Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:40k tons is too small tho, 60-70 is the range they should focus on.

I could see them building a couple of smaller carriers first and then move on to a bigger one, like china is doing.

The
carrier looks like a LK-110 icebreaker.

If they can manufacture the icebreaker, then the carrier will be an easy ride.

Stop comparing icebreakers and aircraft carriers its retarded beyond imagination. Two have nothing whatseover in common except they both float. You wrote that same sentence like 50 times on this forum and it has no connection with reality.

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:40k tons is too small tho, 60-70 is the range they should focus on.

I could see them building a couple of smaller carriers first and then move on to a bigger one, like china is doing.

The
carrier looks like a LK-110 icebreaker.

If they can manufacture the icebreaker, then the carrier will be an easy ride.

Stop comparing icebreakers and aircraft carriers its retarded beyond imagination. Two have nothing whatseover in common except they both float. You wrote that same sentence like 50 times on this forum and it has no connection with reality.

PapaDragon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:40k tons is too small tho, 60-70 is the range they should focus on.

I could see them building a couple of smaller carriers first and then move on to a bigger one, like china is doing.

60-70k for Russia? I dunno about that, feels unnecessary and high maintenance.

Kuz has 40k and carries more or less enough aircraft for RuN needs.

New carrier with same displacement but one with more efficient space arrangement, nuclear propulsion and less cumbersome weaponry would be more than enough, especially if they go with something smaller than Flankers for air complement.  

40k is the empty weight not it's full displacement.

It's full is 60k.

That is, of course, my opinion the Russian will see things differently than me.

I see.

Didn't know that whole load is counted as weight, I assumed it's just ship's weight.

So when they say 40k they mean roughly 25-30k plus aircraft and equipment?

That is compact but on the upside it increases chances of more than couple of them getting built.

PapaDragon wrote:.
We should put eehenie on suicide watch. 


Krylov center working on concept of new light aircraft carrier 

http://flotprom.ru/2017/%D0%A4%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BC%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%8F253/




Russia Just Revealed Its Plans for a New Aircraft Carrier

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-just-revealed-its-plans-new-aircraft-carrier-22027

And while I rarely agree with clowns at National Interest, this here is truth you can carve in stone tablet:

...“From what I understand, this center [Krylov] mainly makes model ships, and that none of the projects they've advanced are being seriously considered for production,” Michael Kofman, a research scientist specializing in Russian military affairs at the Center for Naval Analyses, told The National Interest....

This intoxicator can not be more shameless... So pretty posting things of National Interest [of the US]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/foreign-policy-experts-roundtable-17547

Only necessary to remember what Russia did with this Aircraft Carrier (of the same size) some years ago:

http://russianships.info/eng/warships/project_11434.htm

Yeah, I kinda like the idea of essentially a new-build Vikramaditya

Not as wow-factor as a big 100k beast or even K size but V shows it can work, the price would be much lower & its a much more attainable first-step.
There are probably a bunch of things that could be easily improved vs V on a new build.

Start with 2*, both to Pacific fleet, see how they work out or 1* each if desperate to replace K, then either switch up to 100k or build another 2*.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:40k tons is too small tho, 60-70 is the range they should focus on.

I could see them building a couple of smaller carriers first and then move on to a bigger one, like china is doing.

The
carrier looks like a LK-110 icebreaker.

If they can manufacture the icebreaker, then the carrier will be an easy ride.

Stop comparing icebreakers and aircraft carriers its retarded beyond imagination. Two have nothing whatseover in common except they both float. You wrote that same sentence like 50 times on this forum and it has no connection with reality.

Considering that an aircraft carrier is simpler and easier to manufacture than an icebreaker, the comparison is a not fair as you highlighted.

But if they can make a 60k icebreaker, then a carrier is easy ride : )

an aircraft carrier is simpler and easier to manufacture than an icebreaker

I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of a Carrier

hoom wrote:Yeah, I kinda like the idea of essentially a new-build Vikramaditya

Not as wow-factor as a big 100k beast or even K size but V shows it can work, the price would be much lower & its a much more attainable first-step.
There are probably a bunch of things that could be easily improved vs V on a new build.

Start with 2*, both to Pacific fleet, see how they work out or 1* each if desperate to replace K, then either switch up to 100k or build another 2*.

There is pros and cons to your approach.

That one 100k carrier will need to be refueled etc and during that time Russia is left without an AC in that fleet.

Where have if you build two carriers you can have one active and one undergoing refit/refuel.

Then rotate them out. You cannot just have one carrier in today's age you need AT LEAST 2.

I want to see them do something very left field...

A triple hull carrier with a small central hull with pod engines and nuclear powerplants and two outrigger hulls, one on either side with two angled landing strips and four straight take off strips on each side... and emal cats...

GarryB wrote:I want to see them do something very left field...

A triple hull carrier with a small central hull with pod engines and nuclear powerplants and two outrigger hulls, one on either side with two angled landing strips and four straight take off strips on each side... and emal cats...

Nuclear propulsion and EM catapults are a given but hull will definitely be conventional.

I am still convinced that end product will be something similar in size to Wasp or America class with reactors, catapults and ski ramp (just in case).

There isn't a task that RU Navy would be required to do that would demand anything larger. And if they do come into situation where they need larger number of aircraft they can simply send two ACs instead of just one.

hoom wrote:

an aircraft carrier is simpler and easier to manufacture than an icebreaker

I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of a Carrier

US carriers:
Nimitz class: 8.4 billion $
super hornet : 84 million $
1 Nimitz = 100 super hornet

UK carriers:
Elizabeth : 4 billion $
Super hornet : 84 million
1 Elizabeth = 50 Super Hornet

Russian ice breaker:
LK-60Ya - 44 billion rouble
Su-34 - 1 billion rouble
one LK-60Ya = 40 su34


LK-110Ya - 59 billion rouble
One LK-110Ya = 59 Su34


The queen Elizabeth 70 000 tonnes , the LK-60Ya 35 000 tonnes.

The next gen LK-110Ya will be 55 600 tonnes, and the cost will be higher than the Elizabeth .

So, yes, the LK-110Ya will be more complicated and expensive ship than a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

It will be easier to make a carrier than the super mega ice breaker.

Singular_Transform wrote:

hoom wrote:

an aircraft carrier is simpler and easier to manufacture than an icebreaker

I think you're grossly underestimating the complexity of a Carrier

US carriers:
Nimitz class: 8.4 billion $
super hornet : 84 million $
1 Nimitz = 100 super hornet

UK carriers:
Elizabeth : 4 billion $
Super hornet : 84 million
1 Elizabeth = 50 Super Hornet

Russian ice breaker:
LK-60Ya - 44 billion rouble
Su-34 - 1 billion rouble
one LK-60Ya  = 40 su34


LK-110Ya - 59 billion rouble
One LK-110Ya = 59 Su34


The queen Elizabeth 70 000 tonnes , the LK-60Ya 35 000 tonnes.

The next gen LK-110Ya will be 55 600 tonnes, and the cost will be higher than the Elizabeth .

So, yes, the LK-110Ya will be more complicated and expensive ship than a Queen Elizabeth class carrier.

It will be easier to make a carrier than the super mega ice breaker.

44B Ruble in dollars at the very best exchange rate equals 71,289,118M. you are freaking out of your damn mind if you think the Russians can build a carrier for 72M dollars. No nation on earth can do that.

also the LK-110Ya more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth class? in what reality lala land? You clearly don;t know anything about rubles to dollars which shows how well your little Carrier easy to produce then Ice breaker theory holds up.

Also size means nothing in terms of ship complexity how you have to put the darn thing together what goes into it.

A carrier is not easier to make than an ice breaker and saying that only shows how little you know about the construction of carriers and warships. But hey let's strap VLs to an ice breaker and call it "mighty destroyer".

PS 59 billion Rubles = around 100m US dollars.

So tell me in what earth is 100M more than 4B

There is pros and cons to your approach.

Indeed, emphasis on starting out with 2 smaller ones.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

44B Ruble in dollars at the very best exchange rate equals 71,289,118M. you are freaking out of your damn mind if you think the Russians can build a carrier for 72M dollars. No nation on earth can do that.

also the LK-110Ya more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth class? in what reality lala land? You clearly don;t know anything about rubles to dollars which shows how well your little Carrier easy to produce then Ice breaker theory holds up.

Also size means nothing in terms of ship complexity how you have to put the darn thing together what goes into it.

A carrier is not easier to make than an ice breaker and saying that only shows how little you know about the construction of carriers and warships. But hey let's strap VLs to an ice breaker and call it "mighty destroyer".

PS 59 billion Rubles = around 100m US dollars.

So tell me in what earth is 100M more than 4B

Cost of the AP100 reactor is 8 billion $ , the BN-800 prototype cost 140 billion rouble .

Considering that the BN800 is a prototype the ratio between them was 6-8.
The same like between the queen Elizabeth and the hypothetical Russian carrier.

The VVER1200 cost 65 billion rouble .

So, 100 billion should be the cost of a super carrier with nuclear propulsion and catapults.

The USB /rouble exchange rate is quite non-realistic, the normal one can be somewhere around 14 .

Time to invest into russia : )

Apart from financial considerations. Why Russia should build super-duper-mega aircraft carriers? to counter US ones?  very inefficient way. Yasens, Karakurts and Zircons or Tu-22m with Kh-32 are for those purposes.

Land striking capabilities? salvo of Kalibrs isnt as effective asfree fall bombs dropped from expensive jet?

IMHO Russia is about first to achieve sea denial abilities. And AC might be needed for covering areas where own subs operate (i.e. Arctic) or to accompany ships for "humanitarian style operations"  in Africa/Asia .

So first I can see fighters needed.  And for me news about possible resuming V/STOL fighter program is not a coincidence. So funny way it might be that concep of Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser is not so much dead after all...



Opps re-edited update

Russia to start building new aircraft carrier by 2025
Military & Defense August 24, 14:35 UTC+3


The Russian Navy earlier said that it intended to get a perspective aircraft carrier with a nuclear-powered propulsion unit by late 2030
Share

KUBINKA (Moscow Region), August 24. /TASS/. The construction of a new aircraft carrier for Russia’s Navy is planned to begin by 2025, Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said on Thursday.
"I can confirm that the state armament program envisages plans at the program’s finish, by 2025, to start building a new aircraft carrier and developing a new aircraft for it," the deputy defense minister said at the Army-2017 international military and technical forum in the Patriot Park outside Moscow.

The Russian Navy earlier stated it intended to get a perspective aircraft carrier with a nuclear-powered propulsion unit by late 2030. The deputy defense minister earlier said the contract for building the aircraft carrier might be signed by late 2025.
The same deputy defense minister said at the recent MAKS airshow outside Moscow that the Defense Ministry was discussing plans with aircraft-building industry contractors to develop an aircraft with vertical take-off and landing for a future aircraft carrier. The fighter jet is expected to further develop the family of vertical take-off planes made by the Yakovlev Company.
According to Head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar, the company has not yet received any technical assignment for such aircraft.

More:
http://tass.com/defense/961820

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

44B Ruble in dollars at the very best exchange rate equals 71,289,118M. you are freaking out of your damn mind if you think the Russians can build a carrier for 72M dollars. No nation on earth can do that.

ops, and your calculation was bad.
44B Rouble is 710 million $.

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

44B Ruble in dollars at the very best exchange rate equals 71,289,118M. you are freaking out of your damn mind if you think the Russians can build a carrier for 72M dollars. No nation on earth can do that.

ops, and your calculation was bad.
44B Rouble is 710 million $.

My numbers got corrected by a device, I sometimes miss that yes 44b is 700 mill and 59b ruble is around one bill USD.

That said. you are still wrong.

"So, yes, the LK-110Ya will be more complicated and expensive ship than a Queen Elizabeth class carrier"

One Bill is four times smaller than 4

Ice breakers again aren't more complicated than carriers and if you continue to push this narrative you are only showing how clueless you are to ship building.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

44B Ruble in dollars at the very best exchange rate equals 71,289,118M. you are freaking out of your damn mind if you think the Russians can build a carrier for 72M dollars. No nation on earth can do that.

ops, and your calculation was bad.
44B Rouble is 710 million $.

My numbers got corrected by a device, I sometimes miss that yes 44b is 700 mill and 59b ruble is around one bill USD.

That said. you are still wrong.

"So, yes, the LK-110Ya will be more complicated and expensive ship than a Queen Elizabeth class carrier"

One Bill is four times smaller than 4

Ice breakers again aren't more complicated than carriers and if you continue to push this narrative you are only showing how clueless you are to ship building.

I gave to you comparable numbers from similar projects, like NPPs , fighter jets and ship cost ratios.

But all that you give only faith in you digital words up to this point.

If I get it right you are right, because you saying this, and because you saying this , you can not be wrong, because you is you : O


Can you support same more compelling evidence to support your words?
Say compare the cost of Rossiya with same similar vintage warship or carrier?

More Details Revealed About Russia's New Aircraft Carrier Project

Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard with no limits on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships can be used for work on the new aircraft carrier, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's new aircraft carrier might be built at Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard, which will be ready by 2020, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Tuesday.

"We no longer have any limitations on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships that we can construct there [at Zvezda shipyard]… If we attempt to build the military's favorite ship, I mean, an aircraft carrier, then we can build it there [at the shipyard] as well," Rogozin said.

At the same time, the deputy prime minister indicated that the site for the new aircraft carrier's construction would be decided upon by the Russian Defense Ministry.

Rogozin also indicated that the dry dock would be 114 meters (374 feet) wide and would accommodate the construction of tankers with tonnages of up to 350,000 tons and of "Arctic gas carriers" which will have tonnages of up to 250,000 tons.

As for today, the Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier is the Admiral Kuznetsov. The modernization of the aircraft carrier is scheduled for 2018. As for Russia's new aircraft carrier, its construction is planned to begin by 2025, when the state rearmament program terminates.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201709051057099614-aircraft-carrier-zvezda-shipyard/

I know I will start another flame war but still I'll just say it:

This here is what Russia requires.

Some tweaks of course: it needs nuclear reactor, catapult, diagonal ''landing strip'' (don't know name) in the back and mast moved to the side.

But size-wise this is spot on:

PapaDragon wrote:diagonal ''landing strip''

I like the name. (Its angled deck btw)

And I also have certain comments regarding this, but I'll just stay out of the war

Time for Russia to put their big boy pants on.
The Kuz isn't pulling its weight at all, wasting far too many resources in manning and maintaining.

George1 wrote:More Details Revealed About Russia's New Aircraft Carrier Project

Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard with no limits on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships can be used for work on the new aircraft carrier, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Russia's new aircraft carrier might be built at Russia's Far Eastern Zvezda shipyard, which will be ready by 2020, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said Tuesday.

"We no longer have any limitations on the tonnage of civilian maritime vessels and warships that we can construct there [at Zvezda shipyard]… If we attempt to build the military's favorite ship, I mean, an aircraft carrier, then we can build it there [at the shipyard] as well," Rogozin said.

At the same time, the deputy prime minister indicated that the site for the new aircraft carrier's construction would be decided upon by the Russian Defense Ministry.

Rogozin also indicated that the dry dock would be 114 meters (374 feet) wide and would accommodate the construction of tankers with tonnages of up to 350,000 tons and of "Arctic gas carriers" which will have tonnages of up to 250,000 tons.

As for today, the Russian Navy's only aircraft carrier is the Admiral Kuznetsov. The modernization of the aircraft carrier is scheduled for 2018. As for Russia's new aircraft carrier, its construction is planned to begin by 2025, when the state rearmament program terminates.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201709051057099614-aircraft-carrier-zvezda-shipyard/

So, all those claiming that Russia had not the shipyards to build the Project 23000 Aircraft Carriers have here the official answer. They were wrong. Shipyards ready by 2020. In fact by 2019 when the pilot ship will be finnished.

Taking into account that the options would be:

1) Project 23000

2) Project ????? (small) + totally new aircraft

The option of lower cost and shorter timeline is clear. Very clear. The option 1.

PapaDragon wrote:
I know I will start another flame war but still I'll just say it:

This here is what Russia requires.

Some tweaks of course: it needs nuclear reactor, catapult, diagonal ''landing strip'' (don't know name) in the back and mast moved to the side.

But size-wise this is spot on:

Those size requirement are kinda strict, but ok,
After looking around a bit, the ship that comes close would be the INS Vikrant, currently under construction in India, or perhaps even the French De Gaulle class (although it doesn't follow Russian A/C design principles).

IMO, Russia, will most likely go with a modern Kuznetsov-like design.