The pilots and their aircraft have contributed to a marked improvement in the situation in Syria. And they have made clear to the authorities what must be improved in the equipment and training of this part of the Russian Navy.
Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Surely and they had even sacrificed their lives but was it worth if they had lost it due to this foreseeable incompetence ? The pilots surely do what the are ordered to do ... but was this necessary ?
Lethe
Captain
Russia should give the aircraft carrier game away and focus its attentions elsewhere, e.g. strategic aviation. Russia does not have the resources to field a robust carrier capability, and doesn't need one either. Meanwhile, real requirements go unfunded while the Navy plays with its expensive toys.
Do you have reliable data on combat sorties from Kuznetsov you want to share with us? ;-)
If anything, current Syrian conflict is perfect example, what even with all flaws, fleet air arm, as well as blue water capability as whole is a necessity.
Strategic aviation has rather limited overlap of functionality with carrier.
And yes, the russian navy definetely has requirement for carrier aviation.
While it's hardly solvable in near-to mid tern future - it's even less of a reason to drop currently availible capability, which was kept through such hardships.
Robust enough forward presence in Mediterranean is requirement for Russian navy for +/- 250 years by now.
Without these "expensive toys" blue water navy tends to loose the very reasons it exists to perform.
And which they're actually performing, right now.
Last edited:
About 100 in Rgts of 9 TELs or 10 missiles in silos.
It is a Boeing 757 but not red cap here haha
Lethe
Captain
One carrier is a training platform with no real military utility. Given Russia's geography, anything less than four full carrier battle groups is a waste of time. And Russia will never have the resources for that again. Meanwhile, the resources devoted to parading around a misguided status symbol like Kuznetsov could more efficiently be applied in any number of other areas. Strategic aviation, tanks, submarines, SAMs ... pick something at random and it will almost certainly deliver more for less.
It has proven diplomatic utility.
Which is impossible without backing military capability, on part of deployed forces.
And by now Kuznetsov BG is already on her second Syrian deployement. It's worthwile to note, what previous, while not as paraded as current one, - was at least as important politically.
...and USN minimum force level is 653 ships, yet they(with current Trump backing) aim at 350.
No, it isn't waste. There are more considerations than just building two mirroring fleets with half-a-globe in-between.
Please eleborate, what kind of efficiency are you talking about.
And how application of more money in tanks will positively affect powerplay off Syrian shores.