|
Post by oldpop2000 on Sept 12, 2017 18:55:39 GMT -6
It is my belief that the budgetary considerations eliminate any possibility of developing a bigger frigate. The Navy has to stay the course on the LCS and its new cousin. Strategic considerations are important also along with tactical considerations.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 10, 2017 18:42:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 10, 2017 19:19:13 GMT -6
47,114,252 (47 million) rolls of 1.88 inch by 35 yard gorillia tape which would cover an area of 86,114,382 (86 million) square yards, yes you could get more tape by using cheaper tape, but never spring for cheapo duck tape
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2017 9:20:10 GMT -6
The Russian reality is that the breakup of the Soviet Union was an economic disaster for her. She has lost much of her technical expertise and marketable resources to pay for the military which has deteriorated over the years; not just actual quantity but the ability to provide quality. Many nations will buy aircraft, but few want to buy ships. The Russians have always had a desire to be a naval power but geographically that is hard sell. This ship is doomed or it should be. I would not waste the money, just scrap it.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 11, 2017 11:35:04 GMT -6
The Russian reality is that the breakup of the Soviet Union was an economic disaster for her. She has lost much of her technical expertise and marketable resources to pay for the military which has deteriorated over the years; not just actual quantity but the ability to provide quality. Many nations will buy aircraft, but few want to buy ships. The Russians have always had a desire to be a naval power but geographically that is hard sell. This ship is doomed or it should be. I would not waste the money, just scrap it. they kinda need Boomers to ensure MAD, otherwise a strike on land based missiles and fighter coverage could allow other countries to get a drop on them without fear of counter-strikes
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2017 14:49:20 GMT -6
The Russian reality is that the breakup of the Soviet Union was an economic disaster for her. She has lost much of her technical expertise and marketable resources to pay for the military which has deteriorated over the years; not just actual quantity but the ability to provide quality. Many nations will buy aircraft, but few want to buy ships. The Russians have always had a desire to be a naval power but geographically that is hard sell. This ship is doomed or it should be. I would not waste the money, just scrap it. they kinda need Boomers to ensure MAD, otherwise a strike on land based missiles and fighter coverage could allow other countries to get a drop on them without fear of counter-strikes MAD is a magnetic anomaly detector generally installed on naval aircraft, but they are not all that effective. Boomers are missile boats so I am not certain I understand the correlation with the carrier. I agree that a carrier could carry an ASW helicopter or aircraft but that ship just doesn't have the space for it. Most ASW aircraft are larger aircraft with long loiter times.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 11, 2017 17:52:59 GMT -6
they kinda need Boomers to ensure MAD, otherwise a strike on land based missiles and fighter coverage could allow other countries to get a drop on them without fear of counter-strikes MAD is a magnetic anomaly detector generally installed on naval aircraft, but they are not all that effective. Boomers are missile boats so I am not certain I understand the correlation with the carrier. I agree that a carrier could carry an ASW helicopter or aircraft but that ship just doesn't have the space for it. Most ASW aircraft are larger aircraft with long loiter times. Mutually Assured Destruction, the Nuclear MAD. what I was getting at was that russia needs a boomer force to prevent another country from taking out all their nuclear assets in one strike
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 11, 2017 17:58:47 GMT -6
I think he was referring to Mutual Assured Destruction, not Magnetic Anomaly Detector.
The thing is though, for the Russians a CV has limited utility in that regard. Their boomers are built to operate under the ice and have very long-range SLBMs - from the 1970s onward, boomers like the Delta-III/IV and Typhoon could hit the continental US from their docks. On patrol they reportedly stay relatively close to home. So why build carriers just to screen them? Shore-based aircraft can cover them with greater fuel and weapon payloads, and in any case it's extremely unlikely we would send carriers or surface ships that close to Russia for ASW work. A good maritime patrol aircraft like the Tu-142 is a far better investment than a flattop carrying a handful of fighters and a bunch of short-legged ASW helos.
Additionally, the balance of Russia's nuclear deterrent is different than the US. We have control of the seas around us, which makes deployed SSBNs in open water a viable and survivable arm of the nuclear triad. As a result, we've put most of our strategic deterrent on the boomers and reduced the land-based ICBM force to a relative niche capability. The Soviets started tailoring their SSBN force towards the bastion strategy because they weren't very confident their boats could get out of port and survive on station in the event of a shooting war. Instead the Russians have chosen to play to their geographic advantages by putting most of their money on mobile ICBMs that can be dispersed within the Russian interior, where they're much harder for us to get at than an SSBN in contested waters.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2017 19:21:52 GMT -6
Guys,
After four years in NORAD, believe me I know what mutually assured destruction is, but frankly it is a national security policy doctrine, much more than a military doctrine, despite what you might have heard. In the military, we rarely talked about MAD. That's for the politicians and some generals.
Now, when you are discussing aircraft carriers, I naturally move toward magnetic anomaly detectors, probes that are extended out the back of an aircraft to detect variations in the local earth's magnetic field.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 11, 2017 20:10:25 GMT -6
No worries - Mutual Assured Destruction generally strikes me as about the point where military strategy boils down to "Nukes fall, everyone dies" or "Stop worrying and love the bomb." Not a lot of practical elaboration required when you only have about 15-30 minutes to plaster the other guy with every nuke you have while knowing you'll be getting the same treatment.
That said, defense of the boomer bastions was and still is a key function of the Soviet/Russian surface fleet and naval aviation, and part of the reason why their carriers were designed the way they were. How useful they would have been for that role is another question; at this point the Russian large surface combatants are mainly showpieces.
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 11, 2017 20:40:03 GMT -6
No worries - Mutual Assured Destruction generally strikes me as about the point where military strategy boils down to "Nukes fall, everyone dies" or "Stop worrying and love the bomb." Not a lot of practical elaboration required when you only have about 15-30 minutes to plaster the other guy with every nuke you have while knowing you'll be getting the same treatment. That said, defense of the boomer bastions was and still is a key function of the Soviet/Russian surface fleet and naval aviation, and part of the reason why their carriers were designed the way they were. How useful they would have been for that role is another question; at this point the Russian large surface combatants are mainly showpieces. I will now point out that a musket can blow an inch wide hole into your cheast and take a fist sized chunk out the back, just because it's useless in modern conflict does not mean it can't kill you deader then a door nail
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 11, 2017 23:14:07 GMT -6
The first problem for the Russians is their shipyards, which after reading about the aircraft carrier seems to make perfect sense. According to intelligence sources, it is their major weak point in their defense industries.
The blue water navy that the Soviets built is all but gone and it is now probably closer to a littoral zone or green water fleet. I don't know what is now important to the Russians, protecting their missile boats, providing sealift or what. It appears by reports that they are having problems doing either one. My guess is that they want to be considered a great power and all great powers have big navies. I have also read reports that the Russian navy always has a tug with it, for obvious reasons. They also build small numbers of one particular class and of course now you have logistical issues, that's my guess. All this being said, while the Russian navy is not its former size and effectiveness, it still has smaller ships that have sufficient capability to make them effective. The foundation for a great navy is the financial and economic health of a nation. The Russian economy is still poor and corrupt. Until that changes, not much will change in their fleet.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 18, 2017 19:44:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Enderminion on Oct 19, 2017 5:59:58 GMT -6
Paraguy(?) Retired the last guns crusier recently
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2017 8:33:30 GMT -6
The Royal Navy has been going through this feast or famine syndrome since 1919, in the post World War 1 era. During the First World War there was a fifteen-fold increase in state expenditures for Britain. The financing of debt and armed forces accounted for 49.88 percent of all state spending. It hasn't really improved since then with reduced imports and social programs taking more of the budget. Couple this with the loss of the empire by 1945, there was just no real strategic reason to have a big fleet. They were really just confined to protecting the British Isles and participating in NATO. Even the Mediterranean had been removed from their requirements with Egypt, Israel, Italy and Turkey now taking the control along with a US battle group. So, this current financial problem isn't really new.
|
|