Sowiecki lotniskowiec II WŚ - czemu nie było?
Sowiecki lotniskowiec II WŚ - czemu nie było?
Tyle wolnego akwenu Bałtyk.., płn. Atlantyk.., Pacyfik... i nic
Re: Sowiecki lotniskowiec :)
O jaki okres chodzi - bo przyczyny braku lotniskowców były zdziebko różne w różnych latach.Dr. pisze:Tyle wolnego akwenu Bałtyk.., płn. Atlantyk.., Pacyfik... i nic
Rosjanie przystąpili do budowy floty pełnomorskiej dopiero w połowie lat 1930tych. Nie mieli wówczas mocy projektowych, aby zaprojektować lotniskowce - mieli kłopoty z takimi"prostymi" typami, jak niszczyciele czy krążowniki.
W dodatku lotniskowiec byłby nieużyteczny: na Bałtyku i Morzu Czarnym niepotrzebny (mały akwen), podobnie jak w Arktyce (trudności z wyjściem na otwarty ocean). Z kolei na Pacyfik nie wypuściliby go Japończycy.
W czasie wojny duże okręty radzieckie praktycznie nie działały, więc lotniskowce i tak byłyby niepotrzebne.
Po wojnie to już inna sprawa. Tutaj kłania się stara dyskusja z TN na temat sensu dokończenia budowy ZEPPELINA przez Niemców.
Gdzieś w necie z pewnością powinny być strony (szczególnie po rosyjsku) o radzieckich projektach lotniskowców.
W dodatku lotniskowiec byłby nieużyteczny: na Bałtyku i Morzu Czarnym niepotrzebny (mały akwen), podobnie jak w Arktyce (trudności z wyjściem na otwarty ocean). Z kolei na Pacyfik nie wypuściliby go Japończycy.
W czasie wojny duże okręty radzieckie praktycznie nie działały, więc lotniskowce i tak byłyby niepotrzebne.
Po wojnie to już inna sprawa. Tutaj kłania się stara dyskusja z TN na temat sensu dokończenia budowy ZEPPELINA przez Niemców.
Gdzieś w necie z pewnością powinny być strony (szczególnie po rosyjsku) o radzieckich projektach lotniskowców.
oj Karol ale przyznaj po co Rosjanom lotniskowiec w Arktyce ?
Pływałby sobie tam w przysłowiowe kółko angażując wiele innych okrętów do eskorty samego siebie i czekając cierpliwie rok, dwa ... bo może Admiral Scheer łaskawie pojawi się na tym akwenie dodać kilku wątpliwych listków laurowych do wieńca chwały Kriegsmarine.
Ponadto technologia technologią , a realne potrzeby floty to druga "inszość" ... Jeśli chodzi o sam fakt posiadania lotniskowca to bardziej widziałbym go u Włochów niż u Rosjan ...
Pływałby sobie tam w przysłowiowe kółko angażując wiele innych okrętów do eskorty samego siebie i czekając cierpliwie rok, dwa ... bo może Admiral Scheer łaskawie pojawi się na tym akwenie dodać kilku wątpliwych listków laurowych do wieńca chwały Kriegsmarine.
Ponadto technologia technologią , a realne potrzeby floty to druga "inszość" ... Jeśli chodzi o sam fakt posiadania lotniskowca to bardziej widziałbym go u Włochów niż u Rosjan ...
Trzeba byloby sie zastanowic, czy podczas spotkania z flota brytyjska, piloci wloscy uciekaliby na lotniskowiec, czy od razu na kontynent 
Powazniej myslac.. masz raczej racje mcwatt. M. Srodziemne nie jest co prawda Atlantykiem, ale dosyc dluuugie
. Wlochom przydalby sie jakis lekki lotniskowiec. Pytaniem pozostaje jednak, czy potrafiliby go wlasciwie wykorzystac. A tu klania sie znow sprawa Gibraltaru . Dodac mozna jeszcze i Malte i Aleksandrie. Dodac mozna ponadto oslone konwojow do Libii.
Powazniej myslac.. masz raczej racje mcwatt. M. Srodziemne nie jest co prawda Atlantykiem, ale dosyc dluuugie
. Wlochom przydalby sie jakis lekki lotniskowiec. Pytaniem pozostaje jednak, czy potrafiliby go wlasciwie wykorzystac. A tu klania sie znow sprawa Gibraltaru . Dodac mozna jeszcze i Malte i Aleksandrie. Dodac mozna ponadto oslone konwojow do Libii.-
SmokEustachy
- Posty: 4487
- Rejestracja: 2004-01-06, 14:28
- Lokalizacja: Oxenfurt
- Kontakt:
Odpowiedź na pytanie topicu... z miarodajnego źródła. http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 1303.shtml
Russia No Longer Needs Aircraft-Carriers
By Dmitry Chirkin
Feb 8, 2004, 08:40
Navy Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov says that Russia gives up production of bigger class vessels so typical of the Soviet epoch. The RF Defense Ministry has developed a plan of the Navy development for the period till 2040-2050, Gazeta reports. Basic theses of the plan are disavowal of protection of Russia's interests in oceans and consequently switching to production of smaller vessels navigating within the limits of 500-meters territorial waters zone.
Navy Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov says that Russia gives up production of bigger class vessels so typical of the Soviet epoch and switches to production of multi-purpose vessels. According to the Navy commander-in-chief, Russia will have unique frigates and corvettes of its own. He adds that it is too early today to speak about aircraft-carriers - the issue will be topical within the next ten years only. However, Russia will not sell or decommission its only aircraft-carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov".
Director of the Center for Strategy Analysis and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov said in an interview to Gazeta that the Navy will have to get rid of the vessel as well. He says: "If the Navy needs the aircraft-carrier so much, it should be repaired and used in campaigns. Today, the only purpose of "Admiral Kuznetsov" existence is to give job to navy pilots, which seems to be too expensive indeed."
The Center director adds that there are only 12 navy pilots in Russia; training of younger pilots would be more advantageous abroad, at Ukraine's aerodrome in Saki or on "Admiral Gorshkov" aircraft-carrier recently sold to India. Ruslan Pukhov thinks that if "Admiral Kuznetsov" is sold training of younger pilots could be started within the nearest years, as "Admiral Gorshkov" needs repairing that will take four years.
In fact, today the condition of "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not perfect as well. The vessel was launched in 1989 and requires thorough repairs. As of now, the aircraft-carrier stays at the Sevmorput shipyard. When the vessel was sent for 4-day sea trials, it immediately went to the bottom.
The expert adds that production of Russian aircraft-carriers is out of question within the nearest 15 years; it is more advantageous to build new frigates and corvettes at the cost of $100 and $500 millions correspondingly.
This year, Russia is to give up the legendary military base located in the Vietnamese Bay of Cam Ranh that has been used within 20 years. When speaking about the loss, admirals and generals have deep sighs: indeed, the Navy will thus have its only point of logistical support located in Syria. So, Russia is losing the symbols of the empire's bygone might. Hitler mounted Siegfried statues along the Third Reich boundary. Russian bases, the naval ones in particular, performed the same role.
It is often said that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin carried the war constantly referring to the globe. But as seen from the position of military bases abroad, this statement more concerns Stalin's followers. After WWII, the USSR had naval bases in Cuba, Somalia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Poland, Germany and Yemen. Soviet seamen could be seen in any part of the world.
In different periods, the Soviet Navy had naval bases in Cuba (Cienfuegos), Poland (Swinomunde), Germany (Rostok), Finland (Porkkala-Udd), Somalia (Berbera), Vietman (Cam Ranh), Syria (Tartus), Yemen (Hodeida), Ethiopia (Nokra), Egypt and Lybia. Today, the might of the Soviet empire is gone. The Russian Navy has only two signal office centers outside the country - Vileiki in Belarus and Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, one logistical support base Tartus in Syria and one military base in Kant (Kyrgyzstan).
The Iraqi war has once again demonstrated that technical superiority of one of the sides guarantees success. Thus a conclusion can be made that Russian military technique will hardly do for modern wars. Otherwise, Saddam would have still stayed on the presidential post in Iraq. The national tank corps used to consist of 63 thousand machines and kept Europe and Asia in awe (the general staff said that Soviet troops could reach the English Channel or the Yellow Sea with the tanks). Today, the fleet has considerably reduced (it makes up 20,000 tanks) and is much weaker for repulsion of the aggression. At that, the RF Ministry of Defense states that only every fifth tank of the fleet meets the present-day requirements. These are mostly engineering developments of the 1970-80s, the outdated models T-72 and T-80. The Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reports that during the Iraqi campaign Baghdad counted on these tanks most of all.
Unfortunately, when we speak about modern Russian tanks we mean models produced at least ten years ago. Within this period, the Ministry of Defense has ordered just few dozens of T-90 tanks, the amount that can hardly change the situation in the tank corps. The Ministry of Defense does not plan to purchase new tanks in the nearest time at all.
The situation is that unfavorable in the aviation and submarine fleet as well. Much has been recently said about arms modernization, and Rosoboronexport demonstrates lots of new models at arms exhibitions. However, the situation still remains the same.
Russia No Longer Needs Aircraft-Carriers
By Dmitry Chirkin
Feb 8, 2004, 08:40
Navy Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov says that Russia gives up production of bigger class vessels so typical of the Soviet epoch. The RF Defense Ministry has developed a plan of the Navy development for the period till 2040-2050, Gazeta reports. Basic theses of the plan are disavowal of protection of Russia's interests in oceans and consequently switching to production of smaller vessels navigating within the limits of 500-meters territorial waters zone.
Navy Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov says that Russia gives up production of bigger class vessels so typical of the Soviet epoch and switches to production of multi-purpose vessels. According to the Navy commander-in-chief, Russia will have unique frigates and corvettes of its own. He adds that it is too early today to speak about aircraft-carriers - the issue will be topical within the next ten years only. However, Russia will not sell or decommission its only aircraft-carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov".
Director of the Center for Strategy Analysis and Technologies Ruslan Pukhov said in an interview to Gazeta that the Navy will have to get rid of the vessel as well. He says: "If the Navy needs the aircraft-carrier so much, it should be repaired and used in campaigns. Today, the only purpose of "Admiral Kuznetsov" existence is to give job to navy pilots, which seems to be too expensive indeed."
The Center director adds that there are only 12 navy pilots in Russia; training of younger pilots would be more advantageous abroad, at Ukraine's aerodrome in Saki or on "Admiral Gorshkov" aircraft-carrier recently sold to India. Ruslan Pukhov thinks that if "Admiral Kuznetsov" is sold training of younger pilots could be started within the nearest years, as "Admiral Gorshkov" needs repairing that will take four years.
In fact, today the condition of "Admiral Kuznetsov" is not perfect as well. The vessel was launched in 1989 and requires thorough repairs. As of now, the aircraft-carrier stays at the Sevmorput shipyard. When the vessel was sent for 4-day sea trials, it immediately went to the bottom.
The expert adds that production of Russian aircraft-carriers is out of question within the nearest 15 years; it is more advantageous to build new frigates and corvettes at the cost of $100 and $500 millions correspondingly.
This year, Russia is to give up the legendary military base located in the Vietnamese Bay of Cam Ranh that has been used within 20 years. When speaking about the loss, admirals and generals have deep sighs: indeed, the Navy will thus have its only point of logistical support located in Syria. So, Russia is losing the symbols of the empire's bygone might. Hitler mounted Siegfried statues along the Third Reich boundary. Russian bases, the naval ones in particular, performed the same role.
It is often said that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin carried the war constantly referring to the globe. But as seen from the position of military bases abroad, this statement more concerns Stalin's followers. After WWII, the USSR had naval bases in Cuba, Somalia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Poland, Germany and Yemen. Soviet seamen could be seen in any part of the world.
In different periods, the Soviet Navy had naval bases in Cuba (Cienfuegos), Poland (Swinomunde), Germany (Rostok), Finland (Porkkala-Udd), Somalia (Berbera), Vietman (Cam Ranh), Syria (Tartus), Yemen (Hodeida), Ethiopia (Nokra), Egypt and Lybia. Today, the might of the Soviet empire is gone. The Russian Navy has only two signal office centers outside the country - Vileiki in Belarus and Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan, one logistical support base Tartus in Syria and one military base in Kant (Kyrgyzstan).
The Iraqi war has once again demonstrated that technical superiority of one of the sides guarantees success. Thus a conclusion can be made that Russian military technique will hardly do for modern wars. Otherwise, Saddam would have still stayed on the presidential post in Iraq. The national tank corps used to consist of 63 thousand machines and kept Europe and Asia in awe (the general staff said that Soviet troops could reach the English Channel or the Yellow Sea with the tanks). Today, the fleet has considerably reduced (it makes up 20,000 tanks) and is much weaker for repulsion of the aggression. At that, the RF Ministry of Defense states that only every fifth tank of the fleet meets the present-day requirements. These are mostly engineering developments of the 1970-80s, the outdated models T-72 and T-80. The Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper reports that during the Iraqi campaign Baghdad counted on these tanks most of all.
Unfortunately, when we speak about modern Russian tanks we mean models produced at least ten years ago. Within this period, the Ministry of Defense has ordered just few dozens of T-90 tanks, the amount that can hardly change the situation in the tank corps. The Ministry of Defense does not plan to purchase new tanks in the nearest time at all.
The situation is that unfavorable in the aviation and submarine fleet as well. Much has been recently said about arms modernization, and Rosoboronexport demonstrates lots of new models at arms exhibitions. However, the situation still remains the same.
-
Andrzej Kliszewski
- Posty: 252
- Rejestracja: 2004-08-06, 10:46
- Lokalizacja: Zielona Góra
Temat z pewnością mocno zdezaktualizowany bo wyszły "Okręty lotnicze Rosji", które choć z brakami i błędami tłumaczy dosyć dobrze tą kwestię.
O ciekawym niezrealizowanym projekcie lotniskowca na bazie KRL projektu 68 patrz:
http://www.navycollection.narod.ru/ship ... /main.html
a także naprawdę dobry artykuł Ł.A. Kuzniecowa w Gangucie nr 3, str. 63-70.
Pozdrawiam Andrzej
O ciekawym niezrealizowanym projekcie lotniskowca na bazie KRL projektu 68 patrz:
http://www.navycollection.narod.ru/ship ... /main.html
a także naprawdę dobry artykuł Ł.A. Kuzniecowa w Gangucie nr 3, str. 63-70.
Pozdrawiam Andrzej
Si vis pacem para bellum!
