Reply With QuoteNavy Chief would love some ACs Im sure. Question is, are they worth the money? I'd like to know his thoughts on what he would spend $5 billion on, an AC or 4 new submarines.Originally Posted by AustinJ
I wonder what was the battle capability of our submarines during Soviet times. Zero, following by his logic. Some interesting discovers there.If, for example, we do not have an aircraft carrier in the North, the battle capability of the Northern Fleet's guided-missile submarines will be reduced to zero after Day One because the submarines' principal adversary is aviation.
And the second thing - if he really see the chance for a continuous war in the North? In fact, there won't be any Day Two for anyone involved.
Navy Chief would love some ACs Im sure. Question is, are they worth the money? I'd like to know his thoughts on what he would spend $5 billion on, an AC or 4 new submarines.
Aircraft carriers are pretty much like what you mentioned, support logistically and a show of force. In Russia's case, 1 or 2 carriers is more than enough. But the best part of the ability to build them, is the shipyard will have the ability to build other very large ships like other LCH's like Mistral, or just large transport ships in general. So it opens a new market, plus brings in newer know-how for navy.
It's much more easier to actually upgrade the shipyards (if there is, of course, a certain strategic or market need for that) w/o putting unnecessary expensive toys to your purchase list, imho.
It is, but like the purchase of the Mistral, it ends up being more or less forced and time constraint rather (as well as getting foreign tech) in order to build it.
Do not quite understand what is discussed.
Currently the plans are - two carrier-based groups. Preliminary draft - 2012, the final - 2017, commissioning of ~ 2023.
Aircraft carriers, nuclear.
I can't say I'm a big fan of Mistrals as it was absolutely ridiculous waste of taxpayers money both in military and technological aspect in my opinion.
We've basically purchased the civil defenseless platforms with the strong aim to put in an enormous amount of money and finally upgrade them into something more suitable for our probable future needs.
There is a more suitable explanation for that purchase and all the hype around the future carriers project, imho.
and by this logic we dont need Kirovs and destroyers either, all of them are very expensive and juicy targets. just scrap them all and build more coastal missiles. if Russia dont need blue water navy then sure there is no need for ACs, cruisers or destroyers. lets build something like Poland navy and be happy
oh please, you started that logic with your comment on satellites so don't get all worked up.
Also, I'll take multiple well armed blue-water Frigates or destroyers over a nuclear powered Kirov in this day and age.
The point is the blue navy could perfectly survive w/o carriers while we could spend those sums in a more adequate way.
Of course, if there are no any futher Napoleonic plans on distant regions.
It cannot. IJN and Kriegsmarine showed this pretty conclusively 70 years ago.
the logic is absolutely different. the point is that tracking sattelites cant replace ACs, shooting them down effortless and easy task, destroying aircraft battle group is quite different thing.
if they are gonna engage somali pirates of course they will perfectly survive
1) There were no nukes back then, the full scale conventional war between major powers is the thing from the past.
2) We've managed to perfectly survive the last 20 years under current military doctrine. Is there a solid reason to change it?
What type of enemy they're going to engage then?
Posting Permissions
