Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Naval Air Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Carrier Duel: Charles de Gaul vs Kuznetsov --Opinions Please
DarthAmerica    8/9/2005 12:19:53 AM
Which is better at projecting power? Which is more effective at Air to Ground, Anti-Ship, Air Superiority? Which has the most balanced Airwing? Which has the best Fighter? Which is more effective as a part of its typical battle group configuration. Which has had the most operational success? Which Carrier Battle Group would be most likely to win a meeting engagement in the Open Ocean? As I said. I am interested in opinions so feel free to share. But be kind enough to actually give an opinion. Opinions should be supported by some evidence otherwise its bias. In all considerations be sure to include all the available support assets typically available to High Value Assets such as these.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
violentnuke    Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 12:11:07 PM
Both carriers are designed for different battles. The Kuz's is for assymetric low tech warfare during nuclear war after extensive destruction occurs of electronic equipment and repair facilities. As seen in Chechnya, Russians do servicing on the dirt field by themselves with limited supplies. They hurt for sure, but they still have a tempo and their crews develop ingenuity. The Charles' is good so long its tech works. Not only they had problems with their propeller, but the thing is so light it requires automatic roll and pitch control with vanes underwater. The stuff was so complex and the forces so great that it is not working at all in moderate choppy water or above. Also destroy that control system and the thing is like a cork going all over the place.
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 12:53:13 PM
link Someone posted this on another thread, and, see, choppy waters wont work for the carrier.
 
Quote    Reply

Hibou    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/29/2005 2:57:25 PM
"but the thing is so light it requires automatic roll and pitch control with vanes underwater. The stuff was so complex and the forces so great that it is not working at all in moderate choppy water or above. Also destroy that control system and the thing is like a cork going all over the place." I cannot let Violentnuke write such things. I don't know where you found your sources (maybe some anti-french site) but you are completly wrong. 1. This aircraft-carrier may be "so light" but she is still almost twice as big as the former Clemenceau which did not have any roll control system. 2. Yes the stabilisation system is complex because it's centralising combined movements of different control sytems (rudders, ailerons) underwater and below the bridge but there is no such things as vanes unerwater... 3. This control system is working perfectly and is stabilizing the angle deck to a perfect horizontal in roll until quite big sea states. 4. Even if the system is not in use, or in a storm sea, the CDG is not changing into a cork, it's just more chalenging for our talented naval aviators but no big deal.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/30/2005 2:03:42 PM
I also disagree on matters of principle. Naval warfare isn't like land warfare. You can't compare the tradition of rough field service by the Russian land based arms to naval warfare. Carrier operations are particularly complex and dangerous. Deck operations are TREMENDOUSLY difficult. You're telling me a force with almost no sea time will match a Western CVN in efficiency? At least the CdG pilots KNOW what it's like to recover at night/choppy seas. The Russians don't even go to sea...they barely do any DAY traps.
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   8/30/2005 5:44:40 PM
Clearly the battle posited is greatly impacted by who locates the opposing CVBG first. I have lost track over the years of the cability of Russian ocean survaillence satellites. What are the French capabilities in this area?
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric   9/5/2005 3:23:31 PM
The Russians recently held exercises involving multiple launches from Baikonour after a nuclear exchange destroying sattelite capabities. Russians also have excellent intelligence moles and dont really need sattelites. They have human Marxist sattelites all over welcoming pseudosecular bourgeois Europe.
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:28:00 PM
Russians are geared toward nuclear conflict mainly. So we have to put this in the equation when looking at their ugly bare bone systems. Their migs look like flying skulls, any one notice?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:36:50 PM
>>>So we have to put this in the equation when looking at their ugly bare bone systems. Their migs look like flying skulls, any one notice?<<< ---I think I get your point but an example or two would do well for context. Thanks DA
 
Quote    Reply

violentnuke    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric Hibou   9/5/2005 3:57:46 PM
Comparing the Mig25 to the SR71, the former has no electronic, glass tubes, and its engine intakes are crude. In ramjet mode they simply shut the compressor and let the air bypass while it keeps wheeling. The SR71 has a lot of electronics, its intakes stick out in ramjet mode to shut the airflow to compressor and bypasses it around the engine directly to the exit. It also has a nice darthvador evil look. The mig's look is like beyond, like already out (or in?) of the grave or something. As for the criticism about the CDG's control system, it was made by a y kid from the naval division of French SupAero, affiliated with Michigan's AnnHarbor naval university division. Of course he was being y, liking to haze anything in his way, it is typical French Engineer thing to do. But he had no personal experience in the Navy, worked mostly with Aerospatial.
 
Quote    Reply

Francois    RE:Charles' too complex,Kuz's assymetric - VN   9/6/2005 4:23:19 AM
"As for the criticism about the CDG's control system, it was made by a y kid from the naval division of French SupAero, affiliated with Michigan's AnnHarbor naval university division. Of course he was being y, liking to haze anything in his way, it is typical French Engineer thing to do. But he had no personal experience in the Navy, worked mostly with Aerospatial. " I have no idea what you are smoking, but I want some!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy