Aircraft carrier / cruiser

>>31463395
>Is a shop hybrid that ensures that it can do neither job as well as a dedicated cruiser or a dedicated carrier a good idea?
No.

Any of these tubs still around? Even just rusting away somewhere, or were they scrapped?

Reminds me of the battle carriers from Warship: Gunner

File: SHIP_CV_INS_Vikramaditya_R33_Trials_IN_lg.jpg (133KB, 1200x800px)

133KB, 1200x800px

>>31463850
Kiev and Minsk were sold to China and are currently museums, Novorossiysk was scrapped, Baku/Gorshkov was sold to the Indians after a refit.

File: 1435358438880.jpg (328KB, 1800x1641px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1800x1641px

>>31463395
>Is a cruiser - aircraft carrier hybrid possible?
For the global thermonuclear war against country who sucks at ASM defence - yeah. In real life, where you don't need to sink CSG, it just useless.

It would work for UAV's, but it would not be ideal. Specialization is what makes things work well.

>>31463395
>making a thread about literal Russian garbage

kys

File: sexy battleship.png (591KB, 1504x562px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1504x562px

>>31463395

>>31463415
>dedicated this dedicated that
ok kid

>>31464522
I want to berate this faggot, because /k/ is for anything weapon related, but I couldn't be bothered to do it

>>31463395
Is a Japanese 'Carrier' Destroyer Hybrid a good Idea?

>>31464678
>crew of 10,000
>displacement so massive it floods small coastal towns when sailing past them

>>31465071
That will show those inferior yuropoors, slavs, chinks, south americans and africans the power of the USA

>>31464678
That's a super homosexual setting. Planes cannot takeoff or land while the guns are shooting.

I'd place the guns where the landing strips are, and put a single landing strip in the middle. Like this planes can start while the 460mm main guns are shooting. That would be 18x 460mm batteries plus countless smaller gun batteries. MUAHAHAHA!!!

File: 1143 kiev (3).jpg (577KB, 2850x1910px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 2850x1910px

Well, the deal was that original project 1143 Krechet in its role was basically a direct successor of the previous project 1123 Kondor, designed to provide the fleet with substantially wider range of anti-submarine capabilities. Indeed first three ships of the class were to carry 20 anti-submarine and SAR helicopters and only 16 Yak-38 which were not even classified as fighters. The fourth ship, while modified with vastly improved electronic suite and increased armament, shifted the balance even more, carrying the whole of 22 helicopters but only 12 Yak-38. First four project 1143 ships can be roughly classified as anti-submarine aircraft cruisers, and for their role they did a great job. Things changed drastically in the 1980s with the introduction of project 971 Shchuka-B nuclear attack submarines and project 1155 Fregat destroyers. Aircraft cruisers were no longer to be constrained to mere anti-submarine warfare role with rudimentary fixed-wing aircraft capacity and the development of project 1143.5 began. New project, albeit not only preserving the fleet of helicopters but expanding its strength up to 24 units including ASW, SAR and AEW roles, was also to carry 26 heavy maritime Su-33 fighters/interceptors, effectively fulfilling its role of fleet's air defence diversification. Later with political climate changing Soviet naval doctrine had to undergo alteration too. As the primary task of Soviet Navy was shifting from being a hunter/killer to a more multi-role shape, for the sake of increasing power projection capabilities the development of project 1147.7 has begun. While retaining cruiser features of previous projects, it was to be a much heavier ship with nuclear propulsion, carrying the extended air wing of 36 heavy fighters as well as 8 fixed-wing AEW aircraft and only 14 helicopters. Unfortunately the dissolution of the USSR effectively finished this project off and Ulyanovsk was scrapped in 1992. Hope this answers your question well enough.

File: HMS_Invincible_During_T200_Celebrations_MOD_45144681.jpg (2MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2000px

>>31463395

Nah, cruiser carriers or through-deck-cruiser are possible. It is just that they suffer from mission creep because everyone wants it to be something more than a ASW asset with a few jets for CAP.

Invincible class provide how this design can very successful.

File: 1143.4 baku (5).jpg (293KB, 1600x1168px)

293KB, 1600x1168px

>>31465384
By what margin is Invincible an aircraft cruiser?

>>31465410

By its concept.

>>31465457
And what exactly conceptually makes it a cruiser instead of just a light VTOL carrier?

>>31463395
Too complex? No just poorly built. But it also doesn't serve either purpose especially well which is why most advanced navy's have different ships to fill different roles. There is a reason that no other navy has done this, is just cheaper and more effective to do it the other way.

File: 1143 kiev (2).jpg (712KB, 2048x2040px) Image search: [Google]

712KB, 2048x2040px

>>31465765
How were they poorly built? This class served its purpose perfectly and the only reason no other navy has done this is that no other navy had similar doctrine.

>Is a cruiser - aircraft carrier hybrid possible?
Admiral Kuznetsov. It supports a decent amount of aircrafts and has over 200 SAMs. Stupid thread.

>>31465787
>this is that no other navy had similar doctrine.

What doctrine is that? Being sub par?

>>31465817
> It supports a decent amount of aircrafts

>55k ton
>40 aircraft, half of that is helicopters

>and has over 200 SAMs

That are 12km max range. Wew laddy, its practically a CIWS.

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov kinzhal & kashtan.jpg (44KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 564x423px

>>31465857
Doctrine of hunting and butchering USN CSG's in case shit hits the fan.
>40 aircraft
50.
>half of that is helicopters
Less than a half, but whatever. And? 102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets.
>its practically a CIWS
Only that it has another 250 CIWS missiles on the top of 200 12km range ones. And 12 supersonic AShMs.

>>31465741

Like I said.

That it was designated as a cruiser and fulfilling the role of a cruiser, focusing in C3I and anti-submarine warfare, and were also constructed like cruisers. Everything else first, jet carrier second.

>>31465990
>50.

I am yet to see anything that supports this number. Only thing close to it is 45 number that "In the original project specifications, the ship should be able to carry up to 33 fixed-wing aircraft and 12 helicopters ".

>>31465787
>literally can't complete a deployment without catastrophic engine failure
I didn't stutter.

>>31465990
>50.

Well if we are lying, the Nimitz carries 100!

>. And 12 supersonic AShMs.

Oh BOY! A whole TWELVE huh? You can kill a OHP or two with that!

>Doctrine of hunting and butchering USN Frigates

There you go, fixed for you.

>>31465990
>Only that it has another 250 CIWS missiles

You suck at math. You mean 64.

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov & dd-989 uss deyo.jpg (2MB, 2840x1870px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2840x1870px

>>31465993
So just like any helicopter/VTOL carrier. Which is what it is, since it has no features of a cruiser.
>>31466040
>>31466093
>Lies!
http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_11435.htm
>You can kill a OHP or two with that!
One is enough to tear OHP in half. Besides, are you trying to play retarded acting as if a strike group is not a thing?
>Doctrine of hunting and butchering USN CSG's in case shit hits the fan.
There you go, go bait elsewhere.
>>31466114
No, I mean roughly 200 9M330 missiles and 250 9M311 missiles.

>>31466233
>No, I mean roughly 200 9M330 missiles and 250 9M311 missiles.

You are seriously counting reloads?

>>31466289
Name one good reason I should not.

>>31466323
Nobody else does?

File: 1335010664257.jpg (110KB, 720x951px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 720x951px

>>31466327
>2 × Mk 26 missile launchers for 68 missiles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia-class_cruiser

>>31466233
>One is enough to tear OHP in half

While the OHP can shoot down two at least. A single Burke alone could swat down much more than 12 of those school bus sized targets.

>are you trying to play retarded acting

>>when the vatnik comes off too strong

>Soviet "strike groups"

Thats a nice joke.

>muh 50

Your right, half of its complement is helicopters though.

>>31466233
soviet >strike group

damn sure it would strike fear into hearts of tug boat captains

File: belkaball.png (5KB, 128x128px)

5KB, 128x128px

>>31464678
Crazy Belkans are at it again I see.

File: 1143.4 baku (3).jpg (2MB, 3000x2003px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2003px

>>31466339
>While the OHP can shoot down two at least. A single Burke alone could swat down much more than 12 of those school bus sized targets.
Wet fatnik dreams.
>Thats a nice joke.
Your post is.
>Your right, b-but...
Being this told, kek. And? 102k ton Nimitz and only carries 48 Hornets.

>>31466331
>Virginia class cruiser

Let me rephrase, nobody has for nearly 20 years.

Rim 116 can be reloaded, yet nobody counts the reloads, the Mk 26 box launcher can be reloaded too, yet nobody counts that either.

>>31466233
>So just like any helicopter/VTOL carrier. Which is what it is, since it has no features of a cruiser.

Did you just ignore everything I said? She wasn't design as a jet carrier first, she was design and built as a cruiser which could support fighters. Why is this such an issue for you to understand? In no way does it impact on the Kiev or her sister classes.

>http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_11435.htm

I'm sorry, but I can go to half dozen other respectable websites *that* all give me different numbers. The number I've found most consistent is between 37-40.

>>31466358
Shit, why is USN full of tug boat captains?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#US_and_USSR

>>31466380
>Wet fatnik dreams.

Im sorry, what makes your 2.5 mach schoolbus target impervious to a mach 3.5 shit tier SM-2?

>>31466384
I just provided you with an example of reloads being counted. Your post is pointless. Leave.

>>31466406
>I just provided you with an example of reloads being counted.

On a ship that has not been in service for about 20 years, with armed with the one armed bandit.

>>31465071
>a literal floating natural disaster
Why the fuck not?

>>31466380
>102k ton Nimitz and only carries 48 Hornets.

No, anon. Typically it has less than full complement. You care compareing max to typical complement.

Max, a Nimitz class can have 130 hornets.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf

File: 1143 kiev (1).jpg (500KB, 1055x1077px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1055x1077px

>>31466386
>she was design and built as a cruiser
With no features of a cruiser whatsoever.
>In no way does it impact on the Kiev or her sister classes.
Doesn;t have to do anything with 1143, I just wonder why you keep calling it cruiser when it is not.
>all give me different numbers
That is because there is a difference between what it carries right now and what it is designed to carry. It is designed for 50 aircraft. It carried 24 fighters, 4 trainers and 17 helicopters in 2014.

>>31463395
Kusnetov
it's a missile cruiser that has a flight deck

File: Nimtz class max aircraft capacity.png (46KB, 937x831px)

46KB, 937x831px

>>31466463
>I just wonder why you keep calling it cruiser when it is not.

Because that's literally what it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_cruiser#Later_types

>That is because there is a difference between what it carries right now and what it is designed to carry.

So you DO admit you are comparing the design max of the kutz to the typical current load out of the Nimitz.

Pretty fucking scummy, anon.

>>31466396
The fact that is a maneuvering sea skimming target.
>>31466422
The article is right here right now and it shows that for such a type of a system reloads are counted.
>>31466456
It says "130 aircraft at maximum density", not 130 Hornets.
>Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/

>>31466491
>It says "130 aircraft at maximum density", not 130 Hornets.

Read the highlighted fucking portion of >>31466487, you little bitch.

Are all russians posters as scummy and disingenuous as yourself?

>>31466491
>The article is right here right now and it shows that for such a type of a system reloads are counted.

Because it was a single missile launcher anon.

Im with the guy above, why are you being disingenuous?

>>31466506
>Are all russians posters as scummy and disingenuous as yourself?
I don't know about the rest, but this particular vatnik is pretty recognizable and will shit up naval threads all the way until the bump limit.

>>31466491
>The fact that is a maneuvering sea skimming target.

Oh, its at the sea? Then its only going mach one!

Are you saying a 7 metric ton missile is going to out maneuver a 1.5 metic ton missile going 3 times as fast?

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (9).jpg (260KB, 1200x900px)

260KB, 1200x900px

>>31466487
>Because that's literally what it is.
How is it an aircraft cruiser when it has no features of a cruiser whatsoever?
>Aircraft_cruiser#Later_types
>Kiev class
>Admiral Kuznetsov class
Your point being?
>the design max of the kutz
Is 26 fighters. In 2014 is carried 14 Su-33, 10 MiG-29K and 2 MiG-29KUB, for a total of 26 combat capable fixed wing aircraft.

>>31466516
I can hear his teeth gnashing from here when he realized the aircraft max was using the F-18 as the metric, he just didn't bother reading the annotation.

I can hear the asshurt, damage control reply being typed out right now.

>>31466526
>Is 26 fighters

And for the Nimitz its 130.

>How is it an aircraft cruiser when it has no features of a cruiser whatsoever?

Because naming conventions are meaningless in the modern naval world. Its called a aircraft cruiser, thats what it IS.

>>31466539
Fun fact, CV stands for Cruiser, Heavier than Air

>>31466463
>With no features of a cruiser whatsoever.

Is this a joke? Do I keep she was design and built as a cruiser, meaning features, that support operations for a cruiser (as according to Royal Navy doctrine) were built into the design. She was not a jet carrier. She was a ASW/C&C ship *WITH* the ability to launch jets for local air support/CAP.

>Doesn;t have to do anything with 1143, I just wonder why you keep calling it cruiser when it is not.

Because you're be obstinate, to the point of defensiveness.

>That is because there is a difference between what it carries right now and what it is designed to carry. It is designed for 50 aircraft.

There's still no documentation to suggest this.

>It carried 24 fighters, 4 trainers and 17 helicopters in 2014.

As of Sep. 21, 2016, she's only supporting 25 aircraft.

https://www.rt.com/news/349279-russia-aircraft-carrier-syria/

>The heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser will reportedly have 15 Sukhoi Su-33 all-weather air superiority fighters and Mikoyan MiG-29K/KUB multirole fighters onboard, as well as more than 10 Kamov Ka-52K, Ka-27, and Ka-31 helicopters.

>>31466561
CVN stands for Cruiser Voler Nuclear (voler being, "to fly")

>>31466513
>Because it was a single missile launcher anon.
First, it's a two missile launcher. Second, it does not matter. The article is there and it counts full amount of missiles carried by the carrier. It is the same for all systems of such type, regardless of Soviet of American. Same goes for Kuznetsov. That someone somewhere doesn't count reloads is that anon's sick fantasy.
>>31466519
>Then its only going mach one!
Stop lying, pathetic clown.
>Are you saying
Yes, I am saying exactly that.
>>31466539
>And for the Nimitz its 130.
And Nimitz is not an aircraft cruiser.
>Because naming conventions are meaningless in the modern naval world
So you are going this direction now? Okay. You are sure free to call it whatever you want.

>>31466642

Why were you comparing the max amount one platform can carry to the current, nominal loadout of another platform.

>>31466642
>Stop lying, pathetic clown.

>Speed Mach 1.6 (low altitude) - 2.5+ (high altitude)

LEL

>Yes, I am saying exactly that.

ahhhhahahahah!

And, PRAY TELL, how will it achieve this?

>>31466642
>It is the same for all systems of such type, regardless of Soviet of American.

Ok, show me the total missiles of the Nimitz, or anything with Searam.

>>31466706
Less weight and more speed does not mean more maneuverability, retard.

>>31466573
>ASW/C&C ship *WITH* the ability to launch jets for local air support/CAP
It's like literally what being a helicopter carrier means.
>Because you're be obstinate
I really don't understand the reasoning behind calling a light VTOL carrier an aircraft cruiser when there are examples of actual aircraft cruisers that actually have features of both carriers and cruisers.
>There's still no documentation to suggest this.
I just provided you with a source. Here's another one, referred to by Russian wiki: ISBN 978-5-699-20954-5
>As of Sep. 21, 2016
First, it's an article from 2 Jul, 2016. Second, a large portion of MiG-29K that are occupied with training new naval pilots in Crimea since June.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2050620.html

>>31466727
>Less weight and more speed does not mean more maneuverability

Oh, does gravity and parasitic drag not effect Russian missiles?

What magic does the russian missile have, to be more maneuverable yet, so much larger and heavier?

Meme magic?

File: RIM-116_Loading.jpg (1006KB, 2520x2137px)

1006KB, 2520x2137px

>>31466694
Because the amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it carries is the same as the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it is supposed to carry by design. While Nimitz does not carry 130 Hornets, while theoretically it has enough space for that. Theoretically Kuznetsov would have more space for fighters if you take out helicopters. But it's not how it is supposed to be operated.
>>31466706
>Talk shit
>Get #rekt
Pathetic clown is pathetic.
>>31466721
>Searam
Does it reload automatically? Yeah, just as I though.

>>31466778
I did not claim anything about russian missiles, i just said that less mass and more speed does not mean more maneuverability. Actually more speed usually means less maneuverability. THAAD is lighter than SM-3 and has slightly more speed, but cant intercept a plane at all.

>>31466764
>It's like literally what being a helicopter carrier means.

No it doesn't.

>I really don't understand the reasoning behind calling a light VTOL carrier an aircraft cruiser when there are examples of actual aircraft cruisers that actually have features of both carriers and cruisers.

What you think is irrelevant. The Royal Navy called it a cruiser and used it like a crusher.

>Here's another one, referred to by Russian wiki: ISBN 978-5-699-20954-5

Find me the exact line or a source I can actually read.

>First, it's an article from 2 Jul, 2016.

Because it was about the deployment this October. Nothing else about the complement has changed unless stated otherwise.

>Second, a large portion of MiG-29K that are occupied with training new naval pilots in Crimea since June

Not relevant to the point.

>>31466902
>crusher
*cruiser

>>31466822
>Because the amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it carries is the same as the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it is supposed to carry by design.

So, now, you are saying what it carries right now is what it is designed to carry.

>While Nimitz does not carry 130 Hornets, while theoretically it has enough space for that.

The kuz does not carry 26 fixed wing assets, just 25 total right now.

>Theoretically Kuznetsov would have more space for fighters if you take out helicopters

Prove it.

>But it's not how it is supposed to be operated.

You are comparing max operational to current operational load out. Why.

File: kuz8.jpg (47KB, 500x296px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x296px

>>31466924
>Prove it.
Not him, but they are kept in the same hangar, you know. No helicopters = more space in the hangar, more space in the hangar = more planes.

>>31466829
>THAAD is lighter than SM-3 and has slightly more speed, but cant intercept a plane at all.

SM-3 is heavier with more speed, and neither can intercept planes (well, logically, you could get lucky). SM-3 goes mach 10, THAAD goes mach 8.

Both do Endo and Exo atmospheric intercepts.

Terrible example.

>>31466954

Planes are far larger than helicopters, its not a 1:1 ratio.

He was straight up being disingenuous, i want to see him try to weasel out of it.

>>31466961
No, it is totally correct. Less mass and more speed do not necessarily mean more maneuverability. A heavier thing that has less speed, but has, for instance, thrust vectoring and/or larger control surfaces will be more maneuverable than lighter and faster target which has no thrust vectoring and smaller control surfaces. Claiming that A is more maneuverable than B because it is lighter and faster is simply wrong.

File: 0_129a00_8921f959_orig.jpg (146KB, 1240x300px)

146KB, 1240x300px

>>31466979
No, ofc not, but without helis you could probably fit 4 more fulcrums. Thats 26 in the hangar, plus about 8 on deck.

>>31466902
Yes it does. Look at Mistral-class, for instance. It can serve as a C&C ship and it carries helicopters that provide ASW capability. Same as HMS Invincible.
>The Royal Navy called it a cruiser and used it like a crusher.
They used it as a long range strike/air defense platform in a large combat formation? You what?
>or a source I can actually read
I provided you with one. Otherwise, it's a Russian ship and the sources are going to be in Russian. Here's another link.
>yвeличeниe aвиaциoннoгo вoopyжeния дo 50 eдиниц
https://topwar.ru/17758-tyazhelyy-avianesuschiy-kreyser-proekta-11435-admiral-flota-sovetskogo-soyuza-kuznecov.html
>Пocлe этoгo BMФ зaпpocил измeнить пpoeкт пoд ПКP "Гpaнит" c yвeличeниeм aвиaкpылa дo 50 caмoлeтoв co взлeтoм c иcпoльзoвaниeм тpaмплинa и бeз кaтaпyльты (cм.нижe пp.1143.42 MO).
>пp.114342 MO
>peшeниe MO
>50 ЛA
http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-5.html
>Not relevant to the point.
Exactly relevant to the point, since the amount of MiG-29K is limited.

>>31467014

What the hell would make you think a SAM would have less effective control surfaces than a AShM?

Are you just playing devils advocate?

>>31467048
>Thats 26 in the hangar, plus about 8 on deck.

Yes, but he was stating 50 aircraft (which is the max, your number is 34), vs "102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets", which is ONLY hornets, and only current operational loadout, nowhere near max operational or even theoretical operational.

Thus, he was being a complete, 100% faggot.

File: mig-29k at 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (1).jpg (109KB, 1080x825px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1080x825px

>>31466924
>So, now, you are saying what it carries right now is what it is designed to carry.
No, right now it carries less because some aircraft are occupied with training new naval pilots in Crimea. I carried the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it is supposed to carry by design not so long ago.
>The kuz does not carry 26 fixed wing assets, just 25 total right now.
The difference is that 26 fighters is both the amount of aircraft Kuznetsov was supposed to an can carry. While 130 fighters is the amount of aircraft Nimitz can, but not supposed to carry. Once again, more than 26 fighters can be fit into Kuznetsov if you get rid of helicopters.
>Prove it.
Pic related.
>You are comparing max operational to current operational load out. Why.
Because the amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it carries is the same as the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it is supposed to carry by design.
right now at this very moment it does not carry as much because some are in Crimea. Not because they magically don't fit in.
>>31466979
>its not a 1:1 ratio
I never said it's 1:1 ratio, I said that you theoretically can fit more fighters in Kuznetsov, but that's not how it's supposed to be, same as you can fit 130 Hornets to Nimitz, but that's not how it's supposed to be.

>>31465787
>muh doctrine

The reason it exists is soviet propaganda backfired. The Soviets failed to realize the usefulness of carriers, and claimed they were merely oppressive tools of the western capitalist imperialism. Once they finally realized how necessary they are for a world power, they couldn't very well make carriers themselves, because carriers were eeeevil. So you end up with the retarded compromise of the aircraft carrying guided missile cruiser.

>>31463395
What a fucking monstrosity

File: Three greens 004n (L).jpg (92KB, 1024x621px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1024x621px

>>31465410
It has the hull of a cruiser, it has the command and control features of a cruiser, it was armed with Sea Dart, which was an area defence weapon and arguably the most potent air defence weapon of its time.

The aviation facilities were added to make it a more powerful ASW platform and the Harriers were only an afterthought until Hermes became a STOVL carrier.

Cruisers do not have to be anti-ship platforms to classify as cruisers.

>>31467125
>Because the amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it carries is the same as the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft it is supposed to carry by design.

No. That is 100% false. You are stating the nimitz was designed only for 48 hornets. That is 100%, false. You sir, are LYING.

>>31467121
>Yes, but he was stating 50 aircraft
50 aircraft, not fighters. I never claimed it can carry 50 fighters.
>"102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets"
"Less than a half, but whatever. And? 102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets." As in "Kuznetsov carries slightly more than quarter a hundred fighters, Nimitz carries only slightly less than half a hundred fighters while having twice the displacement and not being an aircraft cruiser".

>>31467180
>You are stating the nimitz was designed only for 48 hornets
I'm talking about Kuznetsov, not Nimitz.

>>31467186
>102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets.

CURRENTLY.

You then go to say the Kuz can carry 50 aircraft, WHEN IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY.

>>31467198

So then why are you comparing the current loadout to a theoretical loadout?

File: 1143.2 minsk with ka-25ps & yak-38m.jpg (3MB, 2830x1900px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2830x1900px

>>31467126
>Lay apats some bullshit military doctrines and crap alike, let me educate you on what really propels the development of naval warfare: PROPAGANDA
/pol is a magical pla... oh wait, this is still /k. Supposedly.

File: aerosande.jpg (55KB, 1024x560px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x560px

>>31464500
Net recovery UAVs can already be fielded on DDs and Corvettes.

You would need something slightly larger if you wanted strike capability, but there are small AGMs that already exit.

File: 1143.3 novorossiysk (1).jpg (579KB, 1138x1280px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1138x1280px

>>31467201
It only does not currently because MiGs are busy in Crimea.
>>31467220
Because the amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft Kuznetsov carries is the same as the max amount of fixed wing combat capable aircraft Kuznetsov is supposed to carry by design. It CAN carry more, like maybe 30 or 34 if you dispose of all helicopters, but that's not how it is supposed to be operated. Same as Nimitz is not supposed to operate with fucking 130 Hornets on board, but there is technically enough place to fit them all. That's why I am comparing more reasonable values that make sense in real life deployment, i.e. 26 fighters for Kuznetsov and 48 fighters for Nimitz. If we were comparing the amount of space in both then yes, we would have been comparing 130 in Nimitz to whatever it is in Kuznetsov, probably 34 at best.

File: tumblr_inline_nnbk781GFC1t90ue7_1280.jpg (248KB, 794x1061px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 794x1061px

>>31465741
Through deck Cruisers are a thing.

>>31463395
japan would like this
they can't have carriers, but if it's a cruiser then it's not a carrier right?

File: mistral_class.jpg (35KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x399px

>>31467303
Aren't they buying some of these.

>>31467276
>. 26 fighters for Kuznetsov and 48 fighters for Nimitz

Again, your saying the Nimitz can only deploy operationally, in a "realistic" way with 48 hornets. 25 IS the operational max. 48 is not for the Nimitz.

>>31467276
>It only does not currently because MiGs are busy in Crimea.

Yet the nimitz does carry its "normal" max right now?

Nah, he is right. Thats some fucked up logic. You are trying to put the Kuznetsov in a better light, or rather, trying to put the Nimitz in a poor light.

Your quote, " 102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets", is quite telling, while talking about 50 aircraft max for the kuz. You were being a faggot and rightly called out on it.

>>31467229
It doesn't fit any doctrine, including the Soviet doctrine. It might arguably fit the Russian doctrine, so long as you accept that the Russian doctrine boils down to "be useless and rust".

File: 1143.3 novorossiysk (2).jpg (1018KB, 3000x1821px)

1018KB, 3000x1821px

>>31467176
>it has the command and control features of a cruiser
What distinguishes C&C features of a cruiser from, say, C&C features of Mistral-class?
>it was armed with Sea Dart
Now we are talking. Also that's a damn nice pic, saved.

File: 1143.3 novorossiysk (3).jpg (750KB, 2748x2032px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 2748x2032px

>>31467361
>48 is not for the Nimitz.
It is not? Here it says
>Typically this would be: 12 F/A-18E/F Hornets, 36 F/A-18 Hornets, four E-2C Hawkeyes, and four EA-6B Prowlers fixed-wing; and the following helicopters: four SH-60F and two HH-60H Seahawks.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nimitz/
>>31467379
>Yet the nimitz does carry its "normal" max right now?
No idea, really. I guess so, since Americans have larger naval fighter fleet and don't need to use the fighters actually deployed on a carrier for training elsewhere.
>You are trying to put the Kuznetsov in a better light, or rather, trying to put the Nimitz in a poor light.
It is really neither. If you follow this part of the discussion to its source, what I was trying to say is that Kuznetsov's airwing is not insufficient for its displacement.
>Your quote, " 102k ton Nimitz only only carries 48 Hornets", is quite telling, while talking about 50 aircraft max for the kuz
Once again, 50 AIRCRAFT, not fighters. Right before this quote I was specifically referring to that fighters are slightly more than a half of that amount. On the top of that I was responding to a line that specifically referred to helicopters.

>>31467460
>What distinguishes C&C features of a cruiser from, say, C&C features of Mistral-class?

Probably not much, because Mistral is a modern ship, and i don't know the specifics of that ship. But for the time, having a C&C that was dedicated to strategic activities was something for shore-based facilities or dedicated command ships. Having it on a smaller ship was unusual because of the space it required, not just for the staff but for the sensors and communications that let a ship have a clear picture of the battlespace.

For comparison a ship of similar era - Nimitz - did not have these facilities. You could probably improvise but they were not intended to be floating command centres in the way that several modern carriers destroyers and cruisers have a dedicated CIC for non ship related tasks.

>>31467432
I fitted Soviet doctrine of that tie perfectly. When it was not suitable enough they developed 1143.5, and when that was not suitable too they began to develop 1143.7. It is described in a post in the very beginning of the thread, go and read it before talking out of your ass.
>Russian doctrine boils down to "be useless and rust"
Or just go bait elsewhere, pathetic clown.

File: 1143.4 baku (8).jpg (716KB, 1960x1483px)

716KB, 1960x1483px

>>31467566
Fair point.

>>31467546

A "typical" loadout is not the operational max.

>>31467600
Then what is?

>>31467575
Now citing reality is considered bait. Day/k/are is turrible.

>>31467546
>. I guess so, since Americans have larger naval fighter fleet and don't need to use the fighters actually deployed on a carrier for training elsewhere.

But America has a fuckton more carriers to spread around air frames on.

>what I was trying to say is that Kuznetsov's airwing is not insufficient for its displacement.

By compareing an operational max to a nominal loadout.

Going by max, its far more, going by operational max (90 airframes total) its far more too due to heavy fixed wing assets included.

>Once again, 50 AIRCRAFT, not fighters.

Yes, you compared the Fixed wing strike assets to total assets. Terrible.

>>31467609
Fitted for but not with.

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-09-26T18-21-15.845Z.png (4KB, 419x91px)

4KB, 419x91px

>>31467632
Keks were had.

File: destroyewr carrier.png (5KB, 509x625px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 509x625px

Something like this cruiser/aircraft carriers feels right to me.
Red being your tower, green the landing strip, blue your elevator, and grey your guns.
Of course I'm under the implication we're talking STOL/VTOL and not a Galaxy coming in for a landing.

File: 1143.4 baku (7).jpg (847KB, 3000x2403px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 3000x2403px

>>31467636
>By compareing an operational max to a nominal loadout.
So what is the operational maximum of fighters it can carry?
>going by operational max (90 airframes total) its far more too due to heavy fixed wing assets included
And how can you tell the rest is not just helicopters?
>you compared the Fixed wing strike assets to total assets
No, in that message I compared the other half of the aircraft carried by Kuznetsov that are not helicopters and are fighters to 48 fighters carried by Nimitz. How can that net be clear? It's mentioned in both my response and the line I was responding to.
>>31467641
Yeah, but exactly how many?

>>31467609

According to the GAO sourced above, "As noted in chapter 1, the aircraft carrier “maximum density” is the same for both the
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy (CV-67) and Nimitz-class (CVN-68) carriers. An aircraft carrier’s capacity for carrying aircraft is expressed as aircraft carrier maximum density, a comparative number of F/A-18 equivalents that can be carried aboard a ship. Maximum density takes into account the space on the hanger and flight decks that the aircraft and helicopters in the air wing need as well as space for other items such as boats, boat skids, aircraft ground support equipment, forklifts, cranes, and aircraft jacks. It also allows for the clearances needed between the aircraft and between the aircraft and ship structures. The Navy’s guidance on aircraft carrier density states that 75-78 percent of maximum density is the optimum number of aircraft to have aboard"

So, 78% of 130 is 101, so about 100, it later states it can do 80% or more, but it would require help from the bridge.

Now keep in mind it was back in 98', so some legacy airframes, but total number of "combat aircraft", of a TYPICAL layout was 14 F-14's, 36 F-18's, 4 E/A6's, 8 S-3B's, so 62 combat airframes. Now, it directly states that it can do "augmented operations", which adds 12 more strike fighters, bumping the number to 74. Add in the much larger E-2s (which count for far more) and a few SAR birds, and you get close to that 100 number.

So you cant sit there and say that it only has "48" hornets, when back in the 90's they had far more combat aircraft NORMALLY, and augmented a fuckton more than that.

File: 02155042.jpg (874KB, 3951x2629px)

874KB, 3951x2629px

>>31467693
>First
You just accidentally Project 1123 Kondor.

>>31467738
see
>>31467756

>>31467052
>Yes it does. Look at Mistral-class, for instance. It can serve as a C&C ship and it carries helicopters that provide ASW capability. Same as HMS Invincible.

The Mistral is irrelevant as we're only talking about the Invincible class. The Mistral-class is an amphibious ship. Neither does she carrier fixed wing aircraft. The Invincible classs he was design and built as a cruiser, meaning features, that support operations for a cruiser (as according to Royal Navy doctrine) were built into the design.

>The cancellation of CVA-01 in 1966 meant that the smaller cruiser would now have to provide the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) taskforce with command and control facilities. Two new designs were prepared for this requirement;[10] a 12,500 ton cruiser with missiles forward, six Westland Sea King helicopters and a flight deck aft, somewhat similar to Vittorio Veneto of the Italian Navy and a larger 17,500 ton vessel with a "through-deck", nine Sea Kings and missiles right forward. By 1970, the "through-deck" design had advanced into a Naval Staff Requirement for an 18,750-ton Through-Deck Command Cruiser (TDCC).[10]

>They used it as a long range strike/air defense platform in a large combat formation? You what?

Where did I say this? I have only stated that Royal Navy built this fill in the role of a cruiser.

CON CON CON

>>31467693

A Harrier carrier with slight destroyer capabilities? Neato.

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (6).jpg (3MB, 3000x1769px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1769px

>>31467756
>as well as space for other items such as boats, boat skids, aircraft ground support equipment, forklifts, cranes, and aircraft jacks
Shit, no wonder it's 130.
>62 combat airframes
>"augmented operations", which adds 12 more strike fighters
So essentially the operational maximum of fighters it can carry is 2.4 to 2.8 times more than Kuznetsov. Reasonable enough, thanks for quoting this out.

>>31467052
>>31467828

>I provided you with one. Otherwise, it's a Russian ship and the sources are going to be in Russian. Here's another link.

Yes, but that original source you gave me doesn't follow back to any documentation. Everything I'd take from you would have to be in good faith, like with translations. What I am wanting is any publish official documentation, that I'd be able to get translated later.

>http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-5.html
>Пocлe этoгo BMФ зaпpocил измeнить пpoeкт пoд ПКP "Гpaнит" c yвeличeниeм aвиaкpылa дo 50 caмoлeтoв co взлeтoм c иcпoльзoвaниeм тpaмплинa и бeз кaтaпyльты (cм.нижe пp.1143.42 MO)

Sorry, I can't find that exact line in the link you have provided. Please point it out to me.

>>31467840
well 75 is 3 times as much, while only displacing under twice as much. (depending on how full the kuz is).

The missiles come with a price.

File: 7042912275_8b06afac67_o.jpg (87KB, 800x636px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x636px

Aircraft Carrier.

>>31467237
I was thinking more along the lines of a flight deck 50 feet wide, 600 feet long. Computerized landing wouldn't be a problem on that narrow a deck.

>>31465034
I think that's more of way around then not being allowed actual big boy carriers than anything else.

>>31467885

Not really, as that's suggesting it had an operational role and not as transporter.

File: vaac_harrier_large.jpg (144KB, 1441x890px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1441x890px

>>31467888
Why land then stop when you can stop and then land.

SAM launchers will be removed during the next overhaul Kuznetsov, at the expense of their removal will be increased hangar for aircraft

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-09-26T18-46-32.741Z.png (569KB, 844x892px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 844x892px

>>31467845
>any publish official documentation, that I'd be able to get translated later
I myself am looking for this.
>Please point it out to me.
Here you go.

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov launching 3m45 p-700 granit.jpg (149KB, 1200x810px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1200x810px

>>31467874
64/26=2.46
74/26=2.84
>The missiles come with a price.
They sure do, it's called heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser for a reason. As a sidenote, was it to undergo the same modernization Projects 1144 and 949A are undergoing, it would house 36 Oniks/Kalibr missiles.

>>31467761
It's not a bad idea at all, I mean you get a bunch of vtol/stol/rotary wing craft, shove them on the back of a boat for when your guns/rockets aren't enough and use your guns/rockets for shit that isn't worth losing an aircraft.

>>31467988

I don't understand, though Project 1143.42 was the cancelled one? The current one in service is the Type 1143.5.

>>31468044

I thought it was 20 +4 trainers in the future?

http://flotprom.ru/news/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=170929

>>31468158
Essentially what it says is that they first decided to build another 1143.4 instead of 1143.5, but then developed an upgrade 1143.42 and later MOD approved it, but with increasing the displacement by 10000 tonnes, aircraft carried to 50 and using R&D of initial 1143.5 project. In the table the first is marked "114342", the second, approved by MOD is marked "114342 MO" where "MO" stands for MOD.

>>31468173
>05 Ceн 2014
That's specifically about the contract for MiG-29K/KUB, all of which were delivered by now.

File: Screenshot_2016-09-26-15-37-42.png (368KB, 1440x2560px)

368KB, 1440x2560px

>>31467668

>>31465071
Why use canons and missiles when you can just create a tsunami by moving ?

File: images (3).jpg (16KB, 472x312px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 472x312px

Ise class battleship/carrier?

>>31467229
What are those antennas for?

File: 1143.5 admiral kuznetsov (3).jpg (384KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x1080px

>>31468436
Was always wondering too. It's not just a Soviet thing, look at Tarawa-class, for instance.

File: image.jpg (28KB, 537x274px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 537x274px

>>31467693
Moskva class?

>>31468487
I think they are outriggers rather than antennas.

File: 1-Fd_uRxPrF3-pdxpmc64DSw.jpg (98KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 800x534px

>>31463395

>Is a cruiser - aircraft carrier hybrid possible?

It is possible, but not a very good idea.

File: 1025066191.jpg (193KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1000x541px

>>31466526

>How is it an aircraft cruiser when it has no features of a cruiser whatsoever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs6ZbtRAEc8

The Kuznetsov is actually pretty heavily armed. If it didn't suffer breakdowns every two minutes it would be a pretty cool warship. I wonder how Putin prevents the maintenance staff from throwing themselves into the ocean in despair.

File: osprey is deck space hog.jpg (390KB, 1078x1288px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1078x1288px

>>31469844
>I wonder how Putin prevents the maintenance staff from throwing themselves into the ocean in despair.
That tug that follows her around has to fish them out of the drink.

>>31471114
Russian warships are getting more reliable
Heck a damn Udaloy made it to rimpac this year all alone

>>31471238
I think that was back in 2012.

>>31471343
2012 was their last invitation before SHTF

https://news.usni.org/2016/07/17/russ_des_hawaii_uss_america

File: 141371.jpg (77KB, 750x493px)

77KB, 750x493px

>>31471114
>that filename

You are aware of what the Osprey wings do in storage, right? Pic related.

>>31471601
when did they go back to the camo patterns from my old mirco machines

>>31471636
>micro machines
right in my nostalgia

I think that's an older ship ops tester, not a post-IOC bird. Could be wrong.

>>31471653
still got them in a Rolykit in the back of the closet lol

>>31471700
>still got them in a Rolykit in the back of the closet lol
I just gave my collection of several play sets with a couple hundred vehicles away to my nephews early last year. Last time I visited, they had em set up in the basement playroom, and we must have been down there playing with them for a couple hours.

>>31463395
I believe there simply is no need. You can launch missiles from aircraft just as well instead of launching them from the ship. With of course the added benefit of being far far away from the target. I don't think there is need for offensive capabilities on an aircraft carrier, except for good aircraft of course.

>>31463395
its a naval futon

a futon is a shitty couch and a shitty bed. it does both, but neither well.

>>31471601
Yes, the webm of the wings folding is neat as fuck.

>>31471114
>Muh tug
So when exactly did that happen apart from that one single time in 2012?

File: 1418333552745.jpg (1MB, 1500x1060px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1500x1060px

>tfw no battleship-aircraft carrier hybrid

>>31471908
>Tfw playing ARMA III Exiles
>Have a comfy base
>The least expensive air vehicle with a gun is the osprey with an m240
>Land on top of base
>Hit folding animation button
>wings and blades fold up
my dick

>>31467331
Last I heard the Egyptians bought the Mistrals, and were putting Apaches on them. I think Russia is still interested in getting them though. Also, the Japanese are more than capable of producing ships like the Mistrals domestically, meaning such a purchase is less likely.

File: 1*Zh_m78YEiA6k3Aws5JXJQQ.png (101KB, 613x329px)

101KB, 613x329px

The Iowa's need to be reactivated, and the original modernization design implemented.


Long strike ability, and nothing would dare get within range of those 16"'s

>>31475269
>ski-jump flight deck
have some goddamn respect for yourself, jesus.

>>31475269

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ&spfreload=10

File: woman-holding-hand-out-in-dismissive-manner.jpg (30KB, 634x800px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 634x800px

>>31475269
>The Iowa's need to be
stopped reading right there, just leave

>>31464491
is that a Slava?

>>31465410
>>31465741
The 'dog bone' hangar is a lot smaller than it would be on a pure carrier.

>>31475269
The only reason it has for being is the 16" guns, and you're reducing its battery by a third?

File: 1134a admiral isakov.jpg (92KB, 1363x867px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1363x867px

>>31475378
No, it's Kresta II-class cruiser Admiral Isakov.

>>31475269
>lets try doing something with an almost century old hull

We need to build a new one.

It should have an insane amount of missiles and one tripple turret firing something like 15 inch gps guided shells.

File: ise_1944.png (240KB, 1011x598px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1011x598px

>>31474972

File: ka-52k & 1155 vice-admiral kulakov.jpg (248KB, 1200x697px)

248KB, 1200x697px

>>31475237
>and were putting Apaches on them
Like hell they were.
http://tass.ru/en/defense/847966