"Admiral Kuznetsov" northern fleet in 2004 will complete distant march into Atlantic Ocean for finalizing of combat training tasks.

Now thats a Russian beauty!

Glad to see that the Russians have finaaly learned the secrets of how to do "tie-downs"...
(inside navy joke...sorry, couldn't resist)

Yes, she is a beautiful vessel. May she serve well.


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Glad to see that the Russians have finaaly learned the secrets of how to do "tie-downs"...
(inside navy joke...sorry, couldn't resist)

Yes, she is a beautiful vessel. May she serve well.


regards
seekerof

Dont worry about this carrier serving well.

SHe will be the best!

What is the biggest carrier the Russians have. If this is the biggest they need to make them even bigger.

With anything made in Russia, there is always the same basic issue,

how reliable is it?

or if it is reliable and some of their technology is because it is simple,

then is it technically up to par vs the competition?

otherwise it is about productive capacity.

With the Russian military and economy in the Liew why bother with a carrier?

If they copy the American concept of a modern carrier task force, will they be able to afford to keep it afloat?

Remember its not just the carrier, but the defending missile cruisers/destroyers, SSN's, and tankers. That's alot of money...

If it is a stand alone, then it's a white elephant, all show and no go as the Americans are fond of saying.

The real question here is "why bother?"

If it's a show of National pride or a projection of military strength, their money would be better spent improving their military infrastructure or solidifying it's officer corps.

History has shown that they aren't the world's greatest naval military power, so why try to compete in a space that they haven't a hope of competing in...makes very little sense.

hrxll

Originally posted by HerExcellency
With the Russian military and economy in the Liew why bother with a carrier?

If they copy the American concept of a modern carrier task force, will they be able to afford to keep it afloat?

Remember its not just the carrier, but the defending missile cruisers/destroyers, SSN's, and tankers. That's alot of money...

If it is a stand alone, then it's a white elephant, all show and no go as the Americans are fond of saying.

The real question here is "why bother?"

If it's a show of National pride or a projection of military strength, their money would be better spent improving their military infrastructure or solidifying it's officer corps.

History has shown that they aren't the world's greatest naval military power, so why try to compete in a space that they haven't a hope of competing in...makes very little sense.

hrxll

Acuatually you are the one who makes little sense.

Well it certainly looks pretty, plenty of barbecue cook offs on that there ship I'm sure.

Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.

-Stalin

Interesting quote, how true it is though.

Originally posted by HerExcellency

Remember its not just the carrier, but the defending missile cruisers/destroyers, SSN's, and tankers. That's alot of money...

thats why it is serving with the northern fleet
theres

Akula Class

Victor1 Class

Alpha Class

Mike Class

Papa Class

Typhoon Class

Sierra Class

Oscar Class

Delta Class

Yankee Class

November Class

Charlie Class

NEW, Severodinsk Class

and more.

Originally posted by Russian


Acuatually you are the one who makes little sense.

Really? It the Deputy Defense minister is quoted in Pravda "that 70-75 % of their military budget will go to traditional ground fources (approximately 410 billion dollars)", that leaves 200-250 billion or so for the Navy, Airforce, and Space program.

It doesn't take a military genius to extrapolate that the lion's share of the remaining money will be spent on the space program and air force due to Russian stated military projections. let's be generous and say 60% of the remaining 250 billion or 150 billion dollars. That leaves 100 billion for the upkeep and maintainance of a 150+ ship navy and upgrades. 100 billion may sound like alot but when your purchase a ship that cost 2-10 billion the average upkeep is 5-10% of the purchase cost. If you do the math, they don't have enough money.

Look, the russians are probably the only navy in the world that has a website where you can make a serious inquiry about purchasing their hardware.

So "Russian", if you wish for me to spell it out for you. The Russian Federation doesn't need an aircraft carrier. It doesn't make strategic, tactical, or financial sense.

hrxll

Originally posted by SectorGaza

Originally posted by HerExcellency

Remember its not just the carrier, but the defending missile cruisers/destroyers, SSN's, and tankers. That's alot of money...

thats why it is serving with the northern fleet
theres

SectorGaza, I've taken your generously provided list and put in my comments.

Akula Class 19 of them made currently 12 in service the remain 7 are in "dry dock"

Victor1 Class being scrapped or sold off

Alpha Class a failed class. insufficient reactor shielding was killing the crew or making them sterile.

Mike Class the first and only one sunk in 1989 need it say more.

Papa Class - not in service in current fleet.

Typhoon Class - it's a missile boat and would never serve as a ASW platform for a carrier task force

Sierra Class - see typhoon class

Oscar Class - 15 or so in class not an ASW platform and tactically obsolete. used as training ships. when they work.

Delta Class - older ssbn being phase out not an ASW platform

Yankee Class - not in current navy, ancient SSBN

November Class- they made nine we know that one sunk and the class was deactivated from the fleet in 1988.

Charlie Class - a bad guided missile boat.

NEW, Severodinsk Class- they maybe have 1. they had 2 keels laid as late as 2001 and they have either been unlaid or dismantled. On paper sounds nice.

and more. really? where in Jane's all the world's ships?

If you're going to print a list of obsolete ordinance for your arguement, you're really making my point aren't you?

hrxll

As posted in "Reality Check" for which I am still updating:
"c All Delta Is and Delta IIs have been withdrawn from active deployments and are not counted as operational strategic forces. Since 1994, operational forces of Delta IIIs and Typhoons have shrunk from 14 to 11 and six to three, respectively.
Delta III (Kalmar): 11. Delta IV (Delfin): 7. Typhoon (Akula): 3"

One aircraft carrier.....
One active 'Kiev" class....

Btw....I agree: just where is that Jane' Guide at.....?


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by SectorGaza
thats why it is serving with the northern fleet
/quote]

SectorGaza,

You've never been on an aircraft carrier nor the North Sea this time of year have you?

You see there's this thing called "inclement weather" that has the ability to hamper flight operations, and when combined with something called "cold" has the ability to freeze water and lock ships in port, From about this time on in the NORTH SEA until late March early April. It would be cheaper just to put an airport up there.

If you've ever actually bothered to read about Russian Naval history or Russian military history you'd know that a "warmwater port" (which translates to the Russians as, a port that doesn't freeze-in) has been on their Christmas list since Santa wore red.

hrxll


[Edited on 1-12-03 by HerExcellency]

here:

Northern Fleet
Northern Fleet headquarters is located in Severomorsk (Murmansk oblast). The fleet includes two squadrons of strategic submarines.

The 11th Squadron, based in Zaozersk (Nerpichya Bay, Zapadnaya Litsa Inlet), includes two Project 941 (Typhoon) submarines.

The 12th Squadron, based in Gadzhiyevo (Yagelnaya Bay, Sayda Inlet), includes six Project 667BDRM (Delta III) submarines and one Project 667BDR (Delta III) submarine. Two of the six Project 667BDRM submarines are currently undergoing overhaul and are expected to return to active service.

Originally posted by THENEO
With anything made in Russia, there is always the same basic issue,

how reliable is it?

or if it is reliable and some of their technology is because it is simple,

then is it technically up to par vs the competition?

otherwise it is about productive capacity.

Reliability isnt a issue when talking about Russian weapons!!!



They work under all conditions..



Its the US systems/weapons that are fail prone..