Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 3:32 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 865
    Points : 884
    Join date : 2015-01-02
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  OminousSpudd on Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:04 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Their method of construction is down to a fine art now.

    As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2163
    Points : 2278
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:06 am

    As I mentioned before, Russia can supplement rocket propulsion for naval fighters so that they can skijump with full load.

    Russia invest in catapult because there are aircraft (AWACS, etc) which cannot skijump and have to use catapult. The future Russian carrier utilize both skijump and catapult.

    Catapult is useful, but force all aircraft to use catapult is stupid.

    OminousSpudd wrote:As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.

    In more details, Russia doesn't rely on massive carriers in navy vs navy battle. It ulilizes anti-ship missiles, including hypersonic missiles which are unable to intercept.

    About granit, it is a supersonic missile, while Harpoon only subsonic. The U.S. navy failed to create any supersonic anti-ship missile.

    Again, Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:42 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Their method of construction is down to a fine art now.

    As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.

    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers. Not a tug boat and one escort to visit Chavez across the Atlantic. It is also hampered with propulsion problems that happened to stay active (and not sold or scrapped in the crazy 90s and 00s). It has served/serves no major operational purpose whatsoever with its current air wing of a few Su-33s, apart from showing the flag, training and cruising the North Sea, Atlantic and Med a few times (less than 6 proper deployments).

    That's it really for the past 36 years.

    A dozen of Granits are a good solution to the fact that the air wing had (assuming MiG-29K comes online soon) no strike capability/role.

    To use that and imply CATOBAR carriers hosting navalised PAK FA are useless, is not prudent. It's an example to avoid and a dead doctrine for a Navy that will never exist.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 21, 2016 4:43 am

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot... if is the biggest word in the English language.

    You are either ignoring what I am saying or just enjoying talking around it.

    It matters not how much it costs Russia to make a 100K ton carrier with steam or EM cats... even if it was free it would be a waste of money and time and space.

    They don't need strike bombers carried around the world to invade or bomb other countries... they can send a submarine with a dozen cruise missiles to do the job much quicker and much more effectively.

    For Russia a carrier is about protecting navy vessels with an air component, so fighters, yes, AWACS, yes... strike bombers no.

    At best they would find an anti ship and anti sub capability for their aircraft useful but they will mostly be shooting down enemy aircraft and enemy anti ship missiles before they can do damage to the Russians ships or subs.

    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Optimised to maintain the empire... worthless to Russia.

    In fact a burden for Russia if it had such vessels.

    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers.

    The Soviet and Russian view of an aircraft carrier is an air defence hub, around which the IADS of the navy is based. It is not a strike carrier to invade or bomb countries like Libya or Vietnam, it is the air component that will defend Russian navy ships from enemy air power and support in an attack on enemy naval forces.

    No doctrine my ass.



    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:29 am; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2163
    Points : 2278
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:57 am

    GarryB wrote:
    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers.

    The Soviet and Russian view of an aircraft carrier is an air defence hub, around which the IADS of the navy is based. It is not a strike carrier to invade or bomb countries like Libya or Vietnam, it is the air component that will defend Russian navy ships from enemy air power and support in an attack on enemy naval forces.

    No doctrine my ass.

    In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:40 am

    GarryB wrote:And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot

    Club ultron level unlocked, alas the forum functionality doesn't see it through.  
    Still ignored from now on welcome

    higurashihougi wrote:In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.

    All that is fair enough, I know were you're coming from.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 533
    Points : 537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:21 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot

    Club ultron level unlocked, alas the forum functionality doesn't see it through.  
    Still ignored from now on welcome

    higurashihougi wrote:In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.

    All that is fair enough, I know were you're coming from.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.

    The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).
    avatar
    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1652
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:30 am

    Isos wrote:The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 533
    Points : 537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:42 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.

    Well now they are focusing on their litoral capabilities. They won't try to fight in the open seas. US navy is smaller too. Their ships are not so new as they pretend. AEGIS is old. New europeans frigate are far more advenced.

    I visited MBDA and the man told us that french missiles are better than US because US can lunch like 4 missile on one target ( because they have money) and europeans need something very good. So they make their missiles much better.

    With a litoral navy they have air force with them to support + KILO SUBS + S400. So they don't need lot of big ships. Kirov operated 200 km from russia with frigates and corvettes will desrtoy evry US ship.

    However having just small corvettes is stupid as they will be destroyed by aircrafts.

    They could try while making peace wwith Ukraine to take the last Slava and put s 400 and oniks on it, will be very good.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:44 am

    Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    No they don't.

    Taking off with full AB engaged uses the same amount of fuel whether taking off on the ski jump or with a catapult... the difference is that the ski jump adds a vertical component to the lift on takeoff to add vertical as well as forward momentum to the aircraft, while the cat just adds to horizontal speed to allow the wings to provide more lift at takeoff.

    There are three takeoff positions on the K... two short ones and one long one... the short ones are perfectly adequate for any and all aircraft on the K to take off with a full fuel load and a full load of air to air weapons... the latter weighing rather less than max payload of the aircraft but none of the aircraft have significant air to ground capability, so a heavy bomb load is not going to be used or needed.

    the long takeoff strip allows full payload takeoffs.

    Didn't the Soviet develop cats?
    Russia can send a few technicians to Brazil if they want to get any ideas. Shouldn't cost much for the budget Russia has outlined.

    They worked on a cat system but as it was never put into service they got no experience in its use so they really don't know if it would have been effective or not... and that was more than 30 years ago.

    They have said they are developing cats now for new carriers so I suspect they will be EM cats.

    it's the poor man's way into CVs though.
    ???

    It would be as accurate to say that steam or EM cats are the gold plated expensive way to give carriers AWACS.

    With loiter time of potato though.

    Likely a much more potent dogfighter than either the SH or F-35...

    Still ignored from now on

    Hahaha... fine.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.

    You don't understand the game do you?

    US carriers sit off the shore of the Soviet Union... their job is to murder people so they need strike aircraft that can fly into Soviet airspace and drop nuclear bombs on Soviet citizens to kill them. It has tanker aircraft and fighter planes to support those strike aircraft. the ships in the carrier group are there to protect the carrier. That is what a US carrier group is.

    In "peacetime" it is to intimidate smaller countries and do the same thing with conventional bombs.

    The Soviet and now Russian carrier is not intended to go to the US and murder Americans... its purpose is to protect Russian shipping by providing air cover, Soviet and Russian ships are intended to fight US carrier groups and to protect SSBNs until they have launched their missiles at the west... therefore the Russian aircraft are dedicated to the air to air role with a much lighter weapon load of AAMs and little or no strike capability. the MiG-29K is fully multirole but will only be used in limited strike missions likely in conventional wars against smaller enemies than the west.

    In terms of providing air cover the only advantage of having a cat is enabling refuelling tankers to operate from the Russian carrier and of course the extra vision you get from a fixed wing AWACS or AEW aircraft. that is why the ski jump was chosen over cats... there are no real missions where cats would be needed as air to air payloads are a fraction of strike mission payloads.

    With only 12 Granits the K would contribute to an attack but the Kirov and Oscar would be the core of attacks with 20 and 24 missiles each... with upgrades the Kirov will likely have 80 Onyx and the Oscar 72 Onyx missiles... in 10 years time the same number of Zircon hypersonic missiles.

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.


    See... you don't know what you are talking about... if the doctrine is dead then why?

    What has changed?

    If the doctrine is dead then why is every new Russian ship equipped with UKSK launchers allowing them to carry Onyx? Kirov has 20 Granits, Oscar has 24... a new modern corvette has 8 modern equivalents in the Onyx or a 2,500km land attack cruise missile. The new boats of the Russian Navy will be able to carry rather more than their big heavy cruisers and large SSGNs could carry and can also carry long range land attack missiles too as an option... but the threat has not changed... the threat is still US carrier groups and NATO ships...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 6017
    Points : 6429
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:48 am

    New Russian Navy aircraft carrier will be equipped with nuclear reactors RITM-200 - source
    06.22.2016 11:55:32
    *** Russia is able to build such a ship for two five-year plan


    Moscow. 22nd of June. Interfax-AVN - Promising Russian nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm" project will receive 23,000 nuclear reactors RITM-200, which will be tested before roadworthiness on the icebreaker "Arktika", said Wednesday "Interfax-AVN" a source familiar with the situation.

    "Most likely, the future Russian aircraft carriers will have a nuclear power plant it has already been developed, and its analogue will be practiced on the recently deflated on the icebreaker water." Arktika ", - said the agency interlocutor.

    According to him, "taking into account the time required for the design of an aircraft carrier, Russia has the opportunity to build such a ship" from scratch "for eight or nine years."

    June 16 in St. Petersburg, the company "Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding" (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) held a ceremony launching the largest and most powerful in the world (60 MW) nuclear icebreaker project 22220 "Arctic", the head in a series of three ships of this type. Contract term order completion - December 2017.

    The icebreaker "Arktika" is equipped with a two-reactor power plant with the main source of the vapor from the reactor facility RITM-200 with capacity of 175 MW.


    The aircraft carrier project 23000E (code "Storm") exists only in the form layout. The concept ship developed in Krylovskaya research center together with Nevsky engineering company.

    According to preliminary data, the ship's length is 330 meters, width - 40 meters and draft - 11 meters. Carrier speed will reach 30 knots.

    Preliminary design of prospective aircraft carrier provides for him as a springboard, and catapult launch aircraft. And there will be two tracks springboard from which great length of 250 m. It is also provided on the aircraft carrier aircraft lifts both vertical and kachelnogo type that saves space occupied by them on the ship.
    Earlier, representatives of Krylovskogo center reported that the technical design stage the carrier may occur in 2017-2018, respectively.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_trafo on Wed Jun 22, 2016 1:29 pm

    Austin wrote:New Russian Navy aircraft carrier will be equipped with nuclear reactors RITM-200 - source
    06.22.2016 11:55:32
    *** Russia is able to build such a ship for two five-year plan


    Moscow. 22nd of June. Interfax-AVN - Promising Russian nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm" project will receive 23,000 nuclear reactors RITM-200, which will be tested before roadworthiness on the icebreaker "Arktika", said Wednesday "Interfax-AVN" a source familiar with the situation.

    "Most likely, the future Russian aircraft carriers will have a nuclear power plant it has already been developed, and its analogue will be practiced on the recently deflated on the icebreaker water." Arktika ", - said the agency interlocutor.

    According to him, "taking into account the time required for the design of an aircraft carrier, Russia has the opportunity to build such a ship" from scratch "for eight or nine years."

    June 16 in St. Petersburg, the company "Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding" (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) held a ceremony launching the largest and most powerful in the world (60 MW) nuclear icebreaker project 22220 "Arctic", the head in a series of three ships of this type. Contract term order completion - December 2017.

    The icebreaker "Arktika" is equipped with a two-reactor power plant with the main source of the vapor from the reactor facility RITM-200 with capacity of 175 MW.


    The aircraft carrier project 23000E (code "Storm") exists only in the form layout. The concept ship developed in Krylovskaya research center together with Nevsky engineering company.

    According to preliminary data, the ship's length is 330 meters, width - 40 meters and draft - 11 meters. Carrier speed will reach 30 knots.

    Preliminary design of prospective aircraft carrier provides for him as a springboard, and catapult launch aircraft. And there will be two tracks springboard from which great length of 250 m. It is also provided on the aircraft carrier aircraft lifts both vertical and kachelnogo type that saves space occupied by them on the ship.
    Earlier, representatives of Krylovskogo center reported that the technical design stage the carrier may occur in 2017-2018, respectively.

    That is RITM-400.

    The 400 showing the thermal capacity of the reactor.
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10137
    Points : 10631
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Thu Jun 30, 2016 6:53 am

    Russia to begin designing advanced aircraft carrier in 2020 — source

    The Russian Navy said previously that the fleet expected to get an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by the end of 2030

    ST. PETERSBURG, June 30. /TASS/. Russia will begin designing an advanced aircraft carrier for its Navy not until 2020, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.

    "This work is currently underway. The actual design work will start in 2020. According to the currently existing plans, the aircraft carrier will be created in the third decade of the 21st century. The vessel design will begin in 2020, and it will be built before 2030," the source said.

    "It's logical, if we analyze the military shipbuilding over the last 20 years ... Everything fits in the principle from small things to large, as over these two decades it was necessary to create new production capacities and modernize the old ones, which will enable us by 2030 to build large ships", he said.

    The Russian Navy said previously that the Russian fleet expected to get an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by the end of 2030.

    According to Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, the contract on the aircraft carrier building could be signed by the end of 2025. "I believe this will most likely take place closer to the end of 2025. We have three projects offered by the Krylov Center.

    They are fairly good and a decision on the aircraft carrier will be made closer to 2025," he said.

    As of today, the Russian Navy operates the sole heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Head of the Russian Navy Shipbuilding Department Vladimir Tryapichnikov said in January this year the Russian Navy expected to receive an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by late 2030.

    The Krylov State Research Center (shipbuilding research and development institute) previously announced the development of a heavy aircraft carrier of Project 23000E Storm with a displacement of up to 100,000 tons and an air group comprising 80-90 aircraft.


    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/885592


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 229
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  wilhelm on Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:15 pm

    Came across this article today.
    I make no claims to its accuracy, as I'm wary when it comes to quotes from officers/diplomats who ask for anonymity, and am also aware that reporting in Indian media or on defence matters can be a very partisan affair, depending on which direction it is coming from.
    I'm simply posting it here as it has to do with the topic.

    Some of the points make sense....IF India is indeed looking at nuclear propulsion for a carrier, they certainly won't be getting any assistance from the US.


    Russia Offers India Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
    Vivek Raghuvanshi, Defense News 8:48 a.m. EDT July 11, 2016
    636038235288218851-Model-aircraft-carrier-project-23000E-at-the-Army-2015-2.JPG


    NEW DELHI — Russia has offered its nuclear aircraft carrier, dubbed "Storm," to India for purchase, a senior Indian Navy official said. The offer comes as India and the US discuss the transfer of technology for India's future nuclear aircraft carrier, the INS Vishal.

    A diplomat with the Russian Embassy confirmed that a Russian team visiting India last week made the offer.

    Krylov State Research Center (KSRC), a Russian shipbuilding research and development institute, is designing the carrier, also known as Shtorm or Project 23000E.

    "First revealed in May 2015, the Project 23000E multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defense," the Navy official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    India plans to build its second homegrown aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which will be nuclear-powered, 300 meters long, 70 meters wide and displace 65,000 tons.

    "The choice [India's] is to have a nuclear powered carrier, technology for which will not be easy to get, and international help will be needed by India in the design and development of the super carrier," Nitin Mehta, an independent defense analyst, said.

    Russia has already overhauled and modernized a Kiev-class carrier-cruiser, renamed INS Vikramaditya, for the Indian Navy from 2004-2013 in which they "gained valuable insights into carrier-building techniques through that process," Mehta said.

    The US, meanwhile, has offered the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), which is does not include nuclear propulsion technology and is unavailable for the Russian carrier, according to the Indian Navy official.

    "EMALS is a major attraction because it is flexible and allows variety of aircraft to come on the deck including the lighter, homemade light combat aircraft and heavy fighter aircraft," he said.

    India and the US have formed a joint working group on aircraft carrier technology cooperation, but there is no discussion so far on offering nuclear technology for Indian aircraft carrier.

    India has still to decide whether to buy the super carrier or build it locally.


    DEFENSE NEWS
    Skepticism Persists in Strengthened US-India Ties



    "We will have to pay at least $12 billion to buy a nuclear power aircraft carrier that has EMALS capability but [the Indian] government will never approve the funding," the Indian Navy official said.

    Anil Jai Singh, a retired Indian Navy commodore and defense analyst, is doubtful if India would buy a nuclear carrier.

    "It is doubtful if India will be able to source a 65,000-ton carrier from another country, and [it] will be too expensive to buy", Singh said. "Does the Indian Navy really think it would have the kind of global footprint to justify that expense in the next 15 years or so?"

    An Indian Ministry of Defence official said India must still finalize details on how to acquire its next homegrown carrier.

    http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/07/11/russia-india-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-storm/86937106/

    eridan
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 137
    Points : 145
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eridan on Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:29 pm

    After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:53 pm

    eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

    and where Russia should be? BTW Where Indians should order then?

    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 318
    Points : 322
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Jul 14, 2016 12:05 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

    and where Russia should be? BTW Where Indians should order then?


    Currently they said Russia has the lead that said, if I was India, I would wonder if Russia could build a 100k ton carrier in the time frame they say, they have no real experience building such a vessel.

    It is fair to assume given the shape of their current ship building industry that such a vessel would take them much much longer then it would others to finish.

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 229
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  wilhelm on Thu Jul 14, 2016 4:24 am

    There has been considerable investment and a modernisation drive in the shipbuilding sector, with the intention of rectifying the decay after the breakup of the USSR.
    This is starting to bear fruit now, and will only keep getting better as modernisation of the sector reaches completion.

    Context is very important: If one has paid close attention, much of the holdup to some of the current vessels are naval turbine related, not on design capability or fabrication of hulls, superstructure, etc. Vessels not using gas turbines sourced from Ukraine, a holdup from the days of the USSR, or other imported components subject to sudden political whims and sanctions, have not been effected in anything like the manner. By this, I mean vessels previously using German diesels, or vessels affected by the Mistral debacle.

    The half of the Mistral vessels constructed in Russia were done so efficiently, on time, and within budget. More pertinent to large nuclear powered vessels, the giant nuclear icebreaker was also built efficiently. Various large nuclear subs have been built. The nuclear reactor design is available and has been built.
    These above (in other words clearly defined) are a far better indicator than vessels already designed and built, but which are hamstrung for a couple of years due to sudden sanctions on imported propulsion units.

    Of course a large carrier will be no walk in the park, probably the most ambitious programme along with nuclear subs/SSBN's...but it is not helpful using unrelated issues as examples of why it would be hard work. A properly run programme is certainly well within the capabilities of Russia.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jul 14, 2016 5:59 am

    Plus it is a good sign that they want to build such a vessel...

    The new shipyards and expanded capabilities of existing shipyards are supposed to allow the production of really large gas carrier vessels and other such enormous vessels, so why not build carriers too.

    I will repeat... the Russians don't need a US Nimitz class equivalent... they wont be looking at a 100K ton vessel... much more likely to be 60-80K ton, with much less emphasis on the strike element as they prefer to use long range land attack cruise missiles or strategic bombers for such missions.

    The Russian Navy is more interested in defending itself, so the primary mission is air defence of a surface fleet.

    They will have subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic land attack cruise missiles in service when this carrier is ready... there is little need to risk a manned aircraft for such missions.

    I rather suspect it might even carry land attack strike drones like the SKAT from MiG rather than bombers...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 589
    Points : 613
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:01 am

    eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

    Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal? A little context pls? Given that the Indian-built INS Vikrant will have taken nearly 10 years from laying down the keel (Feb 2009) to her expected service entry (Dec 2018) and will have cost ~$3.8B (original estimate was only $0.5B!!), she is a close match for the Vikramaditya who required 10 years and $2.35B. Vikramaditya is bigger, faster and carries more aircraft, and after her extensive reconstruction she is essentially a brand new ship.

    I'd say that India made the right call. Buy one carrier, while build one of your own. If anything, they'll get more bang for their rupee with the Russian offering.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1513
    Points : 1553
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:45 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

    Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal?  A little context pls? Given that the Indian-built INS Vikrant will have taken nearly 10 years from laying down the keel (Feb 2009) to her expected service entry (Dec 2018) and will have cost ~$3.8B (original estimate was only $0.5B!!), she is a close match for the Vikramaditya who required 10 years and $2.35B.  Vikramaditya is bigger, faster and carries more aircraft, and after her extensive reconstruction she is essentially a brand new ship.

    I'd say that India made the right call.  Buy one carrier, while build one of your own.  If anything, they'll get more bang for their rupee with the Russian offering.



    An interesting find for this discussion - not to mention level of nuclear reactor technology in Russia is on top world level and also unit costs say 2 for India 2 for Russia makes significant unit cost reduction. Guess latest news about leasing SSN Kashalot to India, modernization of SU-30 MKI, selling/off-setting Yak-242 or PAK FG might be a part of bigger deal.




    http://flotprom.ru/2016/ТорговляОружием65/

    Russia has offered to build India nuclear aircraft carrier project 23000Э "Storm". On this edition of Defense News said a high-ranking source in Indian defense Ministry.




    For future nuclear aircraft carriers Russian design selected integral reactor RITM-200, which is designed for nuclear-powered icebreakers of the new generation of project 22220. Its peculiarity is the enrichment level of the fuel uranium-235 lowered to 20% (from 40 - 90% at naval nuclear power plants previous generations). It allows you to export these reactors without violating agreements on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies.

    Aircraft carrier project 23000 (code "Storm") so far only exists in the form of layout that Krylov state research center have demonstrated for the first time in 2015. Its concept was developed together with the Nevsky design Bureau.

    Displacement of the ship is expected to reach 100 thousand tons, length - up to 330 meters, maximum speed - 30 knots. The carrier is counting on the placement of 80 - 90 aircraft.

    At the end of June the information appeared that the technical design of advanced nuclear aircraft carrier "Storm" for the Russian Navy will begin in 2020, and construction would not be completed until 2030-ies.

    wilhelm
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 229
    Points : 235
    Join date : 2014-12-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  wilhelm on Thu Jul 14, 2016 6:59 am

    On the context of building large nuclear powered vessels, and the percieved "lack of efficiency" of Russian yards, the following is interesting:

    The latest British SSBN submarines of the Vanguard class took roughly 7 years on average from laying down to commissioning.
    One of the the smaller British SSN's of the Astute class, the HMS artful, took 11 years from laying down to commissioning.
    Even the non-nuclear carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class are going to average 11 or 12 years from when steel was cut to commissioning.

    The French Charles de Gaulle took 12 years from laying down to commissioning.

    The US navy Seawolf class SSN's took between 7 to 8 years from laying down to commissioning.
    the Gerald Ford class nuclear carriers look like they will average out at about 7 years between laying down to commissioning. Impressive, but then remember that to all intents and purposes, the US keeps what amounts to basically a production line of carriers going.

    The new, relatively simple 40 000t Indian carrier, Vikrant, was laid down in 2009, and it is intended for commissioning in 2018, but there are acknowledged delays, and I don't think anybody is expecting it remotely to be ready by then. Think more 2020 to be very optimistic, and probably well after.

    Bearing in mind the shambles that followed the breakup of the USSR, it's no surprise that some of the earlier vessels of the new designs took longer to complete.
    But look at the more recent nuclear vessels.
    The most recent Borei SSBN vessel took 8 years from laying down to commissioning. And the more recent ones look like they will take 4 to 5 years from laying down to commissioning.
    The same applies to the Yasen class SSN.
    Although it isn't strictly a naval vessel, the Arktika nuclear powered icebreaker, the largest ever constructed, was launched only 2 and a half years after laying down, with a commissioning date set at between 3 and a half to 4 years after laying down.

    So, that suddenly doesn't look too bad all of a sudden.
    Like I said, if it is nuclear powered, and there is the new reactor design for the Arktika that will be used, and the programme is well conceived and managed, with indigineous components instead of relying on wishy washy "partners" subject to pressure, then there is no reason at all it can't be built efficiently and on time.
    I would think that the catapults and their design would be one of the main things that governs the time it is built. And in this regard, it would be better to simply go for an EMALS catapult. It's not exactly rocket science. Westinghouse had a very earlier version called the Electropult all the way back in 1945. Obviously, aircraft have got bigger, but then, electric technology has improved out of sight in those 70 years. And the architecture onboard is much simpler for EMALS than a steam catapult.
    And Russia has begun the design of one:

    MOSCOW, September 16. /TASS/. Russia has started developing an electromagnetic catapult for new-generation aircraft carriers, a defense industry source told TASS on Wednesday.
    "The electromagnetic catapult development is under way, and a mockup has been made," the source said.
    According to the source, the prototype of the advanced catapult has been brought to the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute. The catapult needs no big steam boilers and is powered by a battery.
    As is known, the United States is working on an electromagnetic catapult too. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is essentially a linear induction motor with a number of coils generating a travelling magnetic field. The magnetic field accelerates the object. The EMALS has a 100,000-hp (73.5MW) motor affording the catapult-launched manned and unmanned aircraft a takeoff speed of 333 km/h. Electromagnetic technologies offer a sizeable reduction in the catapult’s maintenance cost, an increase in its reliability and effectiveness, much higher launch power and more accurate control of the aircraft’s final acceleration speed during takeoff. In addition, the electromagnetic catapult allows smoother acceleration and less stress on the aircraft.
    The EMALS is designed to equip advanced heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the CVN-79 Gerald R. Ford class.


    More:
    http://tass.ru/en/defense/821618


    avatar
    hoom
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 379
    Points : 381
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  hoom on Sat Jul 16, 2016 5:41 am

    The longer flight run allows Su-33s to take off with full fuel and weapons.
    Thats really interesting, how certain of that are you?

    The Yak-44 was designed to not only use the 2 waist catapults on the Ulyanovsk, but was also stressed and designed (with excess power) to use the ski-ramp on the bow of that vessel.
    Also very interesting.
    I wonder how practical it could be to restart that program? Seems like a pretty big ask though & not really anything else in the wings in the right kind of size to replace it on a new CV.

    I've wondered if it would be practical to make an AEW Su-33 variant based off the 2-seater with enlarged front/rear radomes &/or or a longitudinal antenna like the Saab AEW/Wedgetail?
    Looking at rough dimensions Su-33 has similar length/payload/range vs the Saab 340 which carries that radar  Shocked
    That could give significant development/logistic advantages compared to developing an all new plane.
    Dunno what sort of low speed loiter time an Su-33 has, probably a bit on the low side (?) but should at least be much better endurance than a helicopter based AEW.
    Otherwise I'd have thought AEW is a pretty perfect task for a new large drone. (but does Russia have any decent sized drones likely to be CVable in the works? Even if they do it'd presumably be a looong lead thing just like a new normal plane)

    it seems the Slipway A is 350m long, and the fitting out quays (900m long) and associated equipment are easily able to cope.
    Sevmash probably also has facilities not too far off.
    Also Zaliv at Kerch is supposedly big enough for 100k tankers.
    Though the question of drydocks is probably a legit one, Sevmash is clearly not big enough for a 100k CV.

    The carriers they build will likely be in the 60-80K ton weight range and include fighter aircraft as well as unmanned drones.
    I feel thats the logical thing too but they are making a lot of noise about going for the 100k size, not much/anything about option of going smaller.
    US Navy seems very sure that there is a big capability reduction by going smaller particularly in the ability to do simultaneous launch & landing ops.
    By deck layout Kuznetsov can already do it with 1 short launch run but the 100k model doesn't seem to improve this (while the similar sized 65kish US Kitty Hawks had 1 cat that can do it)

    A big question may be if Russia still has access to the Ulyanovsk design? I read Ukraine shipped several truck loads of blueprints to China who are using it for their CV program.
    On the other hand Ulyanovsk design doesn't have the advantage of a couple of decades operational experience with Kuznetsov that VMF now has, so an optimised/reworked/somewhat bigger version of Kuznetsov may be a preferable option.
    I wonder if Vikramaditya is known to have fixed some issues?
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16090
    Points : 16781
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:43 am

    Thats really interesting, how certain of that are you?

    Ummm... it is not rocket science... the Su-33 is basically a Su-27 with a few minor upgrades including the ability to carry the Kh-31 in the anti ship role.

    Otherwise the main armament is R-27E air to air missiles and R-73 air to air missiles... or up to a 500kg bomb.

    Normal max weapon load is all AAMs and the Su-33 has no capacity to carry external fuel tanks... so of course it is going to be able to take off from a 250m runway with a skijump at the end... it can take off with the same load at farnborough without the ski jump and without being on a ship sailing at 20knts into the wind...

    I wonder how practical it could be to restart that program? Seems like a pretty big ask though & not really anything else in the wings in the right kind of size to replace it on a new CV.

    AFAIK it was not based on any existing aircraft design... so why should it need to be now?

    Looking at rough dimensions Su-33 has similar length/payload/range vs the Saab 340 which carries that radar Shocked
    That could give significant development/logistic advantages compared to developing an all new plane.

    They could probably make a variant of the Su-33 or a drone into an AWACS type, but I suspect if they are going to the trouble of making and EM cat then a proper AWACs aircraft like the Yak-44 but more modern and capable would be worth the money.

    A small cheaper AWACS aircraft would be popular on the export market I suspect... I think Iran would buy one and Iraq would probably be interested too... with countries using them mainly as a shore based defence manager type aircraft... India might want a few to fly around their borders at times of tension looking for small low flying threats etc.

    US Navy seems very sure that there is a big capability reduction by going smaller particularly in the ability to do simultaneous launch & landing ops.

    Simultaneous launch and landing ops are based on the angled deck design and has nothing to do with size. Even the Kuznetsov can have two aircraft sitting on the short runs up the ski jump with a light load while an aircraft can come in to land on the angled deck behind them.

    If they really want to be innovative then a cat design with two separate hulls with angled decks on each would allow two aircraft to be recovered at one time and four aircraft launched at one time. When not recovering aircraft you could use two long run takeoff runs and have 6 aircraft getting airborne at one time... that would be important when mounting a raid or responding to an enemy attack...



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Apr 29, 2017 11:08 pm