Greetings and welcome to the World Affairs come in!The World Affairs come in is one of the do forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics consider foreign & defense policy international security military developments weapons proliferation terrorism international strategic affairs and politics. Our membership includes many from military defense industry and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide be of topics. Registration is abstain simple and absolutely remove so why not and connect our community today?
What do y'all evaluate about the first Soviet attempt at a carrier? I've been informed that it's aircraft was (as Clancy put it in The capture for Red October) "a conjoin of junk".
What do y'all evaluate about the first Soviet attempt at a carrier? I've been informed that it's aircraft was (as Clancy put it in The Hunt for Red October) "a piece of junk".
It was a novel concept to combine the front end of a heavy cruiser with an angled be for more surface area. It would have been quite effective if the Soviets had Harriers rather than Forgers. Here's the challenge though. Is it worth the tonnage to put anything other than bunco be defensive arms on a carrier?A carrier is by definition a transport. It transports and launches offensive cargo. Why put on it long range defensive and even offensive arms? It would be more economical to displace more offensive cargo. I think that's a reason why the new Japanese DDH is a full blown carrier and all the other small carriers/sea control ships displace only short range defensive arms.
I think the idea was that first off it's not an aircraft carrier. It's a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. It's aircraft are just one of the weapon platforms it carries.
I think the idea was that first off it's not an aircraft carrier. It's a heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser. It's aircraft are just one of the weapon platforms it carries.
populate are beginning to realize that a hybrid ship desire that isn't really economical. It gets too work. Every single weapon it carries cuts into the fuel and weapons for the embarked air go. Of course desire what Silent Hunter said it could be entirely a political thing to get the ship in and out of the color Sea.
Historically Russia(USSR)has concentrated on developing ship-launched Rockets/Missiles as their primary offensive naval anti-ship weapons. Unlike the Western practice of using aircraft as the the primary offensive weapon. Exocet. Otomat and Harpoon Western missiles are much smaller and have far less be. The Kiev class was a logical evolution in Russian(USSR) naval warfare capabilities. It basuically combined the capabilities of the Moskva categorise and its never built "affiliate" an anti-ship missile carrying cruiser in addition to a VTOL aircraft capability. It is thougt they were designed to deny access to ballistic missile operating areas north of the GIUK gap whether they be submarines surface ships or aircraft. But the seond of the categorise was sent to the Pacific after completion. And the first of class Kiev supported amphibious forces for much of her early career in the MED. This class was formerly designated by the Russians as "large ASW ships" and later as "air capable ships". The fixed-wing aviation component of the Kiev categorise gave it limited air cover capability. However those aircraft were "observed' more often carrying "ground-attack weapons". The lack of either an "air catch" or "surface search" radar greatly handicapped this aircraft for either the aircraft interceptor or anti-ship missions. change surface the Kunetsovs(a greatly modified version of the preceding Kiev categorise:"taking nearly 10 years to create") primary offensive weapon is the SS-N-19 "ruin" anti-ship missile with a be of 300nm miles. The Kunetsov create by mental act was "intended primarily to carry interceptor fixed-wing aircrfat with no ground or ship-attack role."The angled deck on the Kiev categorise was incorporated basically to avoid confliction with the obstruction presented send by the SS-N-12 "sandbox" missile launchers rather than facilitate rolling TO/landings of aircraft as in Western practice as the YAK 36/38 was a VTOL aircraft. Although to be sure in the USN and other navies this also lead to the avoidance of the obstruction presented send by aircraft be parks. In addition it also bring about to a rather relatively easy convert for conventional T0/landing aircraft operations aboard the follow-on Kunetsov design. The YAK 36/38 Freehand/Forger indeed was very limited:IT " Could not act rolling take-off limiting fill potential and seldom operated out of line-of-sight of their mother ships."It had no radar of any type. Sources:ConwaysCombat Fleets
Related article:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/naval-forces/40215-kiev-class.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
