The Tu95 has the dubious honour of geing able to be heard by submarines at depth. Those contra-rotating props are a "hello honey I'm home" device.
Russian Navy Head Calls for 5-6 Aircraft Carriers
- Thread starter Feanor
- Start date
- Status
The Tu95 has the dubious honour of geing able to be heard by submarines at depth. Those contra-rotating props are a "hello honey I'm home" device.
That is simply useless. At first -low friquency noise is heard only if "Bear" flys on very low altitude- much less then usual operational- less then 5000 m. Probably noise was obseerved by subs while recon- observing monuvers of Tu-95 over US CVBG. And even if it could be heard- it usually too late - as it too close. - I mean common radars can track it on much longer distances then some one could hear it.- especially in sub. - Excuse me- but I just can't see - how prop. noise can be used for anything ?- especially if you can not determine noise dirrection.
Useless? Any number of reports and articles in the Naval Sub Leage or Undersea Warfare or even reports from our own subs in the early 80's detailed how easy it was to deal with Bears.
Personally I'll take professional reports from various allied sub drivers over speculation on acoustic behaviour any day.
btw, acoustics does not work like you suggest - unless subsonic, it is highly directional and trackable. It's only human auditry limitations that invoke the ominidirectional claim.
a few of us have actually been involved with acoustics at a sub management level.....
There is one more issue,
where are they going to build the carriers? If they decide to build it in Black Sea and if it is a true carrier ( with no cruise missiles and other systems attached to it but a pure carrier) they will have problems getting it pass the Turkish Straits.
In the old times they always coined the term aircraft carrying cruiser and managed to get away with it.
where are they going to build the carriers? If they decide to build it in Black Sea and if it is a true carrier ( with no cruise missiles and other systems attached to it but a pure carrier) they will have problems getting it pass the Turkish Straits.
In the old times they always coined the term aircraft carrying cruiser and managed to get away with it.
Well, "aircraft carrying cruiser" was mainly ASW-sea denial class ship, not a land-attack CV. For this precise reason, if their relations with Ukraine improve and/or parts of Ukraine split, the Nikolaev shipyard may get to build them again! Besides, they could tow them from the Black Sea unfinished & complete them as CVs elsewhere, like the ex-Varyag, now in the PRC! But if not, as I mentioned, I'm 100% sure that smaller CVs can be built in Severodvinsk and Baltiisky shipyards.
Last edited:
If they build the hull of the carriers elsewhere like Turku, Finland or other private yards around Europe, it will be better for them, at least they would have a chance to build whatever size they want to build the carrier and also dont have to deal with Ukraine
If you need assistance from land based aircraft and direct support SSN/SSGN, then you still have "escorts". Try and operate your carrier alone in the middle of the South Atlantic, what do you rely on then?
As I mentioned, I'm not sure if they could built KUZNETSOV-size CV in their Northern shipyards, but surely, after building those nuclear icebreakers they can build smaller CVs/LHAs!
I don't foresee them deploying in S.Atlantic/Pacific- their likely areas lie in the Arctic, N./E Atlantic, Med., and N/W. Pacific- all within range of land based aircraft. I was talking of surface escorts- and they can safely compensate by using other paltforms, especially if they all carry new long range surface to air & supersonic AShMs!
Fair enough mate. As you have created the necessity for the Russian fleet to remain within range of their land based air, combine this with strong AAW/ASUW escorts, then this lessens the purpose (cost and investment) of tactical air support from a CV. AFAIK we are back to justifying the need of a CV in a Russian battle group.
The corollary is the Russian fleet is back to the same doctrine of protecting their SSBN bastions, with little intention of straying forth outside of these into the Southern Hemisphere's waters
in absolute terms, any fleet that has to stay under the umbrella of core continental air support becomes a green water capability.
the russians are currently and predominately a continental power, they also have no desire to be a green water navy as they "re-aspire" to be a blue water force
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #92
The whole purpose of the carriers is to be able to leave the umbrella of the ground-based aviation. Thus we're left to assume that Russia does indeed plan to build practically an entire new fleet of ships. Then again given the timeframe of 2050-2060, it doesn't seem impossible. The timeframe is just too great to make any definitive predictions.
Exactly
It indicates a quantum shift, and as such they're going to be changing doctrine via capability shift...
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #94
New dock being built in Sevmash for 100 000 tonn ships. Seems to fit perfectly with the suggested idea. Again it seems very unrealistic, and is very reminiscent of previous false statements by Russian Army heads (in particular the empty statements of the 90's era), but there are some signs that this is indeed a real plan.
http://lenta.ru/news/2006/07/04/carrier/
http://lenta.ru/news/2006/07/04/carrier/
with Severmash horrific reputation i wouldn't trust it to build anything. Any idea when its going to be finshed [can't read russian].
Also where are the Krirovs and Kusznestove dry docked
Skywatcher
New Member
I'll believe it when I see the naval aviation schools being revamped to handle more carrier jockeys.
It's doable, but it sounds like it'll eat money out of the Russian space program, strategic missiles, long range bombers or what not. One can't have a free lunch.
It's doable, but it sounds like it'll eat money out of the Russian space program, strategic missiles, long range bombers or what not. One can't have a free lunch.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #98
I am. Initially I thought the claim was another bogus one, like many others. But now that they're actually making moves towards actually realizing it, it may become a reality. Albeit it would still take ridiculous increase in funding to pull off. It seems like 2010-2015 is the likely date for completion, though the article doesn't say anything specific.
It would be possible. Just very long term.
It would have to be after they finish the carrier for the indians, and 2050 may be a realistic date
It would have to be after they finish the carrier for the indians, and 2050 may be a realistic date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #100
I meant completion of the dry dock around 2010-2015. The Indian carrier is due to be finished around 2011. Besides the obvious fact that it doesn't use the dry dock that's planned for the future carriers, and thus in no way interferes. The main problem with the idea of these new carriers is lack of money.
- Status