Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:51:19 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Hi

Have just read in the news about the Russians sending out that carrier and when I looked at the picture I saw her carrying Su-27. Knowing how much people here know about these things, what do you think about that ship and her aircraft complement?

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:01:55 AM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline
Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 2
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:11:20 AM   
Nanshin ron

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 2/1/2012
From: Finland
Status: offline
Old and probably in need of total refit or scrapping. Easy to nail in the port by an airstrike from Finland or Norway i think.

Where are they sending it, Syria?
Or the Hormuz strait? War could start there from a collision with everyone parked there.


_____________________________



(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 3
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:26:03 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
I believe the Soviets intended it as a stepping stone to larger carriers. They had no experience with them.

This carrier is probably on par with the British Harrier carriers.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Nanshin ron)
Post #: 4
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:32:04 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
Agreed, although the Flanker and its navalized version are the most beautiful modern warplanes in service IMHO.

The curves make it look so mean, definitely a beauty.

I watched a Russian Knights performance when visiting AirPower Zeltweg years ago, one of the largest air
shows in Europe. To witness what those crazy Russians are able to do with a heavy fighter double the size
of a Mig-29 is astonishing.



With the advent of stealth technology the fighter type a/c just get uglier and uglier.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 5
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:32:37 AM   
gradenko2k

 

Posts: 935
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf
Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.

I think this is kind of deliberate: The Kuznetsov isn't nearly as "capable" as the Nimitz class because A. they're not allowed to sail carriers across the Bosphorus due to the Montreux Convention of 1936 and B. their naval doctrine does not have as much focus on the area of power projection, or at least projecting it through carriers.

In fact, I believe the Kuznetsov and other Soviet "aircraft carriers" such as the Kiev-class ships are classified as cruisers, to circumvent the Montreux Convention.

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 6
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:48:43 AM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
I saw her pass through the Straits of Gibraltar yesterday

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to gradenko2k)
Post #: 7
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 9:03:43 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oliver Heindorf

Nothing. Oh, wait, garbage.The plane itself is OK but I have stopped counting how often I sunk that this ship along with Slava, Kirov etc. in Harpoon Classic and H3. The weak point imho is that this ship carries less Aircraft then their american counterparts. Against an american CVGB this russian CVBG would simply have no chance to survive an encounter when things get hot. Not even thinking of the design itself as this ship cannot handle the same amount of planes in a given time than a modern Nimitz carrier could do.




the couple of minutes I had time to search for info on the Inet pretty much says it is also not intended for what a US carrier is intended to do. While I would say the the US carriers are absolute offensive weapon systems, this Russian carrier is more likely to act as a defensive "shield" with it's fighters.

_____________________________


(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 8
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 9:05:08 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nanshin ron

Old and probably in need of total refit or scrapping. Easy to nail in the port by an airstrike from Finland or Norway i think.

Where are they sending it, Syria?
Or the Hormuz strait? War could start there from a collision with everyone parked there.




Old? It's not really that old. Guess there are older US carriers around. And isn't such a ship supposed to stay something like 40 years in service anyway?

_____________________________


(in reply to Nanshin ron)
Post #: 9
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 9:14:51 AM   
Nanshin ron

 

Posts: 7
Joined: 2/1/2012
From: Finland
Status: offline
Well i checked from wikipedia that she is going to be practically build again by the end of this year.
I wouldnt be surprised if they find something they didnt expect during that refit, might never sail again.

The state of Russian Navy and armed forces in general is this, that is why they are planning to pump that 500billion euros in them. Its just that most of that will go to inefficiency and corruption.

Im from Finland, know thy neighbor and all that.



_____________________________



(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 2:08:21 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
There were 2 Kuznetsov class, and the old Varyag is currently being refitted by the Chinese.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Nanshin ron)
Post #: 11
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 2:24:43 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
The Chinese will gain some experience in carrier operations before attempting to build one of their own.  It's all about power projection and the South China Sea (Spratly Islands) abounds in mineral wealth.  The claims of so many different nations will ultimately be decided and the Chinese want that to be in their favor.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 12
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 2:37:11 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 13
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 3:45:12 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Well, at least the Russkis are planning to remove the anti-ship missiles from the Kuznetsov. It's still a crap carrier, but maybe it'll be slightly less crap.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 14
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 4:42:14 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough".

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 2/3/2012 4:43:26 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 4:47:04 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am beginning to suspect that almost any carrier is just too vulnerable these days to be worth it. The only thing that makes our American carriers useful is that at this time there is really no world power with the capability to take them. But I bet if they were in the hands of another nation that we would have no trouble taking them out....Which means that sooner or later somebody else will have that capability.


Politicians need to realize that CV's are simply floating airfields. Like any airfield , it needs to ne protected. Reducing the size of the airgroup and escort screen, and eliminating ASW fixed wing aircraft (in the name of saving money) is "penny wise and pound foolish". It's like protecting the crown jewels with a cheap padlock.

_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 16
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 6:09:52 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Any defense can be overwhelmed by an attack if the #s are great enough.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 17
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 6:45:29 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Any defense can be overwhelmed by an attack if the #s are great enough.


Of course! The trick is to use force multipliers ,training and doctrine to make the expense too dear for the game. When you consider that even as depleted as the USN's CVN's airgroup may currently be , it's still larger than most countries air forces. Now double it (as they were designed for) and you have a target that will cost far more than it's worth.

Under the old Soviet system it was estimated to cost several bomber regiments and several subs (and possibly a SAG) to bring down ONE CVN group. OK, so they got one. There were always at least 11 more where that group came from! How many CVN groups could you afford to sink? Two would pretty much waste the whole Russian surface fleet and most of their naval aviation assets. How many countries could afford that?



_____________________________


(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 18
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:17:56 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Of course you're right, but with the bean counters being penny wise and pound foolish the price has been substantially reduced and depending on where you find yourself somebody might consider the CVBG to be irresistable while "on sale".  There is a certain Asian country that has a rapidly growing military capability.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 19
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:30:34 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline
There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 20
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:49:23 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

There is another tactic which I am sure 5th Fleet is concerned about which the Iranians are geared towards using. Understanding that a CV would not normally operate in restricted waters such as the Persian Gulf, since the Fleet HQ and home port is within those restricted waters it creates a little dilemma for a carrier going through the Strait of Hormuz and the Iranians go with an asymmetric attack with swarm tactics by small boats. Don't know how many 25 footers with high speed torpedoes you need to take down a CVBG transiting the Strait but it could be interesting!

BTW....Hey Steve, we haven't had any more meet ups in DC!

Pete 


I recall about ten years or so ago there was a huge up set during an electronic wargame where the RED force mobbed a CVN group with Zodiac type boats and guys with RPG's. It upset people in the Pentagon so much that there were quite a few study groups looking into such unorthodox tactics and threats , and how to deal with them. Most 25 footers couldn't carry a torpedo (which a heavy weight anti-surface torpedo must be at least 25"). But they can carry rocket lauchers and Man portable anti-tank missiles.


I'm not exactly a DC resident lately , but give me till summer. Then I should be in DC every couple of months!

_____________________________


(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 21
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:51:23 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough".


Thanks Steve!

BTW, what do you think about rumored China's long range (almost ICMB) missile that in theory threaten CVs?


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 22
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 7:55:36 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline
Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 23
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:01:31 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete


Paul van Riper struck again?

_____________________________


(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 24
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 8:04:16 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline
The one and only!

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 25
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 11:02:04 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

In fairness , the Kiev's were never intended to go toe to toe with USN flat tops. They were designed for a different mission, with a very different doctrine in mind.

Please keep in Mind that these ships were the brainchild of Sergi Goshkov (who kept a sign of his desk that read "Perfection is the enemy of good enough") Kruschev's head of the Navy. Where as Stalin wanted a big,blue water balanced fleet with battleships and carriers, Kruschev wanted none of that. Nothing larger than a Cruiser , "Which was only good for carting admirals around". So Goshkov was limited both by resources , and by politics. It's hard to lobby in favor of carriers when the party has just decreed them useless and symbols of Imperialism!

Goshkov was forced to rely on submarines and small craft rather than BB's and CV's. Missiles instead of bombers. So that's what he did. Build a big coastal defense Navy to force the CV's well back, limiting their nuclear attack aircraft. (The Soviets saw ALL war as leading to a nuclear confrontation. The question was always WHEN, never IF). And this worked well as long as the Navy faced CV's. Their own subs would raid u-boat style (joined by a few CL's and DDG's) on western convoys.

The Polaris came out. Big problem. Now you need to force them back, with landbased ASW , lots of cheap frigates , destroyers and Anti-submarine cruisers (The Soviets NEVER called them that, but Large ASW Patrol ships). Then Moskva and Leningrad , what we would call CHV's , (They would call them "Tactical aircraft carrying ASW Cruisers"--quite a mouthful, but still thinking ASW , not strike).

Eventually the Soviets would build SSBN's of their own (1st Yankee's which operated off Bermuda, then the Delta series , operating further and farther back from the USA) and gave their Navy a new job, protecting those SSBN's. ASW ships were good against western SSN's and SS's, and the surface ships with their long range missiles could threaten ASW CV's (Like the ASW Essex's and latter the British Invincibles) , but could do nothing against flocks of P-3's,Nimrods and Atlantic's.

So enter the Kiev class. Their main battery was not the Yak-36 (or sometimes called YAK 38) Forger VTOL planes they carried, but those same "crappy" missiles that Terminus refers to. They were quite a threat to USN CV's. And these ships carried what was considered a massive battery of AAA and AS missile in their day. And along with the usual Hormone and Helix ASW and early warning aircraft , we had the YAK's. No threat to F-14's,F-4's, or even Harriers and Sea Harriers. But to P-3's, Nimrods and other Maritime patrol aircraft and Helicopters? A huge bloody threat! (I speak from 1st hand experince!).

With the later Delta's and eventual the Typhoon class, the Soviets were able to retreat into "Bastions" just outside their harbors where ASW aircraft couldn't go , and SSN's did so at their extreme peril. Later , the Soviets got the bright idea of moving the Typhoons under the edge of the ice pack, where they could be protected by their fleet , and drive MPA aircraft crazy trying to get at them through the ice!

After the fall of the Soveit union , three of the Kiev's were scrapped and Goshkov was used as a test ship, being fitted with a "phased Array" RADAR system , kind of a "poor man's SPY-1" (used with the USN Aegis system).

So why was the Goshkov fitted as a CV? Because that was all they had, having sold the unfinished Varayg (sister ship to the Tiblisi/Kuneskov), and you can only sell what you have. Obviously some arms dealer mad a hell of a commission , as she was sold twice to the same buyer. 1st to buy her, then full price again to FINISH her!

So while the Goshkov was "good enough" for Soviet work, how will she perform in her new role? I'm going out on a limb and say "probably not good enough".


Thanks Steve!

BTW, what do you think about rumored China's long range (almost ICMB) missile that in theory threaten CVs?


Leo "Apollo11"


I'm not sure how effective it would be. 1st you need real time, precise data on where the carrier is. Then you need to drop in on the carrier precisely , after getting by any THADs equipped Aeigis DDG's and CG's that can intercept it. And even if you do hit it (and presumably sink it ) ok , now what? You've escallated to full scale nuclear war. Yes, China takes out a CV , and the US takes out China's 100 biggest cities. Do you call that a win?

Frankly , even if it worked , China would not use it. For the same reason that the USA won't employ a convetionally equipped ICBM as a anti-terroist weapon (Global strike). Because you can not distinguish it from a strategic nuclear strike.

But it is an excellent propaganda weapon. Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades!

_____________________________


(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 26
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/3/2012 11:03:58 PM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Steve,

My recall of the boat length was likely incorrect but no biggie since you got the gist. Yes, there was a classified wargame of that scenario and the CVBG had its clock cleaned so badly that they halted the wargame and changed the parameters for a "blue" force win. There have been some recent media articles on this wargame with all the saber rattling going on over there.

Pete


Paul van Riper struck again?


Kind of an ironic name , considering Sterling Haden's role name in Dr. Strangelove.

< Message edited by AW1Steve -- 2/3/2012 11:06:25 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 27
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/4/2012 12:48:44 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades!

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing?


_____________________________


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 28
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/4/2012 1:50:54 AM   
AW1Steve


Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades!

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing?



Last year , Mr. Ahm-a-dinner-jacket's forces claimed a mass launch of 14 missiles at once. They launched 3, but the photo showed 14 ( some of them without contrails , some with miss-matched). It confirmed an ugly and feared truth. The Iranians have Photoshop and are not afraid to use it!

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 29
RE: OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov - 2/4/2012 9:59:51 AM   
pharmy

 

Posts: 271
Joined: 4/3/2010
From: Bangkok/Budapest
Status: offline
Ah, but that was their anti-Israel capability they were showing off. The US is much more worried about those missiles that launch horizontally stationed at the straights of Hormuz, the one Nato calls Sunburn, nasty little 3 mach bugger. That means it flies at a km a second - 30 km wide straight, nightmare for a bushwacked transiting force.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit.htm


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Almost as dangerous as Iran's mastery of Photoshop and their use of Paper Maiche weapons in parades!

Are you suggesting that A-mad-in-de-head's missiles aren't firing?



Last year , Mr. Ahm-a-dinner-jacket's forces claimed a mass launch of 14 missiles at once. They launched 3, but the photo showed 14 ( some of them without contrails , some with miss-matched). It confirmed an ugly and feared truth. The Iranians have Photoshop and are not afraid to use it!


(in reply to AW1Steve)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OT: Russian carrier Admiral Kusnetsov Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.000