How would you save the Russian navy?

Come on dudes, no bad ideas in brainstorming.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakurt-class_corvette
mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-footage-russian-navy-launching-10533912
virtualglobetrotting.com/map/chinese-turret-ship-dingyuan-replica/view/google/
fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e04.htm
ft.com/content/8f9fd112-8614-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7
youtube.com/watch?v=kBvBS2Cwpt8
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They definitely need to invest in newer and bigger ramps. They're the way forward.

Ramps are proven to cause aids which probably doesn't help the situation.

they are very good engineers they just have no money

Aren't the Russians about to build the biggest carrier in the world though?

Order carriers from China.

russian navy is saving itself already

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakurt-class_corvette

it is about to get 18 tiny vessels, capable to send missiles for thousand km away as a cheap but relatively powerful staple option

does the russian run on coal?

maybe chinks are... i doubt russians have a lot of plans about carriers, especially since russia needs some work on its carrier fighters, its carrier barely was usable in syria because landing on it is apparently hard/

btw the current chinese carrier is the same class as russian, ukraine sold a hull of it to china for apparently a floating casino but chinks made it into a carrier. can't make that ship up, really

natural gas

*that shit

>they just have no money

Not fore their navy anyway. The Russians are pouring much of their money into their land based stuff and borders.

Do they even need a navy if they can just point nukes at people? They probably can't even be invaded.

I can't give any opinion because Brazilian navy is a disaster.

it is actually the sister shi[

>btw the current chinese carrier is the same class as russian

Of course it is. You don't expect the Chinese to come up with their own modern, innovative design do you?

the radars on their destroyers and frigates I've seen look so old lol

...

you seen the electronics?

you are probably right bue anyway they can do a precise missile strike, see mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/dramatic-footage-russian-navy-launching-10533912

>USA only one without big voluptuous ramps

F L A T

brazil should be there with those countries, you are shameful to latin america

Freestyle

We just expect our pilots to know how to fly and not need training wheels.

They're building a Titanic mockup too. 1000 kms from the ocean.

i think it is because your carrier is bigger

iirc they built a replica of their first pre-dreadnaught too

oh, found it virtualglobetrotting.com/map/chinese-turret-ship-dingyuan-replica/view/google/

This. We really can't go full carrier-retard.

>mfw Brazilian carrier gone forever

Now i can't even pretend to be a superpower anymore.

You'll get HMS Ocean and you will like it.

>and you will like it
>it

wow, rood
her, it's a beautiful lady

That chinese ship is aesthetic as fuck, what's it called?

Why? We can destroy all fucking world if president will press the BUTTON

pls forgive me.

liaoning

Those magnetic catapults are proving to be terrible. Don't be surprised if you see a ramp on the front if shtf.
working > not

She's still a few years away from being fully operational, with flight trials beginning next year. Her sister ship isn't far behind.

Please don't. I'm not done with it yet.

Aircraft carriers aren't that useful anyways really - only good for bullying small countries.

Like 90% of the countries in the world are small, wouldn't that mean they're very useful?

R A M P S
A
M
P
S

wasn't the indian carrier useful when they fought paki?

If you want to project power far away from your country then they're a must. They're huge symbols of a navy's power, and as you say they're good for bullying countries visually. Good for humanitarian operations too.

your carrier-born harriers were a big reason why you won faulklands

Sorry don't know about that incident. But I would guess that that incident goes more to highlight Pakistan's naval inability than demonstrate the importance of aircraft carriers between two equally matched states.
Well I guess they mean they're best utilized by countries like the US that like to meddle with other countries. But if there was ever a war between two significant countries, their aircraft carriers could probably be destroyed very quickly. I'm not sure if OP's pic really illustrates how the Russian navy needs saving.

Pretty sure almost any combination of the G20 warring would mean the end of humanity pretty quickly, as evidenced by Nagasaki and Hiroshima

>But if there was ever a war between two significant countries, their aircraft carriers could probably be destroyed very quickly

That's why you choose allies very carefully.

i think both indians vs pakis and argentinians vs brits wars had pretty wide scale naval engagements, and carriers were used in both of those conflicts

>Philippine Sea
>USS
Flips are such pushovers. I can't imagine anyone here letting a foreign nation christening one of their ships "Gulf of Thailand."

her namesake is the battle of philippine sea in the ww2. it's the same shit as ships like midway, iwojima, tarawa, makin island, saipan, etc., named after designation of (fierce) battle.

Dont forget the meme planes, there is a stealth bomber in development too

well, a 5th gen fighter of some kind is kind of must have

you maintain a strong navy with strong economy and discipline, russia have strong martial traditions but weak economy, the only way their tech to remain competitive is by total overhaul of their economy, including allowing foreign investments and starting to fight corruption, the mentioned above is hard as both economic control and corruption are state mandated policies, thus ironically if you want a strong russian army, you must bomb kremlin with it's government representatives inside

Let America take over Russia and make it an American puppet state.

There is nothing wrong with that tbqh, it just feels a bit underwhelming in comparison with the more than 20 years old f22

Soon.

I doubt it will ever be completed and commissioned.

>there is a stealth bomber in development too

There will be 2-3 of these bombbers produced and the project get closed due to lack of funding.

>20 years

20 years ago we had much more relevant issues than
development of a new fighter plane. The country was one step away from a full-blown civil war, millions people (including scientists and engineers) were literally starving, tens of millions more lived in total poverty without access to basic goods.

>There will be 2-3 of these bombbers produced and the project get closed due to lack of funding.

nope, russia really needs it (you see, burgers will not sell us f-22 or f-35 but they easily can sell them to say georgia or ukraine) so it will be produced and eventually adopted, albeit it will be a lengthy process

they are also multirole fighters

>in comparison with the more than 20 years old f22

you mean f-22 didn't change in 20 years, lol?

f-22 was introduced only in 2005 btw and f-35 was introduced in 2015/2016

>millions people (including scientists and engineers) were literally starving
that's quite an exaggeration btw

The f-22 first flight was in the 90s, as far as I know the su-57 (T-50) is a prototype yet.
Cool, but the plane is being developed in 2017, no in the 90s.

>that's quite an exaggeration btw

Russia doesn't end outside of the Garden ring, m8.

>Cool, but the plane is being developed in 2017, no in the 90s.

Soviets started developing it in 1991 as a responce to american YF-22, but due to collapse of the USSR and all the problems related problems there were no real progress until 2004.

>the su-57 (T-50) is a prototype yet

Yes, there are 14 prototypes made, but they are not in service yet. Our industry has certain problems with producing 5th generation jet engines and some components of avionics.

I thought that Rusia went through several projects until they reached the su-57, like the su-47 before the su-57 or the mig 1.44 in the 90s

One of the professors in my engineering program at the University of Maryland is from Omsk and his entire family has an engineering background. He told us of all the highly educated people that starved under the Soviet Union bruh

The Russian naval doctrine doesn't support a large number of carriers.
They Don't need one as their navy's purpose is to protect the shores not to project power

well, being forced to eat potato, bread and porridge isn't same as starving

russia had a number of famines in the 20th century but there wasn't one in 90ss

you can read about it here fao.org/docrep/007/y5069e/y5069e04.htm

Su-47 had completely another design and was made more to try new shapes.
Mig 1.44 is a light fighter. Probably this project will be continued if they will find money.
This.
This.

I think Russia should invest all of its budget into building new, powerfull navy. That would teach us.

Russia doesn't need a strong navy since their geopolitical interests are in eurasia

Husssh

Occupy Odessa for superior power projection capabilities. Who needs up to date tech when you've got missile range?

That sorts of invalids itself when maritime powers can touch you and keep you confined in a little cage apart of the world, but you can't touch them nor fly out of your little cage.

See, Germany. Twice.

>Tfw your country will never have one of these because they cost more than half of your gdp.

russia has a strong submarine fleet though, also invests in new missile surface ships, those can be small, cheap and deadly, but i doubt it has any serious plans for another carrier, i wonder if it still wants helicopter carrier(s)

How would you save the Iranian navy?

Maybe ditch the steam engine?

de submarine is p. cute

also iranian navy used literally motor boats during their war with iraq

they could use some new minelayers to hold off the burgers passively

How would you save the US Navy?

>Accident near Singapore is second destroyer crash in just over 2 months
ft.com/content/8f9fd112-8614-11e7-8bb1-5ba57d47eff7

Who has the best looking attack submarine and why is it us?

didn t expect US to have ugly ships

Warm water ports with open ocean access that aren't cucked by Russias enemies is the right way to build a great and powerful navy.

But Russia isn't any closer to that than they were 3 centuries ago.

pretty rad btw especially when they hit the tanker with rocket propelled grenades

youtube.com/watch?v=kBvBS2Cwpt8

ph, russian fleet was pretty strong pre-20th century before the russian empire began to collapse, and again became pretty strong post ww2 when they launched a lot of nuclear submarines

btw its first naval victory was vs sweden during that war which allowed russia to have the acess to baltics

Are you even trying?

by the way, isn't bae short for baby?

also your fleet is a shadow of what it was in the ww2 and in the ww2 it was a shadow of what it was in the ww1 and before

>also your fleet is a shadow of what it was in the ww2 and in the ww2 it was a shadow of what it was in the ww1 and before

Well yeah, we're not exactly facing the threat of invasion and amongst European navies ours is one of if not the largest. We do need more ships though than the amount we've currently got.

america gets absolutely destroyed with countries that dont even have other weapons than licensed sovietshit from 70s so it can get btfo by russia that has no navy

>ramp
>white country

>have one TINY carrier
>spends most of its time in dry dock
>currently in dry dock until 2018

Oh do shush darling, you were going to buy the QE design after all.

>russian fleet was pretty strong pre-20th century before the russian empire began to collapse
Probably because it only had to compete with European naval powers at the time.

>again became pretty strong post ww2 when they launched a lot of nuclear submarines
Unfortunately a strong number of submarines doesnt equal a strong navy. For a strong navy, you need power projection. At first navies used islands or their colonies, which Russia didnt really have either of, now they use carrier groups that can work almost independently at sea for years at a time. Which Russia only has one of in service, same as China.
True power is carrier groups and the open oceans to deploy them in, and Russia has no real capabilities for using carrier groups. Their only place to build them is connected to the black sea, which Russian ships will have to travel through NATO defended Turkish straits, limiting deployment in wartime, and thats not to mention St Peterburg being blocked by the NATO defended Danish straits and Vladivostok being block by the sea of Japan and Japan itself.

Countries with big territories rather spend their money on Land and Air Force rather than Navy. Russia does it, India doest it, China and even Brazil.

US it's an exception since they're at war 24/7.

>US it's an exception since they're at war 24/7.
US Navy is the second biggest airforce on the planet.
First is the US airforce.

I know that, but apart from them, these countries don't invest much in naval force.

>by the way, isn't bae short for baby?

When used on social media? 'Before anyone else' I think. As for BAE Systems, British Aerospace I think it is.

No, these were different projects barely related to each other. C-37 (Su-47) was started right after Su-27 was introduced, i.e. in early 80s. It was never supposed to be a 5th gen jet.

>not having your carrier in dry dock because of superior/complicated engineering
>white

topkek

Dreadnought name is coming back with 4 of these.