WI: No Soviet carriers?

[Crowbar Six]

I dread to imagine what a navalised MiG31 would weigh, and as for getting it on or off a carrier under it's own power would be a challenge.

There was a lot of speculation they looked at a naval MiG 23 variant, but it would have been a horrible aircraft and had such a high accident rate as a land based aircraft likely only second to the Gloster Meteor in RAF service... they didn't call it the Gloster Meatbox for nothing.

 

[Khanzeer]

Probably one of the best.



It cannot?

But how would foxhound protect their bombers from enemy fighters? as mig31 missiles were supposedly designed to shoot down bombers not fighters

 

[Mike D]

Or they buy the design of the QE class, from memory there were rumours floating around about that years ago. Or I’m sure the French would have sold them a design/hull.

As to the question of “true carriers” didn’t the soviets have to deal with the treaty limitation of passing through the Bosporus?

There's rumours about it again this week - with India either building a CTOL variant using existing Mig-29K or Rafales or building the same STOVL variant as the UK and buying F-35B.

 

[Khanzeer]

Technically it's Cruiser Voleur Nuclear, not Cruiser aViation Nuclear

i always though the Kievs had weak missile armament
they should have been given atleast 16 or 24 x P-500
and maybe jsut helicopters and 6 x yak-38 the latter are plenty to deal with the few ASW planes
and they are useless for anything else

 

[Barry Bull]

Soviet technology is likely not able to deliver the advanced aircraft and missiles needed to avoid building carriers. While on paper their aircraft looked capable but this came with significant shortcomings like poor serviceability and range.

Even if the tech is there, Soviet policy changes demand an improved and flexible power projection capacity that only carriers can provide.

Moreover, CBGs actually extend the Bastion concept allows better naval presence in the North Sea.

 

[Barry Bull]

Is mig31 a good interceptor in 80s ?
I mean it cannot escort AVMF bombers

It is if it used against its intended target such as supersonic bombers and cruise missiles (after it is equipped with good look down, shoot down radar).

It would a waste if it is use to escort strike packages, and put it at great risk.

 

[Riain]

Even if the tech is there, Soviet policy changes demand an improved and flexible power projection capacity that only carriers can provide.

I don't believe that the Soviets were holding back with the weapons they developed and had a heap of good stuff waiting in the wings to pursue different strategies.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Not USN or PLAN level powerful, but compared to situation what they have today. Kutznetsov has complement for, say, two Kirov's, three Slava's or seven Krivak's.

I'm still skeptical. The limiting factor for more cruisers in the Russian Navy isn't manpower, it's maintenance money. Which, yes, not having Kuznetsov helps with that, but enough to keep all four Kirovs in service? I doubt it.

 

[Barry Bull]

I don't believe that the Soviets were holding back with the weapons they developed and had a heap of good stuff waiting in the wings to pursue different strategies.

That's why they were building carriers. If Cold Wars and Detente continue, Soviet carriers could assume more prominent role as a CBG is a great way of flag waving which is a useful political tool in peace time. There is a reason why navies tend to be more sophistated and 'international' in outlook, that is a significant part of naval history.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

It sets back the development of the Indian and People's Liberation Army Navy, off the top of my head.

 

[sloreck]

Navalizing land based aircraft for carrier operations historically does not work very well. Issues with the hits of the landings and, when catapults come in to use, dealing with those stresses. Also salt water vapor in the air is a real issue, and if not equipped with properly placed access panels you are going to have corrosion problems you never see or can address. While taking a land design and adapting for carrier use is not impossible it is expensive and usually it is better to make an airframe from the ground up - avionics can be transferred pretty easily. Looking at the US experience, the F-111 was a total failure for carriers, naval versions of helicopters like the UH-1 and UH-60 have substantial differences from the Army versions, and the commonalities between the F-35 Air Force and Navy versions are limited. The reality is that while existing Soviet aircraft may serve as the basis for carrier aircraft, making them carrier aircraft will be a major effort. Doable, sure but it will use limited resources so what else won't happen.

 

[tomo pauk]

But how would foxhound protect their bombers from enemy fighters?

By shooting down enemy fighters.

as mig31 missiles were supposedly designed to shoot down bombers not fighters

Operating word being 'supposedly' there.

It is if it used against its intended target such as supersonic bombers and cruise missiles (after it is equipped with good look down, shoot down radar).

It would a waste if it is use to escort strike packages, and put it at great risk.

One thing is 'can it escort bombers?' - yes, it can, since it featured long range + in flight refueling capability, coupled with capable radar, missiles and raw performance.
A remark of 'it will be used against enemy bombers' is a whole new ball game.

 

[Khanzeer]

By shooting

Can foxhound shoot down anything more modern than an F4 phantom?

 

[tomo pauk]

Can foxhound shoot down anything more modern than an F4 phantom?

MiG-25s were managing to kill F-4s, F-5s, and, in adverse conditions, F-18. So I'd say that MiG-31 stands the best chances of any Soviet fighters to kill a modern Western aircraft in 1980-2000 era.

 

[Khanzeer]

MiG-25s were managing to kill F-4s, F-5s, and, in adverse conditions, F-18. So I'd say that MiG-31 stands the best chances of any Soviet fighters to kill a modern Western aircraft in 1980-2000 era.

I WOULD say the F-4s were killed in pretty adverse circumstances too

Did mig25 kill an f5e ?
When was that ?

inflight refuelling was not available until after 1990 though i think

 

[tomo pauk]

I WOULD say the F-4s were killed in pretty adverse circumstances too

Did mig25 kill an f5e ?
When was that ?

The Iraqi AF in 1991 vs. the UN colaition was in a far worse situation than it was the case with IRIAF vs. Iraqi AF in 1980s.
Seems like an Iranian F5E was shot in April 1984.

inflight refuelling was not available until after 1990 though i think

It certainly was available much before 1990 - the dedicated tanker, IL-78, entered service in 1984, as an improvement over the previous tanker AC, that was a slight modification of Il-76. MiG-31 featured the IFR system from day one, for example the Su-24M (has IFR system) entered the service in 1983.