Russian Aircraft Carrier Accident

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3315
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 3

Unread post04 Nov 2018, 15:06

Wow...

You have to ask yourself: How big is the repair bill, and what does that get them? Looks like it'll be substantial, and the capability buy back is negligible. At the end of the day, they MIGHT have one functioning yet hopelessly obsolete aircraft carrier, which is factually accurate given it carries them more than launches/recovers them.

Just get out of the carrier business. It was a nice try but really, how far did they get? Not very. Rubles are much better put into submarines and anti-ship missiles/weapons. Nice try Russia but as the Chinese are about to find out, carrier ops are a risky and expensive proposition.

The vessel itself isn't easy to build, and operating it costs billions over its lifetime. Most onerous: The carrier air wing will essentially be built from scratch. Although they may opt for existing platforms like the MIg-29 and SU-27, modifying them for carrier ops might as well be creating a whole new aircraft. Back to the drawing board, and this too is uber expensive...
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1630
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Nov 2018, 03:30

Agree China CVs is not cost-efficient but once China goes for it, they don’t hold back expenditure. Between China and Russia, China has more yuan to spend than Russia has rubles and a yuan goes further than a ruble.

The Indians tried to go cheap with the Mig-29K but ended up with an inefficient CV no 1 that cost more to modify than build. The IN then screwed themselves with CV no 2 that they can’t operationalise quickly (different from the 1st), not to mention the aircraft issues. China could have gone the same way with the minsk hull but didn’t.

China has spent a lot less on CV development. J-15 and CV blueprints probably came cheap from Ukraine (who’d gladly screw the Russkis when they can). CV no 1 came as a cheap hull but now works better than the Russki CV. J-15 internals are ported from J-11/J-16 program. The 2xKuz-class CVs buys them time to train CV crews and develop CATOBAR. CV no 2, is projected to take only 2 years from launch to commission. There’s a lot of risk and costs but China is managing both so far.

P.s. It may cost $2xx million to repair a DDG but its a lot cheaper at a Russian yard. But its an unbudgeted cost for a small purse.
Offline

knowan

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 235
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2018, 10:39

Unread post05 Nov 2018, 07:41

The Kuznetsov is a propaganda weapon, not a practical weapon. In Putin's Russia, propaganda weapons get higher priority than practical weapons.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1630
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post05 Nov 2018, 10:00

Try maintaining a bloated legacy armed forces a few times the size of the UK's on a budget less than the UK in US$ terms. Can't afford much else either even factoring in 1.6x PPP inflator, not even much fuel for CV ops. Propaganda (and GRU assassins) is cheap. Even NK affords that. No surprise. China's defense budget is more than 50% of US in PPP terms and continually cutting a bloated armed force whilst modernising with new equipment. China can afford the fuel (and brand new "copied" missiles that others have spent to develop).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Nov 2018, 20:08

weasel1962 wrote:J-15 is, on the other hand, under-estimated.


I swear that one day I'll understand what's all the fuzz behind the J-15...

Well I mean, IMO the J-15 is only a blatant Chinese copy/knock off of the Su-33. Hardly anything impressive or worth of "overestimating". At least that's my 2 cents anyway...


The J-15:
Image
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Nov 2018, 23:31

Some people just seem impressed by the Floppy Fish.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 01:04

ricnunes wrote:
weasel1962 wrote:J-15 is, on the other hand, under-estimated.


I swear that one day I'll understand what's all the fuzz behind the J-15...

Well I mean, IMO the J-15 is only a blatant Chinese copy/knock off of the Su-33. Hardly anything impressive or worth of "overestimating". At least that's my 2 cents anyway...


The J-15:
Image


Well, apparently they are having problem with the J15. It does not work as well as the original SU-33. The engines suck too, which when you think about Russian engines being better, is a scary thought.
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 01:07

knowan wrote:The Kuznetsov is a propaganda weapon, not a practical weapon. In Putin's Russia, propaganda weapons get higher priority than practical weapons.

That and the Russian Navy was at the origin of the Revolution and an uprising of hard core disciplined Navy communists against the Kremlin during the Cold War. The Russians do not want a strong navy for that reason. Taking care of their boomers is already a handful.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5570
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 05:35

J-15 should be just as capable as any other Flanker. So, until the F-35 enters widespread service. I would treat it with a good dose of respect....
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5570
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 05:50

Russian Pride usually prevails. Yet, the Kuznetsov is becoming just one big money pit and one the Russian Navy can hardly afford. In addition selling her to China. Just puts another thorn in the side of the West. Which, I am sure Putin would appreciate....


So, while I don't consider it likely that Russia would indeed sell the Kuznetsov to China. I would hardly rule it out either.
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 06:50

The only place they are selling it is some scrapyard. PRC has zero use for Kuznetsov as of now.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5570
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 07:31

hythelday wrote:The only place they are selling it is some scrapyard. PRC has zero use for Kuznetsov as of now.


What??? If, the PLAN did acquire the Kuznetsov her fleet would increase from 2 to 4 Aircraft Carriers! In addition an refitted Chinese Kuznetsov would be the sister ship of the Liaoning. (Type 001). While, being a close cousin to the Shandong. (Type 001A) Both will be followed by a third currently under construction. Which, is said to have both Catapults (maybe even EMALS) and Arresting Gear.

So, while Russian pride may prevent China from acquiring the Kuznetsov. To claim China has zero use is nothing short of "absurd"....

:doh:
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 542
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 08:06

It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5570
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 08:32

hythelday wrote:It is absurd to claim that China, while moving from STOBAR to CATOBAR would want to buy 30+ Kuznetsov which is in need of a big overhaul. Even if their cats & traps tech does not work out and they need more carriers they'll spend more time and money refurbishing rather than just building a new Type 001A which is already localized & optimized for PLAN needs, rather than a 1143.5 that is falling apart.




Your case is weak to say the least. First, the current Liaoning (ex-Varyag) was in far worse shape than the Kuznetsov is today. Second, China has considerable experience with the design now and what it would take to refit her. Third, the current Liaoning (CV-16) and Shandong (CV-17) are just entering service. So, they aren't going anywhere in the foreseeable future. So, adding a third ship of the same class. Would be a bonus not a "burden". Forth, acquiring the Kuznetsov would be a far cheaper and quicker option than building a new carrier from scratch. Plus, China can only afford to build one at a time.

In short acquiring the Kuznetsov would help China quickly close the gap with the US and at a modest price. While, offering considerable commonalty with the existing fleet.
Offline

boilermaker

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post06 Nov 2018, 08:37

Corsair1963 wrote:J-15 should be just as capable as any other Flanker. So, until the F-35 enters widespread service. I would treat it with a good dose of respect....

IT should but it has teething problems

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnav ... 80728.aspx
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests