Garry I understand your reasons, but I was thinking: if they replace the boilers and overhaul the whole propulsion system and the electrical systems during this refit (similar to part of what they did to the carrier for the Indians), without touching the granits, but maybe only adding pantsir, they will have a working ship that is effective for their needs.
Indeed, but putting Al-41 engines into Su-35s at the same time improves the performance of the Su-35, but also allows operational experience and extra production of an engine they might otherwise make rather fewer examples of, and it allows more testing and problem solving while potentially greatly improving the potential performance of the ship.
The Granits pretty much have to go because they don't make them any more, but it is rather likely they will put three Onyx missiles in each Granit tube and have 36 Onyx missiles instead of 12 Granits... it is actually likely they might put Zircons in there considering the delay of getting it back into the water.
The last Akula class SSBN is a testing vessel for Bulava, the first Lada class SSK is going to be testing all manner of new technologies and weapons and sensors... they really don't need a world wide intervention naval force now or in the next 10-15 years, which is just as well because they only have cold war larger ships and the K which is not ideal for international operations even in perfect working order.
They have an opportunity to greatly increase the performance of the K by adding NPPs, and converting its electrical system to make it far more modern than it was ever actually intended to be... but they will learn a lot, and problems will probably teach them more than the things that go smooth.
They are developing new NPPs of an enormous range of different types including for large ships and also for individual laser systems on trucks and engines for cruise missiles... operational testing platform for NPPs and for EMALs perhaps... why not?
Why should they occupy a drydock for that when they could use it to build a new nuclear carrier and keep kuz for training or secondary carrier in the form that will be from the end of current overhaul?
If their new destroyers are going to be 20K ton they are going to need quite a number of new dry docks anyway... whether they are in shipyards or are floating dry docks... how about starting by building some of those... they don't all need to hold 80K tons... they could have some 50K ton ones too for two destroyers at a time... it could have a destroyer and a Kirov...
Next overhaul in 8/10 years could be only to keep it operative and update electronics, etc without spending too much in an old hull
If they are going to continue to not spend money on it, it will end up being a training carrier of no practical use... so why not turn it into a testing carrier for testing new technologies and new aircraft and new systems...
I agree with using Kuz instead as test bed for electromagnetic catapult systems.
The additional energy requirements could be provided by a dedicated aero gas turbine derivative generator
It would have a real effect on the performance of the carrier to be able to operate heavier aircraft or existing aircraft at max weights... or even UAVs that would normally struggle to get airborne because they were designed for long land based runways... with low thrust propulsion for very long range low speed cruise having a cat means no rocket boosters needed or anything exotic or single use...
Okay again did I ever say it was impossible? I said the way your describing wouldn't work but it could be done.
So then you are saying it would work but shouldn't be done then surely?
They did look into turning the Kuz into a nuclear power carrier but that was dropped when they found how expensive and complex the process would be. I also never denied the Russians looked into it now did I? no I did not.
But they looked at changing it from existing propulsion to the same thing but with a NPP providing the energy, which is not what I am suggesting.
I think my conversion of a car to an electric car example shows it best.
I appreciate it wont be easy... the chassis on a standard car supports the axles so when you remove the axles you need to find some way of attaching the wheels with their built in motors so they fit in the wheel arches but are attached to the car chassis.
Of course a bonus is that if you mount them like the front wheel of a bicycle then you could turn the wheels... all of them 360 degrees... parking made easy and likely at the push of a button... but then they already have that, but this way you could get into parking spaces only slightly bigger than your cars length and get out just as easily and quickly...
If you want to be manipulative with words do not reply to me alright, it's that simple. Also, I am very clear on what I say, don't start insulting me because I called you out.
Well you are obviously wrong, if you were clear there would be no problem. Call me out any time you like, if you don't I have no idea what you are thinking or meaning most of the time, but make it informative instead of insulting like I am at the moment with you.
Twisting my words to fit your narrative, grow up.
You call it twisting your words, but the way you are stating your opinions is what I am repeating back to you... it is how I am currently interpreting what you say... by all means if I am wrong then go ahead and tell me so I can understand WTF you were trying to say, but don't bullshit me about twisting your words.
It is a very normal test of logic to take what someone says and put it in a different context to check its logic.
The obvious example would be that American official... called Crapper or Clapper or something that said Russians are genetically disposed to be bad.
A good test for the logic of this statement would be to reverse it... Americans are genetically disposed to be bad... so all I then have to do is find one American that is not bad and the logic is false... but you are complaining that I am putting words in his mouth that he didn't say... first of all it is a logic test... I am disagreeing with him because he clearly hates all Russians, not because of this little logic test I am using to see if what he says makes any sense logically.
But whatever... go tell teacher... I might even get a cut in my allowance...
Putting multiple mini NPPs will compromise the damage control.
Will increase redundancy... besides they have a policy of putting more than one NPP on their subs so having more than one is not just normal it is likely.
If there's flooding, fire, &/ explosion in any of those compartments, NPPs & their wiring/piping there may be taken out & affect the power to other vital compartments & systems.
Would expect most of the NPPs to have auto shut down controls, and a fire is unlikely to be a problem for a NPP that would have a core operating at rather higher temperatures anyway...
They could simply rig all the sealed compartments around the NPP with nitrogen tanks and suffocate any fire that might be present.
For testing EMALS, it can be done on a special converted barge or old ship. They could also choose a site on shore with strong winds & build a test facility on it for a lot le$$.
Or they could learn to install one on a real ship and learn the problems and advantages of operating real aircraft in real conditions with them...
There's a reason the USN didn't put it on an old CV 1st; instead they now have the USS Ford that they hope will test & use it.
It is not working yet which makes it an aircraft transport barge... Zumwalt has also been criticised for trying to introduce too many new technologies at once, making problem solving vastly more difficult because is the system working normally but the problems are created by the things around it not working properly etc etc.