well you may not dislike Russia/Russians but your certainly not being realistic either. I never suggested everything was rosy in Moscow either."

OK sure.

"Unless you go to sea you will not get practice whatever your accident rate. Why talk about it if it's a given?"
What the hell is your point? Yeah, they need practice. They need to get out more. That's what I'm saying. They need to take their ships out and practice driving around, navigating in the middle of the Atlantic out of touch of land based systems, and shooting their latest weapons without another Kursk incident.

"Actually the F-18 saw" combat" service rahter earlier ( Libya 1986 for instance) so why try compare the two? The Su-33 can almost be called a second generation fleet defense fighter but was still only adapted from a land based fighter ( with not much time invested either it seems) so why you would compare it to the F-18 ( wich was very much designed for what it is currently doing) i simply do not understand. Your either not so well informed or your taking cheap shots."
Because they're the most modern fighter available to both. The fact they really believed that a solid land based design could do as well as a naval variant shows one lesson they learned the hard way.

"And the reason why i did not compare the two. The Tomcat's always had high accident rates ( might just be the airframes aging) but once again it's a much older design than the F-18."
Well, you're the one who brought its loss numbers in, not me. And it's primarily due to the engine problems of the A. Also, didn't help they were in the N.Atlantic doing flight ops in $hitty water during the Cold War.

"Wich is a great thing but it's still people behind the systems and people must get trained the old fashioned way in the end."
Heh, Hornets can auto land to a Perfect OK-3 with no man in the loop. Not that I disagree, but it's interesting.

"True. So you really still believe that this Russian accident is somehow unique enough in carrier operations to insult them over? If you insist i can go get the exact numbers of losses at sea per aircraft deployed on modern carriers."
Uh, no. I'm just saying they went to sea to do limited operations, and lost a fighter in landing. And I'm saying, it was not really a surprise. Therefore, I'm saying they need to get their $hit together before they go out to play.

"All things i did not mention. You might want to look at a complete list of aircraft wich have flown from modern US carriers in the last 70 years and then tell me it will only be a "few hundred" accidents that enabled the US navy to currently operate such a relatively safe naval carrier operations. If you were not so biased to start with you would have been able to realise what is still in store for Russian carrier based aviation as they learn."

Oh, last 70 years? You mean including the ones from turning into the jet age, pre angled flight decks, before reliable over water navigational aids, etc.?

It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and you enjoy throwing facts out to show what you've "read", but you're not coming up with a clear coherent point, other than the fact that you dislike me. Which doesn't bother me one way or another, so you're really wasting your time.

Originally posted by engenerQ
alright prelude it was intresting but let me hit you with some facts

1. did you even mention carriers if you havent noticed ...thats the subject of the thred

2. no kidding media is full of propaganda but i bet you yours is just as full of crap as ours b/c that is part of how a goverment keeps its power. if you realy beleve yours is free of it you have been influinced far more than you think by it and have lost your abilaty to think for your self(no ofence)

3. if you are better off now then you where in the cold war honestly i dont care b/c the russian fleet is pathetic(no ofence)

4. i would love to see russia come with a new carrier but they wont use it and let it rust like there nice nuke powerd subs that just sit there

5. it is no hidden fact that russia is going or has gone as you claim through some tough times there are so many better things to spend that kinda money on.

if you wish to contest this you can allways U2U me insted of mucking up this thred

Frankly I dont understand what makes you offensive against me...your questions could have been put forward in a more civilized way ...I wont repeat what you did ...why dont you try to make this discussion a more productive one instead of making personal attacks


About carriers
My post was a reply to someone who claimed that Russia today is not in a position to make carriers ....my post was dedicated to prove that it was an ignorant analysis...and in that way dont you think that my post was very much related to the topic ?

I , like everyone else , am too ignorant about the Issue to make a comment on the present state of the carrier programme .....so most of the posts in this forum were dedicated on the issue that wether Russian is in a position in making such a carrier ...I think yes it is because the carriers are programmed to begin on 2016 by that time Russia whould have done a lot to improve its military conditions aided by her developing economy ,as its doing now

About " freedom of press "

Read my analysis below about todays russian media ...I mostly make my analysis basied on news from various sources around the world (all influenced by someone or other ) along with my personal observations and education ....if you think that my analysis is wrong in any way please be kind to enlighten me . Yes I agree with you our press is NOT a free one neither is yours


about the so called "pathetic" russian fleet
if you really believe that Russian fleet is as weak as you say, what makes you and many other Americans in this forum make their all out attacks whenever there is some positive military developments in Russia ....what makes you people CARE about such a weak military ? what shall I call it :envy ,fear, hatred or blind patriotism ?


"about Russia's need of a crrier "
i personally think Russia needs a carrier ...

I agree with you ,they wont find much USE ,but they are needed for showoff and diplomacy .....Nuclear powers are Never going to fight with each other ..they will fight by diplomacy

"About money being spent on other areas"
In fact in today's russia very less percentage of the budjet is being spent on defense compared to the soviet times and compared to many other powerful countries ...a bulk of the defense budjet is spent on maintaing the soviet fleet ..the rest is spent on development ........Now most Americans want no other country to develop militarily(in exchange of US help) except they themselves ....such a demand is not acceptable to any country who have something called "Spinal cord"




about Freedom of Russian press

Russia never had a free press like the USA the only difference is that the media makes Americans believe that their media is a free one(that's partly my analysis and partly the analysis of my American professor ...but in Russia even a street child know how much Restrictions are there in press .
Intellegent Russians basically dont trust the press .....

But again comments like "Russian press are always progovernment " speaks about the ignorance of the person making the comments

look at any Russian News websites (Mosnews ,pravda ,Moscow times ) in english (assuming that you dont know Russian ) you will find them 80% of criticisms about the Government ...
Now about "Pravda" I discover this forum is full of people full of misconceptions that the pravda is a pro-gevernment news agency ...In reality pravda WAS a progovernment news paper during the Soviet times Today Its an ANTIgovernment news paper Run by the leftists (as it always had been)

Now about the State control over the media

This move by Putin had both positive and negative sides .....on the positive side this move basically healed the control of media by the Mafias (intellegently reffered to as Oligrach by the western media ) .....and the negative side need not be explained
I think its better to have a state controled media instead of having a mafia controlled media ......moreover even after this most criticized move by President Putin I did dont notice changes in standards in news reporting ...may be due to the fact that in general Russians are highly educated and very sceptical ...so if the press had moved to a progovernment stance it would have only lost their readers












freedom




[edit on 16-1-2006 by prelude]

Aircraft carriers are not turn-key operations. The US Navy has 50+ years of operating jet aircraft at sea and that institutional knowledge will not come quickly or easily to other countries.

Which is why they're making plans now to develop these things so that a decade or two down the road they have something to work with when they want to bring their entire navy up to spec. Personally I look at this in a similar way that I do the various aircraft development projects that the Russian's continued to work at during the 90's when they really didn't have the money to spend. They're not developing these things for the present but just keeping their technological progress going so that when they can afford to start sailing a carrier-based battle ground around the pacific, they have the carriers and the experience with such ships to do so. Especially considering the fact that they've managed to complete a number of successful sales of their naval assets keeping on top of the ball when it comes to carrier technology makes both economic and military sense. After all when India or China wants a full out Supercarrier who do you think is going to build their first one? Russia, just like they have been helping them with tanks, planes and other weaponry. Finnally given the potential size of their fleet if they got them all into a ready condition, they -should- have some carriers just to balance out the force.

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
Actually Russia isn't that poor.

I don't understand the whole mindset of the russian government when the people of russian are in such bad shape. Up to one third of Russia’s
population is living on less than one dollar a day.

good job russia........ build up your military ......... at the expense of your people..........

www.ifrc.org... cgi/pdf_appeals.pl?annual00/01320004.pdf#search='russians%20make%20less%20than%20a%20dollar%20a%20day'

A dollar buys you a pretty decent meal (in a caffeteria etc.) everywhere else in Russia Exept Moscow and Sankt Petersburg... Prices are so different... but true poverty is a problem in Russia, but money will not a problem to Russia if the oil prices keep going up.

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
You can argue all you want that US pilots are better trained but the average amount of years spent training Russian pilots is at least triple that for their US Navy counterparts. Besides they have the best carrier aircraft in the world.

Where do you get this info from? Triple the years training... Are these guys senior citizens? With their level of funding and disrepair? Plus combat hours are worth alot more then just training.

As for their carrier aircraft says who? Why because on paper supposedly they go faster, or manuver better? What are their numbers? And things like aircraft carriers aren't built over night.

Plus once the "lighting 2" f-35 is out all bets are off. A supersonic aircraft with STEALTH vtol capability superior avionics. And oh yeah there will be more then 2400 of them.

Originally posted by ORIEguy
What the hell is your point? Yeah, they need practice. They need to get out more. That's what I'm saying. They need to take their ships out and practice driving around, navigating in the middle of the Atlantic out of touch of land based systems, and shooting their latest weapons without another Kursk incident.

Took me a few months to spot your return and i apologise. I got the impression earlier that you considered their accident rate somehow special and i wanted to make sure that you understand just how many accidents it takes to learn the art that is carrier operations.... The problem i see is that you still consider the Kursk incident a 'accident' ......

Because they're the most modern fighter available to both. The fact they really believed that a solid land based design could do as well as a naval variant shows one lesson they learned the hard way.

Well fact is there is nothing wrong with adapting land based aircraft for ship duty especially when your land based planes are already very robustly designed. The American choice to design aircraft for exclusive carrier operation had far more to do with political/economic/inter service fighting than with what would work best at cheapest cost to the taxpayer.

Well, you're the one who brought its loss numbers in, not me. And it's primarily due to the engine problems of the A. Also, didn't help they were in the N.Atlantic doing flight ops in $hitty water during the Cold War.

It has far more to do with the fact that the F-14 is a pig to fly and that it should never been a 'fleet defense fighter' considering what i can/cant do. Once again it had far more to do with 'having their own figther' than with practical considerations.

Uh, no. I'm just saying they went to sea to do limited operations, and lost a fighter in landing. And I'm saying, it was not really a surprise. Therefore, I'm saying they need to get their $hit together before they go out to play.

And that is like demanding that no one gets hurt in boot camp. When you can make a army work with no one getting hurt in training i am ALL ears.

Oh, last 70 years? You mean including the ones from turning into the jet age, pre angled flight decks, before reliable over water navigational aids, etc.?

NO, i mean exactly what i said; flying planes off carriers is a dangerous business and just getting the basics right takes decades whether your using jet or prop planes. I just think your being hypocritical when you laugh at their problems when American carrier aircraft still regularly sustain serious damage. It's a dangerous business and the less you do of it the worse it gets.

It seems like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing and you enjoy throwing facts out to show what you've "read",

I argue because i believe you misrepresented what happened and thus i am trying to supply some context. I read a great deal more than you but i am not here to try prove something as obvious as that.

but you're not coming up with a clear coherent point,

It's pretty coherent; You take pleasure in the discomfort of others while assuming away the same problems in your own back yard.

other than the fact that you dislike me.

I dislike your intent, method and presentation but we can have a beer if you like.

Which doesn't bother me one way or another, so you're really wasting your time.

I do not considering correcting your misrepresentations a waste of time so i will keep pointing them out if and when i spot them.

Cheers.

Stellar

Originally posted by engenerQ
alright prelude it was intresting but let me hit you with some facts

1. did you even mention carriers if you havent noticed ...thats the subject of the thred

2. no kidding media is full of propaganda but i bet you yours is just as full of crap as ours b/c that is part of how a goverment keeps its power. if you realy beleve yours is free of it you have been influinced far more than you think by it and have lost your abilaty to think for your self(no ofence)

3. if you are better off now then you where in the cold war honestly i dont care b/c the russian fleet is pathetic(no ofence)

4. i would love to see russia come with a new carrier but they wont use it and let it rust like there nice nuke powerd subs that just sit there

5. it is no hidden fact that russia is going or has gone as you claim through some tough times there are so many better things to spend that kinda money on.

if you wish to contest this you can allways U2U me insted of mucking up this thred

What Prelude did was good! There were already like 4 or 5 members bsing a ton of bs about Russia, even though that's not what the subject was about! Prelude put them in their place, which was the right thing to do! It pists me off that EVERYTIME a new thing about Russia is mentioned, there comes bashing of Russia. What the f***??!?!??!?!??!?!?!


This is bs. Really pisting me off! But oh well. Let them bs. We shall see how Russia is in some years. The good thing is that they are getting better and better. New weapons are being planned, the economy is going up, and conditions are getting better. As for the aircraft carriers, I think they are good for Russia. Out with the old and in with the new. They will be bigger and more powerful. Perfect. We shall regain dominations of the seas. We should also make some new cruisers and destroyers. The Kirov battlecruiser is an incredible ship. May Russia continue to progress and return to her old glory!