Russian naval expansion

[Werner]

I think "gs" is closer to the mark as your appraisal of the present situation is precisely the view of superiority we in the West have nurtured for so long. Assuming that only western styled progressivness can produce what the world needs. Those days are coming to an end as much as the end of the superior attitude adopted by the British in days of Empire. The Empire was unstainable and by 1947 Britain reluctantly had to start dismantling that Empire . The sooner we come to terms with the changes the sooner we adapt .
Dave Wooley

Maybe the fall of The British Empire was precipitated instead by the disastrous programs of Clement Attlee, principally the devaluation of personal incentive in the British economy and the erection of a quasi-socialist system. Coal, steel, rail and health all plunged into the mediocrity of government management.

[Dave Wooley]

I think "gs" is closer to the mark as your appraisal of the present situation is precisely the view of superiority we in the West have nurtured for so long. Assuming that only western styled progressivness can produce what the world needs. Those days are coming to an end as much as the end of the superior attitude adopted by the British in days of Empire. The Empire was unstainable and by 1947 Britain reluctantly had to start dismantling that Empire . The sooner we come to terms with the changes the sooner we adapt .
Dave Wooley

Maybe the fall of The British Empire was precipitated instead by the disastrous programs of Clement Attlee, principally the devaluation of personal incentive in the British economy and the erection of a quasi-socialist system. Coal, steel, rail and health all plunged into the mediocrity of government management.

As an ardent free marketer I would be inclined to agree with this view.
However. It is much more complicated than laying all the blame on poor old Attlee and his labour government. In 1946 -47 GB Inc was broke and the infrastructure of supply, power and transport in such a chronic position that only government intervention could have staved of total paralysis. Add to that the worst winter in living memory and you can appreciate that some times governments have to act even to the point of taking control of vital industries. I agree some in the Attlee government were euphoric with socialist joy but nearly 6 years of war Britain�s gold reserves had been eaten up and GB inc was living on borrowed time and credit . As for the British Empire, that was in terminal decline following the first war and many of the major decisions to dismantle the vestiges of Empire were taken before 1939. Indian independence was agreed before 1945 and South Africa, and a number of colonial African states were very much self-governing entities all be it under white administration. For those that can remember the one act that saved Britain and western Europe from post war disintegration, chaos and civil strife was �Marshal Aid� in fact it was the US government "interventionist� program that staved of a possible Soviet styled take over of Western Europe.
Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

Interesting on topic appraisal:-
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2007/ ... wanes.html
Rebuilding the carrier Yaryag at the Dalian ship yard China

Dave Wooley

[Lesforan]

Nice photo of the Varyag work, Dave.

China may even wish to retain the name of this ship, as a not-too-subtle reminder of the fate of the original Varyag in 1905.

[Werner]

The article seems to support my position on Russia's warship building abilities more than oppose it...

Russia already has a US$1.5 billion contract from India for modernizing the USSR's former aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov, re-christened INS Vikramaditya, sold to India in 2004. Russia's Sevmash shipyard in the Arctic port of Severomorsk however is "at least three years behind schedule" on upgrading the vessel.

It would seem to me that building a base of carrier operating knowledge from an examination of Varyag is like reconstructing the lifestyle of a dinosaur given the bones alone. Interesting, perhaps correct, but no substitute for a good look at the real thing.

[Dave Wooley]

Werner CVN-21 is to cost the US taxpayer , at todays prices a cool $15 Billion . By the time CVN 78 enters service the cost may well exceed $25billion. I think the Indian navy have themselves a bargin. Does the USN need carrier like CVN 78 -80 and how much will it cost the US tax payer to decommission the older CVNs JFK and Enterprise ?

Dave Wooley

[Werner]

I believe the cost to recycle the CVN 65 power plant was included in the last refueling bill. Kennedy, as a conventional carrier ought to generate a small profit for the Navy, but they seem much more interested in sinking the decommissioned supercarriers than scrapping them.

As for the suitability of a large carrier, this has been visited every few years since 1945 and the conclusion always is the large flight deck is more useful than the small one. I see no evidence this is not true today. I would rather have 11 large carriers than 18 small ones with 1/3 the air group (which is how these things work). The steel is the least expensive part of the equation.

As for costs, it is interesting that USS George H. W. Bush cost $4,500,000,000.00 and USS Gerald Ford will cost $20,000,000,000.00. Does anyone believe the USN is getting the value of 5 Nimitz for this ship? I think they should continue to build repeat Nimitz class ships.

[bengtsson]

That was an interesting appraisal of world Carrier building plans Dave. The whole thing about the US position in the year 2007 is that the age of communism is over for any sensible nations. The change to freemarket capitalism and joining into the world tading system has changed the global picture for the US. As the world's only economic superpower we could afford to outbuild the world and not even blink at the cost. If you follow the American economy, you have to know what state we are in now as compared to say 1990 or earlier. History is a force that political views can not hold back. Whatever we think about it. The rest of the world is rising and any objective look at it says the new economic powers will make their power felt. Money talks, always has, always will. So be prepared for other nations joining the race for world naval power. It's 1905 all over again! Only different players.
As to China and Russia, we always complained that they were Communist. So we convinced them to become capitialists. The old saying : "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true".

Bob B.

[Dave Wooley]

I believe the cost to recycle the CVN 65 power plant was included in the last refueling bill. Kennedy, as a conventional carrier ought to generate a small profit for the Navy, but they seem much more interested in sinking the decommissioned supercarriers than scrapping them.

As for the suitability of a large carrier, this has been visited every few years since 1945 and the conclusion always is the large flight deck is more useful than the small one. I see no evidence this is not true today. I would rather have 11 large carriers than 18 small ones with 1/3 the air group (which is how these things work). The steel is the least expensive part of the equation.

As for costs, it is interesting that USS George H. W. Bush cost $4,500,000,000.00 and USS Gerald Ford will cost $20,000,000,000.00. Does anyone believe the USN is getting the value of 5 Nimitz for this ship? I think they should continue to build repeat Nimitz class ships.

I don't subscribe to big is always best The RN CVF is a good size and a reasonable air group for less than half the cost . Even the IN Vikramaditya should perform quite well with only 21 Mig 29Ks plus additional aviation at a fraction of the cost of even the CVF.Having said all that the truth is, only the USN have used large carriers and very effectively but there will come a time when such large warships are just not worth building.
RN CVF

Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

That was an interesting appraisal of world Carrier building plans Dave. The whole thing about the US position in the year 2007 is that the age of communism is over for any sensible nations. The change to freemarket capitalism and joining into the world tading system has changed the global picture for the US. As the world's only economic superpower we could afford to outbuild the world and not even blink at the cost. If you follow the American economy, you have to know what state we are in now as compared to say 1990 or earlier. History is a force that political views can not hold back. Whatever we think about it. The rest of the world is rising and any objective look at it says the new economic powers will make their power felt. Money talks, always has, always will. So be prepared for other nations joining the race for world naval power. It's 1905 all over again! Only different players.
As to China and Russia, we always complained that they were Communist. So we convinced them to become capitialists. The old saying : "Be careful what you wish for, it might come true".

Bob B.

This is true and the new realities of the 21st Century .
Dave Wooley

[Chuck~]

Maybe the fall of The British Empire was precipitated instead by the disastrous programs of Clement Attlee, principally the devaluation of personal incentive in the British economy and the erection of a quasi-socialist system. Coal, steel, rail and health all plunged into the mediocrity of government management.

The fall of British empire was precipitated the profligate war efforts resulting from lack of focus and clear view of national objective during WWI. A valiant but futile struggle to reverse this was carried out after 1918, but by 1938, before WWII, Britain seems to have already accepted that loss of British empire east of Suez was inevitable and could be postponed by no more than 10-15 years. Evidence for this is that starting that year, Britain stopped training civil servants for colonial service in India and other Eastern colonies.

[Werner]

I don't subscribe to big is always best The RN CVF is a good size and a reasonable air group for less than half the cost . Even the IN Vikramaditya should perform quite well with only 21 Mig 29Ks plus additional aviation at a fraction of the cost of even the CVF.Having said all that the truth is, only the USN have used large carriers and very effectively but there will come a time when such large warships are just not worth building.
RN CVF
Dave Wooley

I believe we could agree that the difference in price for CVF and CVN 77 can be attributed to the choice of powerplants. Also, I wonder what the total cost of ownership are for the RN's two ships, two 40 plane airgroups, fuel and so on over their lives as compared to the cost of one 80 plane CVN.

This design has also been faulted for lacking AEW and utility aircraft, which are evidently an expensive luxury on all but the largest ships.

As an aside, has anyone else noticed that the "integrator" of the British carrier's assemblies will be none other than - Halliburton?

[Chuck~]

..... The whole thing about the US position in the year 2007 is that the age of communism is over for any sensible nations. The change to freemarket capitalism and joining into the world tading system has changed the global picture for the US. As the world's only economic superpower we could afford to outbuild the world and not even blink at the cost.

In our moments of exuberance, we've been heard to proclaim "The US is the strongest country in history". Perhaps by the irrelevant of measurement of number of Megatons, maybe. But when last there was a real sole superpower that really held sway over much of the known world for a historically significant length of time, that superpower was much of the known world in terms of population, resource, productive capacity and all other measures of sustainable national strength. We fell, and we fall, vastly short of that standard. In terms of relative strength in basic foundations of national power compared to the world outside that is in competition with us, we are merely 1/4 to 1/10 as strong as the Roman Empire. Instead of making headway to increase that fraction, we've peaked a long time ago in 1945 and have been loosing relative strength ever since. If the fundamental capacity to maintain a meaningfully lengthy dominance by the previous "sole superpower" is used as a bench mark, then USA has never come anywhere close to being the "sole superpower" at our best, and has now already fallen over half way from that peak.

[Chuck~]

Even the IN Vikramaditya should perform quite well with only 21 Mig 29Ks plus additional aviation at a fraction of the cost of even the CVF.
Dave Wooley

I somehow doubt what would be considered "quite well" by IN would have been so well received by, say USN. The "New" Indian carrier uses a hull that is 30 years old and hasn't been maintained for 17, and stakes its claim to effectiveness upon a equipment suite that probably has never worked together before, and was produced by firms whose equipment has only ever worked together at sea a handful of times on one single hull.

[Werner]

Chuck, you are trying to make a quantitative argument where one doesn't apply. "Superpower" is a qualitative noun. You can be a superpower among giants or pygmies.

[Guest]

For some reason, the idea of "system integration" is seldom mentioned when people go OOOO and Ahhhh over spec sheet performance of Russian weapons. "System integration" makes or breaks weapon systems. I would say system integration has broken far more weapon systems than it has ever made, and continues to break weapon systems at will, even those most important projects made by the most experienced and well funded developers. Some examples regarding next generation imaging spy satellites and littoral combat ships in the current US defense establishment comes to mind. Russia was never particularly good at it, and Russian firms now trying to rake in the dollars on international arms market with fancy sounding gadgets no longer has the backing of the mighty Soviet military establishment to bother much with comprehensive system integration.

How much do the Russian debug their new Su-35?

[Werner]

How much do the Russian debug their new Su-35?

Probably as much as they did the Syrian Air Defense Network...

[Dave Wooley]

For some reason, the idea of "system integration" is seldom mentioned when people go OOOO and Ahhhh over spec sheet performance of Russian weapons. "System integration" makes or breaks weapon systems. I would say system integration has broken far more weapon systems than it has ever made, and continues to break weapon systems at will, even those most important projects made by the most experienced and well funded developers. Some examples regarding next generation imaging spy satellites and littoral combat ships in the current US defense establishment comes to mind. Russia was never particularly good at it, and Russian firms now trying to rake in the dollars on international arms market with fancy sounding gadgets no longer has the backing of the mighty Soviet military establishment to bother much with comprehensive system integration.

How much do the Russian debug their new Su-35?

Indeed and How many F35 do we have in service ?
Dave Wooley

[Dave Wooley]

How much do the Russian debug their new Su-35?

Probably as much as they did the Syrian Air Defense Network...

Yes Werner it was one of those poor Russian Air defence networks that downed the F117 over Begrade.
Dave Wooley

[Werner]

Probably as much as they did the Syrian Air Defense Network...

Yes Werner it was one of those poor Russian Air defence networks that downed the F117 over Begrade.
Dave Wooley

If you know the aircraft's mission and route ahead of time like the Yugoslavs, you could probably shoot it down with a Cessna 150 and a slingshot. The recent defeat of the Syrian Air Defense System (one of the most powerful systems in the world, and composed of equipment of recent Russian manufacture) is another kettle of fish altogether. Like it or not, that was the real news that came out of the bombing of the Syrian nuclear facility on the Turkish border. Twenty year old Israeli planes of American manufacture completely foiled a state of the art Russian system.