I was a Boiler Technician for the US Navy and we used to burn Bunker C in our boilers until 1975, that’s when we switched to DFM Diesel Fuel Marine because it was better for the firesides of the boilers and it didn’t leave as much soot inside the firebox and you don’t need to heat it up to pump it and transfer it throughout your fuel tanks. Bunker has to be heated to at least 175* to flow properly and it is nasty to clean up and we used to have to clean up the furnace every 600 steaming hours, but after the switch to diesel it was 1800 steaming hours before firesides cleaning
I cannot with any first-hand knowledge speak to Soviet/Russian CV doctrine. However, I can speak to US Navy carrier ops, and compare/contrast the two. US carrier doctrine is based upon a high sortie generation rate through a well-trained flight deck crew, highly proficient pilots and the support personnel/technology to support both groups. The Soviet/Russian operations do not seem to have the proficiency to operate at a high tempo, which is a necessity for combat operations. As I was trained, we understood the primary purpose of Soviet Naval Aviation was to protect their SSBN bastions. The Russians attempt at true “blue water” CV operations was a failure.
Dr. Clarke, I don't like the placement of that hammer behind your head. I can see the shelf being bumped and it falling over to hit that store of information and processing wrapped in bone, skin and muscle.
There was a rumor at one time that the wonderful flat phased array radar panels on the Kuznetsov were slabs of concrete to look good to the west, while they tried to get it to actually work
Having a booming economy, which expands faster than my agriculture/fishing and having to start from about zero, I would start with rotorcraft capability, then moving to STOBAR, PROBABLY using light propeller craft initially, like Super Tucano. And I would not shy away using even a paddlewheel training CV.
Another pick would be the something along the line of the An-28 / PZL M-28 Skytruck, a light, twin engined STOL patrol craft, with local production being a priority.
6:20 - though I guess back to coal powered warships the RN and USN had somewhat different definitions of the coal quality that satisfied "the stuff that will work" than others were forced to accept; as I believe both used superior premium grade anthracite coal rather than the low grade stuff the German High Seas Fleet was mostly stuck with during WWI.
In that case, the "good" coal was significantly better in a way that affected ship max speed, as well as how hard you had to work your engine room crew (cleaning burners and boilers less often, shoveling less coal to get the same amount of ship-go, etc.)
Neither the RN or USN used anthracite on their ships. Anthracite is bad ship coal. Anthracite is relatively low BTUs per pound and a high ash content. (But low moisture, so it is clean burning.) Both navies used semi-bituminous coal. From the US, Pocahontas coal - specifically Pocahontas seam 2 generally. In the UK, the Admiralty established a system of who was allowed to sell Admiralty approved coal. Southern Welsh generally, although West Port NZ also supplied the RN with semi-bituminous coal. (And during WWI they bought semi-bit from Norway, specifically Svarbald.)
0:56:04 It would be interesting to see the calculations, even a simulation how single-axis missile swarm attacks "produce" leakers compared to 2, 3, etc. pronged attacks. That said, AShMs - for some decades now - usually have the capability to fly multiple waypoints, ie. a single attacking missile carrier can launch a multi-pronged attack.
Where do you start? Probably with a rotary wing capability, expanding on the helicopters you are probably operating off your surface combatants. The next step gets difficult unless you have access to F35s for VTOL as you then have to make a massive jump to STOBAR. The choice of aircraft worldwide is limited for you so, yes you either buy in Russian or Chinese types or you have a long aircraft development combined with probably either a land based carrier deck or a prototype carrier to work out how to actually operate everything together.
Scuttlebutt 7: Strengths and weaknesses of single centre of excellence versus multiple centres of excellence? Also, re: large coastlines with relatively easy access for most parties, maritime defense of peninsular nations (like Spain, Italy or Korea)?
I think if I ran a country with rich natural resources, minimal agriculture, and a population who'd do whatever I told them, I'd probably go full kleptocrat and retire to Switzerland in like two years, tops. But to answer the question fairly - I'd start a couple state owned aerospace companies - one to license build helicopters and the other to do fixed wing aircraft. Those companies would be the ones partnering with foreign companies to design carrier aircraft that fit our needs. One potentially useful thing would be to design something like a VTOL AT-6E that could be easily converted to and from crewed/drone control. (To do the kinds of missions that Predators/Reapers are typically used for, but to also provide lots of inexpensive training and flight hours.) I'd also be purchasing F-18s/F-35s, or similar and operating so-equipped naval aviation units from allied carriers at every opportunity. I think the progression from helicopter carriers to STOBAR CVs to CATOBAR CVs is pretty typical. I could see having foreign built helicopter carriers first, while building the infrastructure to refit and maintain them. Go a little bigger with each ship or pair of ships to push the dockyard size. Build civilian cargo/tanker ships to underwrite it all. When the helicopter carriers get big enough, you add a ski jump for experimenting. Buy a gently used QE class in a couple decades after the next global recession causes UK defense cuts (sorry), take it apart, rebuild it with a catapult if the UK didn't do that already, and be building our own improved version with a 100% domestically produced airwing by, I don't know, 2050-ish?
My original question response appears to not have posted, if it did that one should be prioritized over this one. Where I would start with building a carrier capable fleet is dependent on what I was starting with. If I am working with a fleet with decently modern frigates and support ships and the ability to build and service them the next step is to move to larger ships with expanded support for helicopters, eg. helicopter destroyers and helicopter carrying landing ships. If not, the fleet needs to build to that level by building frigates and beginning to learn how to use their use of rotorcraft at sea. Once the fleet has some actual experience with handling aircraft around salt water and integrating organic aircraft operations into the fleet structure proper helicopter carriers can be procured. These provide the design and operational fundamentals for taking the leap to seaborne fixed wing operations. In parallel with these stepping stone developments the fleet will want a program to improve both the naval construction/repair infrastructure and the aircraft construction/maintenance infrastructure. A local training program is also needed to keep the quality of crews (including pilots) high under a many circumstances as possible. Any fleet can be hamstrung in an emergency (like a war) if they are reliant on outside support for general maintenance and training. Ideally these maintenance and training improvement programs are paired with increasingly independent electronics, weapons, ship, and aircraft procurement to prevent as many supply and material disruptions as possible. As long as these ancillary programs are moving forward and include local maintenance capability some (especially electronics and engines) can be on a slightly slower timeframe than the procurement of the carriers themselves. The first capstone of the project would be (after several decades of work) a set of full fixed-wing carriers being built locally. The first generation will most likely be in a STOBAR configuration as there are no readily available VTOL jet aircraft that can be locally manufactured or maintained and developing one is a major use of resources better spent elsewhere within the program. I would prefer the procurement of three to four carriers in this wave, alongside a full wave of surface ships to support them. The next generation of carriers would be the fleet's first CATOBAR carriers, incorporating the lessons from the previous carriers and having been in the plans for many years to allow time to perfect the catapults. Throughout the process the designers should be learning whatever they can from other powers building and using carrier task groups, it is always better to learn from someone else's mistakes rather than repeat them yourself after all. So expect the intelligence and diplomatic bureaus to be heavily involved in any convenient data or equipment acquisitions. This could allow development to happen faster but with the old Soviet carriers all spoken for I doubt it. The project timeline if started this year would hopefully allow for the first fixed wing carriers to be built by 2060 and the full results of the program should enter service sometime in the 2070s. Depending on how much of the development and infrastructure work is also used for civilian purposes there is a chance for the carrier development program to wrap up in the 2060s. If we are starting from the worst case scenario (no naval aviation of any kind) push things back 10 to 15 years.
When I first heard the pretence of "building a casino" I thought no one could believe that but then there is minsk as a amusment Park. Is there any obvios reason for such different faits?
amusement park/historical or educational feature is a fairly easy modification, look at the number of museum ships in the world and how some of them are the central draws of entertainment districts. But a casino/hotel is a very different use of the space and emphasis - turning a cruise ship into such a thing is relatively easy, the accomodation is already viable to an extent. Basically mess decks don't convert as easily as cabins, to hotel rooms.
@@DrAlexClarke Okay, thats true. I imagined it as park of thr deko like in Vegas. Like this Casino has Military theme and a carrier. But was the minsk no longer useful as warship or just an unnessary step to develop carrier capabilities?
it was studied closely, but was not in any condition to be returned to service... it was the second oldest of the class (being launched in 1975) and by the time it reached China in the 2010s, it was not prohibitive to do anything more with it... Plus the PLAN weren't in the position to really fund such work at that point.
SCUTTLEBUTT 7 Alex, how does the chemical toxicity of Mazut compare to the Synthetic fuel oil that the Kriegsmarine used in WWII - consideing the environmental concerns about WWII wrecks which are now decaying in the Baltic and North Seas off the coasts of many European countries.
Oil by itself is no more dangerous than oil spilling out of modern ship, however there may be a number of fuel additives, though the concern (at least for Baltic) are barrels full of chemical weapons dumped there, which may be the cause behind some of anaerobic deserts there
A helicopter carrier or a seaplane tender as a survey vessel with some form of picket or recovery ship (for the downed crews) as escort. Forget about a nuclear boat if you don't have a robust civilian nuclear power industry for at least 2 decades.
Building organic catobar naval aviation sounds expensive and exhausting. If I'm a medium or large power, I'll go with long range maritime patrol / strike / sensor aircraft, a handful of frigates for escorting my friends' cvbgs, satellites, submarines with big butt torpedoes, and three hospital ships. And buy two used helicopter DDs for cheap. Once we've got the helicopter DD figured out, i might (repeat might) start looking for catobar technology/ training. But probably not. Cruise missiles and big butt torpedoes are cheaper. And hospital ships are better naval diplomacy.
1:10:15 - Argh... do you have by any chance have the time to elaborate on these "interesting ideas"? Something about that Carriers are offensive tools? Regarding your question regarding building up naval aviation. - By FIRST investing into own population and country. Increasing the level of education to sufficient levels to have capable personal to man and maintain a "carrier" - SECOND would probably be 2 or 3 multi-function support ships like the HNLMS Karel Doorman. Both for supplying an escort group underway while also providing extensive helicopter and UAV support. Helos seemed to be very effective as counter to 'low tech pirates' like the Somalis while also able to provide airborne early warning, ASuW and power projection ashore - THIRD would be 3 LHDs with ski jump like the Juan Carlos and it's derivates. The amphibious spaces can be used either for fleet supplies, humanitarian aid, power projection or unmanned vessels. Especially supporting missile-carrying drone ships . The aircraft carried will probably be a big gamble: UCAVs like the Turkish Navy is going for Ultimately, it's a game of compromise with a risk-fleet approach. My carrier force being small enough to not antagonize bigger powers while threatening enough to not become a target of opportunity. The ships would be big enough to be imposing, the multitude of capabilities big enough to influence public perception while the depth of capabilities is hopefully not enough to make a professional bigger military power too worried. The ability to do humanitarian relief missions should garner some goodwill from everybody. Regarding the UCAVs. While proper fighters would probably be better, I doubt a regional unaligned power will get F35s. There are no jump-jets on the market to my knowledge and I'd claim that building my own aircrafts will go well. But I guess a drone is good enough as outer layer for fleet defense.
@@DrAlexClarke let me know if you want to expand on that. I can put together some facts and figures for you. The USN and Royal Navy spent a lot of time and effort getting that coal stuff worked out.
Broader, and entirely not-sarcastic question: Why shouldn’t the Russians just scrap their entire navy? It’s an expensive embarrassment. The Kuznetzov smokes, they tried to “project power” recently by sending a submarine and a destroyer to Cuba, but didn’t dare send them without the company of a fleet tug, just in case. They can’t base their Black Sea fleet anywhere that’s out of range of Ukranian drones, and can’t withdraw it from the Black Sea, without Turkey’s permission to transit the Bosphorus Strait. With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the Baltic Sea is basically Lake NATO with Russian ports in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad surrounded by NATO territorial waters. The North Sea fleet is frozen in port how many months of the year? And the Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok is accomplishing which of their strategic goals? Think of the money Poot could save on crew and maintenance, and how many fewer jokes we’d have to make at his expense.
You’re of course right if one is rational. But dictatorships are rarely and can rarely be rational. The prestige of a ‘proper’ navy is quite important for a regime that claims to be the rightful heirs of both the Soviet Union and the Russian empire. Work the propaganda a bit and that squadron of tugboats magically disappear. Most of all, and this might be the key; a proper navy provides sinecures, titles and massive opportunities for graft. Dictatorships always run on sinecures and graft above all else.
Russia is, unfortunately for them, stuck in a bit of a conundrum. As a significantly large nation-state with not insubstantial geopolitical aims, they can’t afford to lose face and capabilities by having literally zero ability to project power overseas. At the same time, they are also still saddled with the remnants of the Soviet Navy which they lack the capability to invest into to keep running. RusFed is objectively less capable of spending absurd amounts on running whatever military program they want to field. As a result they are forced to make do with the inadequate capabilities of the ships they can’t build while they work on the ones they want. When you put yourself out as a counterweight to NATO and western geopolitical influence, backing away from the ocean looks weak even if you just have submarines.
I was a Boiler Technician for the US Navy and we used to burn Bunker C in our boilers until 1975, that’s when we switched to DFM Diesel Fuel Marine because it was better for the firesides of the boilers and it didn’t leave as much soot inside the firebox and you don’t need to heat it up to pump it and transfer it throughout your fuel tanks. Bunker has to be heated to at least 175* to flow properly and it is nasty to clean up and we used to have to clean up the furnace every 600 steaming hours, but after the switch to diesel it was 1800 steaming hours before firesides cleaning
@@kennhi2008 cool comment
Next book... The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Kallaxy? 😎
I cannot with any first-hand knowledge speak to Soviet/Russian CV doctrine. However, I can speak to US Navy carrier ops, and compare/contrast the two. US carrier doctrine is based upon a high sortie generation rate through a well-trained flight deck crew, highly proficient pilots and the support personnel/technology to support both groups. The Soviet/Russian operations do not seem to have the proficiency to operate at a high tempo, which is a necessity for combat operations. As I was trained, we understood the primary purpose of Soviet Naval Aviation was to protect their SSBN bastions. The Russians attempt at true “blue water” CV operations was a failure.
Dr. Clarke, I don't like the placement of that hammer behind your head. I can see the shelf being bumped and it falling over to hit that store of information and processing wrapped in bone, skin and muscle.
@45:00 PLAN still keeping the Super Frelon alive. I do like that.
There was a rumor at one time that the wonderful flat phased array radar panels on the Kuznetsov were slabs of concrete to look good to the west, while they tried to get it to actually work
Ouch. 3.5% sulphur is an environmental catastrophe.
The Chinese also had the builders cooperation. Since Kuznetsoz was stolen, she didn’t get support.
Thank you. Keep up the good work!
I would hate to think what if your bill would be for carrier sized vessel running on 97 octane petrol cost just to fill up the tank once
Having a booming economy, which expands faster than my agriculture/fishing and having to start from about zero, I would start with rotorcraft capability, then moving to STOBAR, PROBABLY using light propeller craft initially, like Super Tucano. And I would not shy away using even a paddlewheel training CV.
Another pick would be the something along the line of the An-28 / PZL M-28 Skytruck, a light, twin engined STOL patrol craft, with local production being a priority.
3:42 Mazut one step up bitumen.
Was the
7:26 IIRC the Liaoning was sold to CCP with out a propulsion plant.
6:20 - though I guess back to coal powered warships the RN and USN had somewhat different definitions of the coal quality that satisfied "the stuff that will work" than others were forced to accept; as I believe both used superior premium grade anthracite coal rather than the low grade stuff the German High Seas Fleet was mostly stuck with during WWI.
In that case, the "good" coal was significantly better in a way that affected ship max speed, as well as how hard you had to work your engine room crew (cleaning burners and boilers less often, shoveling less coal to get the same amount of ship-go, etc.)
Neither the RN or USN used anthracite on their ships. Anthracite is bad ship coal. Anthracite is relatively low BTUs per pound and a high ash content. (But low moisture, so it is clean burning.)
Both navies used semi-bituminous coal. From the US, Pocahontas coal - specifically Pocahontas seam 2 generally.
In the UK, the Admiralty established a system of who was allowed to sell Admiralty approved coal. Southern Welsh generally, although West Port NZ also supplied the RN with semi-bituminous coal. (And during WWI they bought semi-bit from Norway, specifically Svarbald.)
0:56:04 It would be interesting to see the calculations, even a simulation how single-axis missile swarm attacks "produce" leakers compared to 2, 3, etc. pronged attacks. That said, AShMs - for some decades now - usually have the capability to fly multiple waypoints, ie. a single attacking missile carrier can launch a multi-pronged attack.
Insane intro 😱
are Fujians catapults steam or Emals? I think they had access to an Australian carrier at some point.
China's been advertising them as EMALS. In pics, u don't quite see a setup for steam
The smoke the Kuznetsov produces is about image and making sure she is as visible from as far away as possible 😂
How about blaring Smoke on the water from gigantic loudspeakers for style?
@@ewok40k bonus points
Where do you start? Probably with a rotary wing capability, expanding on the helicopters you are probably operating off your surface combatants.
The next step gets difficult unless you have access to F35s for VTOL as you then have to make a massive jump to STOBAR. The choice of aircraft worldwide is limited for you so, yes you either buy in Russian or Chinese types or you have a long aircraft development combined with probably either a land based carrier deck or a prototype carrier to work out how to actually operate everything together.
Scuttlebutt 7:
Strengths and weaknesses of single centre of excellence versus multiple centres of excellence?
Also, re: large coastlines with relatively easy access for most parties, maritime defense of peninsular nations (like Spain, Italy or Korea)?
I think if I ran a country with rich natural resources, minimal agriculture, and a population who'd do whatever I told them, I'd probably go full kleptocrat and retire to Switzerland in like two years, tops.
But to answer the question fairly - I'd start a couple state owned aerospace companies - one to license build helicopters and the other to do fixed wing aircraft. Those companies would be the ones partnering with foreign companies to design carrier aircraft that fit our needs. One potentially useful thing would be to design something like a VTOL AT-6E that could be easily converted to and from crewed/drone control. (To do the kinds of missions that Predators/Reapers are typically used for, but to also provide lots of inexpensive training and flight hours.)
I'd also be purchasing F-18s/F-35s, or similar and operating so-equipped naval aviation units from allied carriers at every opportunity.
I think the progression from helicopter carriers to STOBAR CVs to CATOBAR CVs is pretty typical. I could see having foreign built helicopter carriers first, while building the infrastructure to refit and maintain them. Go a little bigger with each ship or pair of ships to push the dockyard size. Build civilian cargo/tanker ships to underwrite it all. When the helicopter carriers get big enough, you add a ski jump for experimenting. Buy a gently used QE class in a couple decades after the next global recession causes UK defense cuts (sorry), take it apart, rebuild it with a catapult if the UK didn't do that already, and be building our own improved version with a 100% domestically produced airwing by, I don't know, 2050-ish?
My original question response appears to not have posted, if it did that one should be prioritized over this one.
Where I would start with building a carrier capable fleet is dependent on what I was starting with. If I am working with a fleet with decently modern frigates and support ships and the ability to build and service them the next step is to move to larger ships with expanded support for helicopters, eg. helicopter destroyers and helicopter carrying landing ships. If not, the fleet needs to build to that level by building frigates and beginning to learn how to use their use of rotorcraft at sea. Once the fleet has some actual experience with handling aircraft around salt water and integrating organic aircraft operations into the fleet structure proper helicopter carriers can be procured. These provide the design and operational fundamentals for taking the leap to seaborne fixed wing operations.
In parallel with these stepping stone developments the fleet will want a program to improve both the naval construction/repair infrastructure and the aircraft construction/maintenance infrastructure. A local training program is also needed to keep the quality of crews (including pilots) high under a many circumstances as possible. Any fleet can be hamstrung in an emergency (like a war) if they are reliant on outside support for general maintenance and training. Ideally these maintenance and training improvement programs are paired with increasingly independent electronics, weapons, ship, and aircraft procurement to prevent as many supply and material disruptions as possible. As long as these ancillary programs are moving forward and include local maintenance capability some (especially electronics and engines) can be on a slightly slower timeframe than the procurement of the carriers themselves.
The first capstone of the project would be (after several decades of work) a set of full fixed-wing carriers being built locally. The first generation will most likely be in a STOBAR configuration as there are no readily available VTOL jet aircraft that can be locally manufactured or maintained and developing one is a major use of resources better spent elsewhere within the program. I would prefer the procurement of three to four carriers in this wave, alongside a full wave of surface ships to support them. The next generation of carriers would be the fleet's first CATOBAR carriers, incorporating the lessons from the previous carriers and having been in the plans for many years to allow time to perfect the catapults.
Throughout the process the designers should be learning whatever they can from other powers building and using carrier task groups, it is always better to learn from someone else's mistakes rather than repeat them yourself after all. So expect the intelligence and diplomatic bureaus to be heavily involved in any convenient data or equipment acquisitions. This could allow development to happen faster but with the old Soviet carriers all spoken for I doubt it. The project timeline if started this year would hopefully allow for the first fixed wing carriers to be built by 2060 and the full results of the program should enter service sometime in the 2070s. Depending on how much of the development and infrastructure work is also used for civilian purposes there is a chance for the carrier development program to wrap up in the 2060s. If we are starting from the worst case scenario (no naval aviation of any kind) push things back 10 to 15 years.
When I first heard the pretence of "building a casino" I thought no one could believe that but then there is minsk as a amusment Park. Is there any obvios reason for such different faits?
amusement park/historical or educational feature is a fairly easy modification, look at the number of museum ships in the world and how some of them are the central draws of entertainment districts. But a casino/hotel is a very different use of the space and emphasis - turning a cruise ship into such a thing is relatively easy, the accomodation is already viable to an extent. Basically mess decks don't convert as easily as cabins, to hotel rooms.
@@DrAlexClarke Okay, thats true. I imagined it as park of thr deko like in Vegas. Like this Casino has Military theme and a carrier.
But was the minsk no longer useful as warship or just an unnessary step to develop carrier capabilities?
it was studied closely, but was not in any condition to be returned to service... it was the second oldest of the class (being launched in 1975) and by the time it reached China in the 2010s, it was not prohibitive to do anything more with it... Plus the PLAN weren't in the position to really fund such work at that point.
Oh Boy, Russian Ocean going Tugboat Squadron Mates!!!
SCUTTLEBUTT 7
Alex, how does the chemical toxicity of Mazut compare to the Synthetic fuel oil that the Kriegsmarine used in WWII - consideing the environmental concerns about WWII wrecks which are now decaying in the Baltic and North Seas off the coasts of many European countries.
Oil by itself is no more dangerous than oil spilling out of modern ship, however there may be a number of fuel additives, though the concern (at least for Baltic) are barrels full of chemical weapons dumped there, which may be the cause behind some of anaerobic deserts there
Mazut sounds like asphalt.
It is literally one step away from that.
Ah, the kuznetzov. An aircraft carrying barge that exels at converting money into smoke...
Be careful of MC Hammer above your head Dr.
A helicopter carrier or a seaplane tender as a survey vessel with some form of picket or recovery ship (for the downed crews) as escort.
Forget about a nuclear boat if you don't have a robust civilian nuclear power industry for at least 2 decades.
So Mazut is leftover leftovers......that have been leftover.
Building organic catobar naval aviation sounds expensive and exhausting.
If I'm a medium or large power, I'll go with long range maritime patrol / strike / sensor aircraft, a handful of frigates for escorting my friends' cvbgs, satellites, submarines with big butt torpedoes, and three hospital ships. And buy two used helicopter DDs for cheap.
Once we've got the helicopter DD figured out, i might (repeat might) start looking for catobar technology/ training. But probably not. Cruise missiles and big butt torpedoes are cheaper. And hospital ships are better naval diplomacy.
scuttlebutt 7
Audio volume is REALLY low.
What classic textbooks on naval history would you recommend?
1:10:15 - Argh... do you have by any chance have the time to elaborate on these "interesting ideas"? Something about that Carriers are offensive tools?
Regarding your question regarding building up naval aviation.
- By FIRST investing into own population and country. Increasing the level of education to sufficient levels to have capable personal to man and maintain a "carrier"
- SECOND would probably be 2 or 3 multi-function support ships like the HNLMS Karel Doorman. Both for supplying an escort group underway while also providing extensive helicopter and UAV support. Helos seemed to be very effective as counter to 'low tech pirates' like the Somalis while also able to provide airborne early warning, ASuW and power projection ashore
- THIRD would be 3 LHDs with ski jump like the Juan Carlos and it's derivates. The amphibious spaces can be used either for fleet supplies, humanitarian aid, power projection or unmanned vessels. Especially supporting missile-carrying drone ships . The aircraft carried will probably be a big gamble: UCAVs like the Turkish Navy is going for
Ultimately, it's a game of compromise with a risk-fleet approach. My carrier force being small enough to not antagonize bigger powers while threatening enough to not become a target of opportunity. The ships would be big enough to be imposing, the multitude of capabilities big enough to influence public perception while the depth of capabilities is hopefully not enough to make a professional bigger military power too worried. The ability to do humanitarian relief missions should garner some goodwill from everybody.
Regarding the UCAVs. While proper fighters would probably be better, I doubt a regional unaligned power will get F35s. There are no jump-jets on the market to my knowledge and I'd claim that building my own aircrafts will go well. But I guess a drone is good enough as outer layer for fleet defense.
6:30 That's not entirely correct. The RN put the best coal in their ships. USN did as well.
Scuttlebutt 7
@@DrAlexClarke let me know if you want to expand on that. I can put together some facts and figures for you. The USN and Royal Navy spent a lot of time and effort getting that coal stuff worked out.
Now it’s sailors are infantry fighting in Ukraine.
Maybe in typical Russian fashion they just burned coal in the boilers. (sarcasim)
3:46 so a step above tar ? Eeewwww
Mazut: Formulated for Russia Bottom Feeders 🦀
Lol, coal powered aircraft carrier
Broader, and entirely not-sarcastic question: Why shouldn’t the Russians just scrap their entire navy?
It’s an expensive embarrassment. The Kuznetzov smokes, they tried to “project power” recently by sending a submarine and a destroyer to Cuba, but didn’t dare send them without the company of a fleet tug, just in case.
They can’t base their Black Sea fleet anywhere that’s out of range of Ukranian drones, and can’t withdraw it from the Black Sea, without Turkey’s permission to transit the Bosphorus Strait.
With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the Baltic Sea is basically Lake NATO with Russian ports in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad surrounded by NATO territorial waters.
The North Sea fleet is frozen in port how many months of the year? And the Pacific Fleet in Vladivostok is accomplishing which of their strategic goals?
Think of the money Poot could save on crew and maintenance, and how many fewer jokes we’d have to make at his expense.
You’re of course right if one is rational. But dictatorships are rarely and can rarely be rational. The prestige of a ‘proper’ navy is quite important for a regime that claims to be the rightful heirs of both the Soviet Union and the Russian empire. Work the propaganda a bit and that squadron of tugboats magically disappear. Most of all, and this might be the key; a proper navy provides sinecures, titles and massive opportunities for graft. Dictatorships always run on sinecures and graft above all else.
Russia is, unfortunately for them, stuck in a bit of a conundrum. As a significantly large nation-state with not insubstantial geopolitical aims, they can’t afford to lose face and capabilities by having literally zero ability to project power overseas.
At the same time, they are also still saddled with the remnants of the Soviet Navy which they lack the capability to invest into to keep running. RusFed is objectively less capable of spending absurd amounts on running whatever military program they want to field.
As a result they are forced to make do with the inadequate capabilities of the ships they can’t build while they work on the ones they want.
When you put yourself out as a counterweight to NATO and western geopolitical influence, backing away from the ocean looks weak even if you just have submarines.
What the hell are s mazart
18:19 The Chinese don’t use a bastion system? *Laughs in South China Sea*