russian carrier

960111-N-9085M-002.jpg (321 KB)

  • Leave A Comment

    Leave a comment ?

    14 Responses to russian carrier

    1. I didn’t even know Russia had carriers.


    2. This is the Russian carrier Adm. Kuznetsov. Looks kinda of cool, but is actually a piece of crap.


    3. Russia does not have carriers as the USA does, they have aircraft carrying heavy cruisers. This is mainly because, if I remember correctly, an agreement they have with Turkey not to have carriers in the Mediterranean.

      Russia has a different philosophy on naval warfare than the US and a much smaller budget. Their navy doesn’t center around aircraft carriers. The supercarriers of the US Navy are more vulnerable than most people think. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know enough about foreign militaries.

      The purpose of the US Navy is to project power, which no one can match. The purpose of the Russian navy is for defense and if push comes to shove they can fulfill that objective.


      • Russia has aircraft that carry heavy cruisers? Wow… I’m not sure anyone has anything as awesome as that. How big do your aircraft have to be to carry heavy cruisers? Are they like in dry dock in the cargo hold? LOL… Sorry. Couldn’t resist, I understand what you are saying, I’m just messing with ya.

        But while it is true that part of the role of the US supercarrier was initially to project power, I should also point out that US supercarriers are actually not quite as vulnerable as you seem to believe. Not necessarily because they are invulnerable to attack by subs, etc, but rather because they are generally part of a carrier group put together specifically to negate the inherent weaknesses that a lone supercarrier might face…

        You can argue I don’t know about foreign militaries if you’d like, however I think you’ll find it a fruitless argument…


      • This carrier is the Russians sad attempt to make a US style flat-top carrier. The reason the Soviets didn’t go for a more surface heavy type navy is because they opted for a heavy-sided submarine force, because it planned it war theory on holding off the US while they fought their expected war on western europe soil. The only reason the Russians have this carrier is only for their national pride.

        A carrier fleet is one of the most complex and capable military forces ever invented and it takes decades just to become proficient and a few more decades to reach the standard of excellence the US has acheived. For 20 years my job was to project a carrier fleet against sub, surface and air threats and I am extremely knownledable about foreign militaries (I was required to know their capabalities) and believe your assesment that a Carrier Battle Group is not as vulnerable as you suggest, but I’m pretty sure that there are Wiki articles or other “experts” that will disagree with me.


        • I do agree with most of what you say. Let’s keep in mind though that there are some pretty clever people in other countries thinking up ways of sinking those floating cities or at least limit their sphere of influence.

          In the last 20 years there have been huge advances in SAM technology, largely as a result of Desert Storm. The Navy is trying to figure out to stop huge amounts of high speed missiles from reaching their carriers. At the current time, they wouldn’t be able to stop them all.

          Even if the carrier isn’t sunk by high speed missiles, submarines or aircraft, there are new SAM systems that pretty damned effective these days, of course only very few countries deploy such advanced systems. This severely limits a carriers sphere of influence either against another navy or land based targets.

          Some would argue that our aircraft can intercept and engage beyond visual range but this causes all sorts of problems. Number one, without visual confirmation we tend to shoot down friendlies. Number two, Russian electronic warfare confuses our missiles by detecting and duplicating the radar signal and sending back a false one, making those long range missiles ineffective. At this point, unless either side runs away it will come down to a dogfight.

          You don’t want to compare the f-18’s to the new 4.5++ Sukhois and Migs. Given equal pilot skills and force ratio the Sukhois and Migs will always win dogfights. Good thing there are very few around the world and we have hundreds of aircraft of our own….but still. This wouldn’t change with the JSF or f-22.

          Stealth was a great idea 20 years ago and worked great but is largely ineffective against modern adversaries today. The f-22 and JSF are both turkeys and can be shot down by countries fielding modern equipment. Admittedly, they were both designed to penetrate enemy airspace but the countermeasures against stealth developed quickly and are cheaper.

          The US Navy is still the most powerful in the world, no doubt, but complacency will get people killed. Always maintain a healthy amount of paranoia and never underestimate the craftiness of the enemy.


          • Hey Hanz, WTF are you talking about? I’m not sure where you get your info from but, it aint right.


          • Hanz,

            You speak as though there are no clever people in the good old U. S. of A. There are clever people on all sides. Personally, I believe the F-22 to be the most technologically sophisticated 5th Generation fighter in the world, however I will admit to being biased. I know Russia is still working on a 5th generation to match it, and the specs i’ve been seeing so far strongly suggest that you have a winner in your hands with fighters like the new Sukhoi.

            But this is all a moot point. We can talk of the pros and cons of individual weapon systems all day long, however in reality, no system works alone. It is a combination of tactics, multiple branches of military and equipment types, working together, that ultimately determine victories.

            And I do agree with you one one specific point. Complacency does breed weakness. However I seriously doubt the US has become complacent. In fact I think we spend a whole lot more on our military than makes sense to me. But it is what it is.


          • You’re right that the US should be concern about other countries abilities (as should all responsible governments). You talk well about weapons and vehicle capabilities, but not much about putting bombs on target, which requires knowledge where the target is. That’s the nice thing about a Carrier Battle Group, where it now is not where it will be an hour from now when the weapons are launched (which can’t be said about Air Force bases). Carrier Battle Groups also have defense in depth (a carrier NEVER goes to sea alone) and the US owns the high ground (space).

            The US proved (and continue to improve) their ability to use that high ground and have recently demonstrated it can deny the use to low orbit satellites (which is the hardest to protect against). Phyreblade is right, no system works alone and complacency does breed weakness, but the US military is actually more forward thinking than many Hollywood movie makers and other liberal ‘tards give it credit for.


    4. Freakin F-22 came out when? SU whatever still has yet to hit the pavement. Where is the argument? MIG’s fall apart regularly and F-16’s rule the sky. Russian steam punk planes are just that.


    5. F-16’s are land based aircraft, F-18’s can be both carrier based and land based.


    Reply to gor ¬
    Cancel reply

    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas