Vladimir Putin to send Russia’s largest warship to Syria

[Ulmita]

And once again, considering how complex is a carrier, it's by far a better idea to put the offensive armament on another ship.

You see the Soviets didn't intent to build a carrier like the USA did. So your sentence should read: "It's by far a better idea to build a pure carrier than a hybrid peace of junk" and i would agree as i think they would too.

[Deleted]

The issue being that Syrians means mostly ''Alawis'' for Assad....

Which would be a problem if Syria was a democracy.

[Marcellus1986]

If truth is nation bashing then i am santa.

It isn't about truth. It's about you using 'no u' equivalancies when you get called out on your bullshit. WW2 has nothing to do with Syria. Your fallbacks are either nukes or "US did X, so it's okay for Russia to do Y".

[Easo]

It's not designed as an aircraft carrier (and it has more than 14) its designed as a gigantic guided missile destroyed that can also launch air supremacy fighters for self defence. Hence there being no point really sending it as it gives no capability Russia doesn't already have in the area, it's just Vlad flexing his epeen.

And failed at both - not enough fighters (would be better if it had full set of planned planes, but right not it simply does not have them), not enough missiles.
Those missiles cannot be fired while launching fighters and vice versa and IIRC, they are removed now anyway.
And it is hard to flex anything with this - though the ship is not that old, it is plagued with issues and has to sit in dockyards for repairs.

[Kellhound]

Truth hurts eh?
I got a question for you. If my posts bother you so much why replay? Why just don't put me on ignore and be done with it? Gotta be an age thing.

As for the banning i neither nation bashed nor posted conspiracy. These are facts. I know it would bother me too if Canada went on rampage fucking up all middle east, nuking 2 cities etc. I wouldn't probably even mention my nationality lol.

Lastly, the mods have been told not to infract people (only very severe cases and mostly its done by blues).

- - - Updated - - -



I've over a year ban free lol

- - - Updated - - -



Talking about Syria here pal.

Yet the biggest defeats ISIS has had is in Iraq. But we get it, for you Russia does no wrong and the US does not right, reality be dammed.

- - - Updated - - -

During the Falklands war we sent HMS Hermes (a WW2 era carrier) carrying 16 Harriers plus 22 Sea King helicopters, HMS Invincible (A more modern carrier) carrying 12 harriers plus 10 Sea King helicopters. Those 28 harriers managed to do a great job of holding off the Argentine air force despite being ridiculously outnumbered.

It's actually worth noting that 8 of those harriers were carried to the arena by a container ship and then transferred to a carrier, so if anything the Falklands war proved it's a massive waste of money for the UK to even own carriers when we use VTOL planes, because when we need a carrier every 50 years or so we can just call Maersk Line for a shipping quote ^^

A funny note on the Falklands battle-group is that Hermes was sold to India in the 80's and is due to be decommissioned this year whereas the much more modern Invincible was decommissioned in 2005.

The RN and RAF both felt they did not have enough aircraft. 28 is 20% more than 22. 20% is a significant increase. Especially when you consider they lost 10 Harriers. Plus it took 2 carriers to have 28 Harriers.

The container ship could transport them but not support them operationally, major distinction.

The Indians like to keep ships around far longer than the West generally.

- - - Updated - - -

Not by much though, they have 16x P-500 SSMs, it has 12x P-700 SSMs. It has better anti-air and anti-submarine/torpedo capability. Overall I would say it has better offensive armament unless the target is another ship in which case the Slavas torpedoes put it ahead.

Slava have: 33% more ASuW missiles. 100% more medium/long range SAMs (64 SA-N-6 vs none), short range SAMs they loses out on (80 vs 192), ASW they have 2 mortars vs 1 and 10 21" torpedo tubes vs 0. They also have better sonar.

So the Slavas only lose at very close range AAW.

[Ausr]

Well, they released the latest picture of this warship:






You have a short memory if you don't know what I'm mocking.

[May90]

Well, they released the latest picture of this warship:






You have a short memory if you don't know what I'm mocking.

To be fair, what you are mocking is a few months old, at least... Can't expect all people to remember!

[caervek]

The RN and RAF both felt they did not have enough aircraft.

They feel that about every air battle ever lol.

Plus it took 2 carriers to have 28 Harriers.

Technically it took 2 to have 28 harriers + 32 helicopters, they would still need to send 2x carriers even with the new ones.

Slava have: 33% more ASuW missiles. 100% more medium/long range SAMs (64 SA-N-6 vs none), short range SAMs they loses out on (80 vs 192), ASW they have 2 mortars vs 1 and 10 21" torpedo tubes vs 0. They also have better sonar.

So the Slavas only lose at very close range AAW.

The Slavas 33% more ASuW missiles are inferior ones so it's apples and oranges there, the extra 32 medium/long range SAMs are offset if not nullified by not carrying 12-20 air supremacy fighters all of which carry AA missiles, like you say the Slavas lose on short range SAMs, they do have 2 mortars vs 1 but the 1 is actually better due to being a much more advanced design, finally you're right it is 10 torpedo tubes vs 0.

Overall I would say in a hypothetical 1v1 fight a Slava would lose at any range, though it would be worse at close range.

[Kellhound]

They feel that about every air battle ever lol.




Technically it took 2 to have 28 harriers + 32 helicopters, they would still need to send 2x carriers even with the new ones.




The Slavas 33% more ASuW missiles are inferior ones so it's apples and oranges there, the extra 32 medium/long range SAMs are offset if not nullified by not carrying 12-20 air supremacy fighters all of which carry AA missiles, like you say the Slavas lose on short range SAMs, they do have 2 mortars vs 1 but the 1 is actually better due to being a much more advanced design, finally you're right it is 10 torpedo tubes vs 0.

Overall I would say in a hypothetical 1v1 fight a Slava would lose at any range, though it would be worse at close range.

In this case, the general consensus was they didnt have enough fighter for CAP which contributed to the loss of several ships.

Two of the new ones could handle 100 aircraft total, so that is still a major win considering how badly the loss of the helicopters on the Atlantic Conveyor hurt the operation.

The differences between the SS-N-12 and the SS-N-19 are not that significant operationally. The carrier has no medium/long rang missiles, and its short range missiles are for self defense only. The ASW mortars are basically useless for ASW given the short range (and the Slavas' have greater range). We are talking ship comparisons, not embarked aircraft comparisons. The point being it is not a good carrier and it is not a good cruiser. The Chinese were smart enough to convert theirs to just being a carrier from the get go.

[caervek]

The carrier has no medium/long rang missiles

You are correct, it's 32 SAMs only have a 6mi range, however long range SAMs would be kind of redundant on it by design due to the 12-20 air supremacy fighters all of which can carry AA missiles.

The ASW mortars are basically useless for ASW given the short range (and the Slavas' have greater range).

Increased range isn't that great when your chances of stopping the Submarine/torpedo/etc are much lower. The RBU-12000 is generations ahead of the RBU-6000 and completely outclasses it.

The point being it is not a good carrier and it is not a good cruiser.

In fairness it isn't trying to be either, it's a combination. Yes one cruiser and one carrier would be better, but on a ship to ship comparison it offers things that neither a cruiser nor a carrier alone do. I.E the F-35 isn't a good fighter or a good bomber but it's multirole ability makes it a good aircraft and it has it's place.

- - - Updated - - -

Two of the new ones could handle 100 aircraft total, so that is still a major win considering how badly the loss of the helicopters on the Atlantic Conveyor hurt the operation.

That's not really relevant though as the AC would still have been lost along with the helicopters even if we had the QE back then. The helicopters/harriers were sent on the AC because the carriers had already left, they were supposed to be transferred to the carriers upon arrival (the harriers were but the helis didn't all make it).

[Hiricine]

Dont need that much to wipe them out, biggest problem is that they are hiding like cowards amongst the civilians using them as human shields

If I can inject an unpopular opinion here, if you're a civilian that is knowingly living in the near vicinity of combatants that makes you somewhat less innocent.

[caervek]

If I can inject an unpopular opinion here, if you're a civilian that is knowingly living in the near vicinity of combatants that makes you somewhat less innocent.

So does that mean all the civilians living in New York on 11/9/01 were "less innocent" because they were in the vicinity of combatants?

Yeah, thought not, that's why that type of logic will never fly, because if it only works when applied to the enemy then it's flawed logic.

[Shadow Fox]

I count 8 planes?.........8 thats pretty funny.

That thing looks so old and rusted, it should be decommissioned. Pretty sure the Russian Bear Bombers outrange that tiny Carrier, and can output more damage potential...

[Ulmita]

That thing looks so old and rusted, it should be decommissioned. Pretty sure the Russian Bear Bombers outrange that tiny Carrier, and can output more damage potential...

Yeah it is quite old. It can carry up to 30 something planes and some 10 something choppers. But the design is inefficient.
However for Syria its quite a lot of hardware if you consider that they have more in their land bases.

And i am reading that they are sending even more to their land bases. ISIS is going to have some fun in the upcoming months for sure.

[caervek]

Yeah it is quite old.

Believe it or not it's actually younger than half the Nimitz class carriers, but for some reason Russia consider rust red to be a nice colour for a ship (TBH it's probably red oxide AKA bridge paint).

[Kellhound]

You are correct, it's 32 SAMs only have a 6mi range, however long range SAMs would be kind of redundant on it by design due to the 12-20 air supremacy fighters all of which can carry AA missiles.




Increased range isn't that great when your chances of stopping the Submarine/torpedo/etc are much lower. The RBU-12000 is generations ahead of the RBU-6000 and completely outclasses it.




In fairness it isn't trying to be either, it's a combination. Yes one cruiser and one carrier would be better, but on a ship to ship comparison it offers things that neither a cruiser nor a carrier alone do. I.E the F-35 isn't a good fighter or a good bomber but it's multirole ability makes it a good aircraft and it has it's place.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not really relevant though as the AC would still have been lost along with the helicopters even if we had the QE back then. The helicopters/harriers were sent on the AC because the carriers had already left, they were supposed to be transferred to the carriers upon arrival (the harriers were but the helis didn't all make it).

That is like saying the SAMs on the carrier escorts are redundant. Especially when you consider how few fighters the carrier can maintain as a standing CAP because of fuel load limitations.

Increased accuracy is worthless if you cannot get close enough to even fire.

It combines a few of the strengths of both but at such a cost as to render the sum far less than the parts. As the ship does not operate independently (it has escorts), there was no good reason to compromise.

The AC may still have been lost (though perhaps not with a stronger CAP) but neither carrier was ever hit. The AC would have still been there because she was also carrying supplies, but there would have been no need for her to bring more aircraft.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah it is quite old. It can carry up to 30 something planes and some 10 something choppers. But the design is inefficient.
However for Syria its quite a lot of hardware if you consider that they have more in their land bases.

And i am reading that they are sending even more to their land bases. ISIS is going to have some fun in the upcoming months for sure.

The planes will only really make a significant difference if they are transferred to shore, sorties off that hull are not very well armed or long ranged.

[Ulmita]

The planes will only really make a significant difference if they are transferred to shore, sorties off that hull are not very well armed or long ranged.

They will be bringing the lighter Mig-29K/KUB and a shiton of Ka-52k - Ka-50 choppers.
From what i've been seeing the last few months, they withdrew airplanes for favor of helicopters in general. Maybe they will be using it as a "Mistral" who knows.

[Kellhound]

Believe it or not it's actually younger than half the Nimitz class carriers, but for some reason Russia consider rust red to be a nice colour for a ship (TBH it's probably red oxide AKA bridge paint).

No its actual rust. The Russian Navy has not been know for maintaining their surface fleet well.

- - - Updated - - -

They will be bringing the lighter Mig-29K/KUB and a shiton of Ka-52k - Ka-50 choppers.
From what i've been seeing the last few months, they withdrew airplanes for favor of helicopters in general. Maybe they will be using it as a "Mistral" who knows.

Operating from a ship at sea reduces effective range, its simple math. The MiG-29 already suffers from a reduced fuel load and ordnance load, it doesnt make up for it.

[Ulmita]

The planes will only really make a significant difference if they are transferred to shore, sorties off that hull are not very well armed or long ranged.

From Latakia to Alepo is less than 150 km or (<95 miles). Distance IS NOT an issue in this case.

[Deleted]

For gods sake stop arguing about the Carrier - The only reason it is sent there is A, The navy wanted some glory, B, The Navy felt like they could use some practice launching from the carrier.
It changes the situation in absolutely no way.