Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #2

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno why this pointless argument about building CVN without propulsion is going on.

That idea is as stupid as they come.

They have the RITM-200 naval reactor in use in the icebreakers and soon the RITM-400 with twice the power will be available too.
The RITM-200 reactor (175MWt) has roughly the same power as the Areva K15 reactor (150MWt) used in the Charles de Gaulle carrier.

the ex-Ukr. N ships now occupy spaces big enough for at least 1/2 of the CBG. There r other locations in the harbor that they can use to anchor/moor ships at.

They would be better off using that space for half a dozen new Frigates and a dozen new Corvettes and a dozen new submarines (SSKs).

this reminds me how the Americans trained for a war in Europe after 1945 but ended up fighting in SE Asian jungles/rice paddies, ME deserts & Afghan mountains instead. The VMF can train in the ice free areas of the Arctic, but that still won't prepare it for the temperate & tropical seas. Bad idea!

But that is the point of an Aircraft Carrier... the ability to train anywhere they like... just because they are based in the Northern Fleet does not mean they have to stay there and can only operate there.

I implied that Russia will have her CVN long after China gets hers, if at all.

So what. That means nothing at all. Russia will get CVNs but she wants a good and useful design, but she wont know what that is until she gets some more experience operating around the world with upgraded Kirovs and the K and other ships too. Then she will have a better idea of what armament and load out of aircraft types she needs for her CVN.

they can sail back & forth between Gibraltar & Tartus to imitate a long cruise w/o going across an ocean to L. America.

Why imitate when they can do the real thing?

future of Russia & the VMF is also random

It only appears random to those not paying attention...

Just like the US and western policy seems random till you realise what they say is why they do things is not the real reason.... resources and money.

Because US presidents just pretend to be in charge, it is big companies that run the US and dictate who gets invaded or attacked or sanctioned.

a heavier C-130 landed & took off on/off CV before

For testing... not operational.

a NP icebreaker can have extra storage for av. fuel that it can then pump to a barge that was converted from a big tanker or built with large fuel tanks; a barge itself can get fuel pumped directly from a tanker.

A conventional tug vessel could use that extra storage to run its own engines... once it gets the barge into position its use of fuel will be minor... in fact clever use of sails could be used to keep it on station without using any fuel at all.

a NP ship doesn't need to be refueled at sea, has large storage spaces & that's a huge plus.

Icebreakers are more use in places with ice that needs breaking than pissing around towing a barge halfway around the planet.

it'll replace its propulsion & el. power supply since it's comparable with CVN propulsion. If armed with even 1/3 of TAVKR/CVN armaments, it'll aid in the defensive/offensive capabilities. They can have 2 of them 1 towing aviation/amhpib. tender barge & the other towing a missile barge.

Or both of them breaking ice earning money helping trade between EU and Asia flourish and grow, while Russian Navy CVNs follow Russian surface ships and provide air cover and support.

AWACS UAVs can fly 100s of miles for days & their helos & S-400 will keep the seawolves away.

Even if they can fly for weeks how does that help the ships when they are threatened... the barge is now four hours away at the edge of the range of the fighters sitting on it... do they even bother sending any knowing they might not have enough fuel to do more than launch a missile and then have to turn around and head back to the barge.

they'll not occupy as much space on deck as CTOLs, so more fighters, helos & UAVs can be carried & operated on a barge.

They wouldn't operate from decks, but sea states would severely limit their capability to operate... a carrier can launch aircraft in fairly rough seas, but amphibious aircraft and ekranoplans cannot.

the TAVKRs r both helo & STOBAR carriers; LHA/Ds & UDKs may have STOVLs while av. barges can have any combination of them.
Russia may even chose to build QE2 style CV/N & UDK hybrid, saving & on separate CVNs & UDKs.

They are currently building 40K ton Ivan Rogov helicopter landing ships... I rather doubt they plan to use them as CVNs too.

Why not also replace planes with aerostats or S-300 launchers

Well actually Aerostats could replace AWACS aircraft rather efficiently, but you would lack the speed and usefulness of combat air patrols of fast jet fighters to fly out and see what that blip on the radar is and then deal with it if necessary.

They already built/ding NP icebreakers that r w/o flight decks & hangars & that can be used to tow av. barges with flight decks & hangars. Together, they can be used as CVNs.

So what you are suggesting is taking the idea of a CVN and splitting into two separate ships... one being with the N propulsion system to be used as an icebreaker, and the other to be a CVN but without the nuclear propulsion system and just be a barge.

Isn't that just taking one thing and making it appear cheaper by splitting it in half... sort of like saying new F-35s are only 70 million each... but you have to also buy the engine if you want it to work and the engine is 40 million dollars... so you end up paying 110 million for a plane you used to sell for 100 million...

You crazy Americans...

25 years to work out why PD is so bitter about the K...

But that is the point of an Aircraft Carrier... the ability to train anywhere they like... just because they are based in the Northern Fleet does not mean they have to stay there and can only operate there.

training on CV/Ns is done closer to their bases, not in mid-oceans or overseas. If NZ had a CV, would it be based on the S. Island remote fiord or on the N. Island with better climate & closer to where it'll train & deploy?

Then she will have a better idea of what armament and load out of aircraft types she needs for her CVN.

if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?

Why imitate when they can do the real thing?

to be closer to home & the areas for real emergencies, & to save $. If something goes wrong, they can return or evacuate sick personnel to base faster.

A conventional tug vessel could use that extra storage to run its own engines...

it won't have the room, as it'll be taken by its fuel; CVN or NP vessel has more room for fuel & ammo that a CV doesn't.

Icebreakers are more use in places with ice that needs breaking than pissing around towing a barge halfway around the planet.

being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.

Or both of them breaking ice earning money helping trade between EU and Asia flourish and grow, while Russian Navy CVNs follow Russian surface ships and provide air cover and support.

this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers. The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended. She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas, at a fraction of the cost of building, operating & deploying a real CVN. This ESB costs $135M; 3-4 such ships joined together can handle more aircraft than the Ford CVN.

So what you are suggesting is taking the idea of a CVN and splitting into two separate ships... one being with the N propulsion system to be used as an icebreaker, and the other to be a CVN but without the nuclear propulsion system and just be a barge.

it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway for the NSR ops & it can be mated with a long & wide barge/converted ship w/o any propulsion & catapults but with everything else needed to operate aircraft & with defensive armaments. So, for the price of them both u get a NP icebreaker that can earn $ on the NSR when off duty with the VMF & a virtual "turn key" TAVKR/CVN/LHA, with $ left over since a real & more expensive CATOBAR CVN/LHA doesn't need to be built & operated.

the barge is now four hours away at the edge of the range of the fighters sitting on it... do they even bother sending any knowing they might not have enough fuel to do more than launch a missile and then have to turn around and head back to the barge.

they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.

They are currently building 40K ton Ivan Rogov helicopter landing ships... I rather doubt they plan to use them as CVNs too.

rather, as mini LHAs:
A significant increase in the air group, from 2 to 12 units, actually turns the Project 11711 landing ship into a helicopter carrier. Meanwhile, just over a year after Andreev and Trushin, on July 20, 2020, the laying of two more aircraft-carrying ships Ivan Rogov and Mitrofan Moskalenko of project 23900 took place. With a displacement of about 30-40 thousand tons, they will be carry 20 aircraft.
All four helicopter carriers will be sequentially commissioned during 2023–2027. At the same time, the main purpose will remain - the transportation and landing of troops (up to 1 thousand marines from the 23900 project) on the unequipped coast.  

Or why not just do intelligent thing and scrap that junk and free up men, aircraft and resources for the whole fleet?

A more intelligent thing, after all the time & $ spent, would be to include it in the BSF where it could be used to train CV & UDK crews.
They could also put many missile containers on/below its flight deck & use it as a super CG, leaving each of their 2 remaining CGNs & Oscar/Severodvinsk SSGNs in the dust.

GarryB wrote:25 years to work out why PD is so bitter about the K...

maybe Rogozin once stepped foot on her deck?....

training on CV/Ns is done closer to their bases, not in mid-oceans or overseas. If NZ had a CV, would it be based on the S. Island remote fiord or on the N. Island with better climate & closer to where it'll train & deploy?

The weather in the North Island is not really that much different from the South Island... at most it might be a difference of 5 degrees in extreme cases, normally rather less.

But you are right, they would base it in the north because they are idiots. When they retired our Skyhawks the end of life tour didn't bother coming south, because it was too far... with that sort of defence force I think we would be better off with none... it would certainly be cheaper.

if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?

I doubt an exchange would give them the access and knowledge they would be wanting even if it was possible.

to be closer to home & the areas for real emergencies, & to save $. If something goes wrong, they can return or evacuate sick personnel to base faster.

The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to allow operations further from home so if something goes wrong they need to learn to sort it out themselves whereever they might be when it happens.

it won't have the room, as it'll be taken by its fuel; CVN or NP vessel has more room for fuel & ammo that a CV doesn't.

The barge idea might be totally different from what you imagine... it might just be a helicopter pad mid water like that helicopter base in a Mi-26 where one Mi-26 carries all the bits and pieces necessary to set up a complete helicopter base... it lands... deploys all the equipment and then other helicopters can land and operate and then everyone goes away and the base is packed back into the Mi-26 and flown away again.... except with the added bonus of a container ship arriving with pontoon sections on board that are lowered into the water and connected together before the first Mi-26 arrives.

Locate it three quarters of the range of the helicopters from shore and it would be a great way of extending their operational range from shore... a country like NZ might even consider it to extend reach in our huge area of ocean.

being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.

They don't result in the same thing so any money you might save makes little difference because it is not a CVN and it wont be able to do what a CVN does.

this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers.

With good reason... the US has no reason to sail the arctic oceans except to be total asserting their god given right to be .

The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended.

Of course they do. International trade with non western countries is going to be excellent for Russias economy... that is why the west is so set against developments in the far north and the far east and upgrades to their navy...

She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas,

The icebreakers will be busy keeping trade routes clear in the north... Canada might even hire some for their north sea passage or whatever they call it...

it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway

Nuclear powered icebreakers are not cheap and will be needed for ice breaking. There is no evidence a barge airfield would even work so it is pissing away money in a gamble to start with. Even if it works it wont provide the same level of support an actual CVN provides.

they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.

So you end up using expensive fighters and UAVs because your basic platform can't do the job... sounds like the fundamental idea is flawed.

A significant increase in the air group, from 2 to 12 units, actually turns the Project 11711 landing ship into a helicopter carrier .

Hahahaha.... and putting a huge laser cannon on it that can destroy planets turns it into the death star, but the obvious problem is that no fighter will be able to operate from such a small aircraft carrier and even if they could... which they can't, they would need to clear the deck each time because the deck area is too small which makes it useless as a helicopter carrier.

With a displacement of about 30-40 thousand tons, they will be carry 20 aircraft.

You might be able to stack Proton rockets on the deck too but that does not make it a space port either.

It will be an aircraft carrier like the helicopter carrier called Ford...

if need be, they can send exchange officers to CV-16/17/18 to find that out, why duplicate an expensive & time consuming effort?

I doubt an exchange would give them the access and knowledge they would be wanting even if it was possible. ..
The purpose of an aircraft carrier is to allow operations further from home so if something goes wrong they need to learn to sort it out themselves wherever they might be when it happens.

they r going to cooperate in naval matters as much, if not more, as with any other areas of mutual interests. Both operate similar CVs & will share "lessons learned". Besides, their CGNs with other ships already made log cruises & they can send UDKs around Eurasia or overseas to learn about deploying them & larger CVNs; no need to send the Adm. K that they may need to keep a lot longer than planned & that needs a lot of TLC (tender loving care).

Locate it three quarters of the range of the helicopters from shore and it would be a great way of extending their operational range from shore...

if used in the open sea, it would also extend the range of AWACS/ ASW/SAR/COD helos, eliminating the need for catapults needed to operate fixed wings that may not be ready.

being of the dual use nature, they'll have as much use in warm seas as tugs if they can save time & money that otherwise would go on CVN's construction & testing.

They don't result in the same thing so any money you might save makes little difference because it is not a CVN and it wont be able to do what a CVN does.

it'll be able to do fleet protection mission & few others just as well; as the earlier post mentioned, new more powerful reactors on icebreakers will allow higher speeds in ice free water.

this is the reverse of the USN/CG situation: they spent most of the $ on CVNs but neglected their icebreakers.

With good reason... the US has no reason to sail the arctic oceans..

there is only 1 Arctic Ocean; Russia had no reason to sail W./S. Atlantic & E./S. Pacific with CBGs (& I doubt will have) like the US does in the E./N. Atlantic & W./N. Pacific with their CSGs.

The RF doesn't have the $ for CVNs & NP icebreakers to be used at the same time only as originally intended.

Of course they do. International trade with non western countries is going to be excellent for Russias economy... that is why the west is so set against developments in the far north and the far east and upgrades to their navy...

as I said many times before, that trade won't pay for CBGs. L. America to Russia is what Africa was to China in the 15 century- an exotic land whose products r not essential for well being & could only be obtained by wasting $ & time.

She'll have enough NP icebreakers to detach 1-2 for the VMF needs if/when a CBG is needed overseas,

The icebreakers will be busy keeping trade routes clear in the north...

even if so, in an emergency they could be used to tow av. barges; alternatively, 1-2 slated for decommissioning could be kept, refueled/refitted & not used on the NSR; even if they build 1-2 extra icebreakers, it wouldn't be as cost prohibitive as 2-3 CVNs.

Canada might even hire some for their north sea passage or whatever they call it...

China will soon have her own NP icebreakers to use in the NW Passage, so Canada won't need any Russian help.

it'll be a lot cheaper since the NP icebreaker has to be built anyway

Nuclear powered icebreakers are not cheap and will be needed for ice breaking. There is no evidence a barge airfield would even work so it is pissing away money in a gamble to start with. Even if it works it wont provide the same level of support an actual CVN provides.

if it works as an air/sea base for the USN (see my prev. post links), a larger barge would be comparable to a CVN. They could join 3 long tanker/bulker hulls to make a trimaran & put a flight deck across them. The 1 in the center could even have diesel-electric propulsion for extra safety, flexibility & extra el. power generation.

they can have UAV/buddy refuelers.

So you end up using expensive fighters and UAVs because your basic platform can't do the job... sounds like the fundamental idea is flawed.

Su-33/34/57s w/o heavy bomb/missile loads have enough range w/o them; they could have an extra barge, perhaps towed by a CGN, to land, refuel & rearm on.

A significant increase in the air group, from 2 to 12 units, actually turns the Project 11711 landing ship into a helicopter carrier .

..the obvious problem is that no fighter will be able to operate from such a small aircraft carrier and even if they could...

I'm not saying it'll act as a CVN, but if they increase the # of helos on them, it refutes ur argument that there is no need for UDK in the BS.

"doesn't have the money for CVNs"

but says building a massive barge with every feature a CVN has minus propulsion and making a Nuke ice breaker tow it is cheaper when in reality that would be more expensive.

My reaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.

Oh I will, don't worry.

"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"

with remarks like this, it's not hard to.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.

Oh I will, don't worry.
"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"
with remarks like this, it's not hard to.

if u can prove me wrong, I'll laugh at myself! Even at US prices, tankers at $135M each x3=$405M, vs. $9.55B for Nimitz & $12.99B for Ford.
Will a Russian CVN cost less & be as capable?

Tsavo Lion wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.

Oh I will, don't worry.
"for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost"
with remarks like this, it's not hard to.

if u can prove me wrong, I'll laugh at myself! Even at US prices, tankers at $135M each x3=$405M, vs. $9.55B for Nimitz & $12.99B for Ford.
Will a Russian CVN cost less & be as capable?

Wow, that ignorant eh?

Two different economics...but hey keep it your providing the forum with loads of entertainment.

fact of the matter is building what you are suggesting is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive.

the more you talk the more people are laughing at you to be honest.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Wow, that ignorant eh?
Two different economics...but hey keep it your providing the forum with loads of entertainment.
fact of the matter is building what you are suggesting is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive.
the more you talk the more people are laughing at you to be honest.

The bottom line is, from the above prices, US built CVNs r at least 23.5x more costly than 3 of their converted tankers. The Russian tankers r bulk cargo ships will be a lot cheaper, but the  Storm CVN Cost:~$5.5 billion (for export version). Let's say it would cost them an equivalent of just $2.5B to build; don't tell me their 3 big tankers will cost as much or more to build & operate. The cost of the icebreaker isn't relevant as it won't be used as a tug for them for more than a few months & will go to work on the NSR once it's not needed by the VMF.
If u can't post the evidence that "it is unpractical, makes no sense at all and is more expensive", let's see it.
Otherwise, DON'T BOTHER TO REPLY.

Remember this was the guy that was proposing to substitute the navy altogether with a fleet of Russian tankers and bombers flying perpetually around the globe ...

not perpetually- don't put words in my posts!
The 1st carriers were also converted merchant ships.
HMS Ark Royal was arguably the first modern aircraft carrier. She was originally laid down as a merchant ship, but was converted on the building stocks to be a hybrid airplane/seaplane carrier with a launch platform. Launched September 5, 1914, she served in the Dardanelles campaign and throughout World War I. .. The first ship to have a full length flat deck was HMS Argus, the conversion of which was completed in September 1918, with the U.S. Navy not following suit until 1920, when the conversion of USS Langley (an experimental ship which did not count against America's carrier tonnage) was completed. The first American fleet carriers would not join the service until 1928 (USS Lexington and Saratoga).
The Imperial Japanese Navy's 1922 Hōshō, was the world's first built-from-the-keel-up carrier. Though she was not the first purpose designed carrier that construction started on (HMS Hermes was), her construction finished sooner. Her hull was still based on a cruiser design, whereas the Hermes had a purpose-designed hull.
The first purpose-designed aircraft carrier to be developed was the HMS Hermes, although the first one to be commissioned was the Japanese Hōshō (commissioned in December 1922, followed by HMS Hermes in July 1923).

Inside the coffer dam


And looks like they're filling the sections


Video from the shipyard but I don't think its really much interesting

Tsavo Lion wrote:Icebreakers r already there & new r being built; existing ships could be modified & joined for fraction of what a new CATOBAR CVN will cost.
Keep on laughing.

Towed carrier with no propulsion!? Complete idiocy!

..Moscow desperately needs more smaller ships and especially icebreakers rather than any single large prestige vessel.

If it'll be essential to plug "the carrier gap" while save them $ & time, why not? "If the shoe fits, wear it!"

Billions into the Kuznetsov smokestack.

Tsavo Lion wrote:..Moscow desperately needs more smaller ships and especially icebreakers rather than any single large prestige vessel.

If it'll be essential to plug "the carrier gap" while save them $ & time, why not? "If the shoe fits, wear it!"

Billions into the Kuznetsov smokestack.

Total area of fire in Kuznetsov was some 300sq.m. No vital part of construction was touched by fire. 95 billion rubles, billion EUR... no such thing happened.