Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:......
What scenario do you take into account when you design a carrier ? Fighting some poor huys in syria armed with ak-47 .....

This is only application aircraft carrier has in this day and age, if they plan on building one they should design it accordingly

Midway will not be happening again

I can't see Russia building another carrier in the next 10-15 years. Why would they as there is no strategic need?

Unlike the US, in World bully mode, Russia will never need to locate an air force off some country in order to bombard it into obeying.

Also Russia, as the pole developer of AShM is only to aware of their vulnerability, even surrounded by escorts.

Plus, given that Russia will never be flush with money, there are much better uses for it in the Navy let alone the other arms of the military. You just have to see what they are actually spending money on, Borei and Kalibre carrying craft of many types.

So, can anyone come up with a sound reason to build a new carrier?

JohninMK wrote: So, can anyone come up with a sound reason to build a new carrier?

That was exactly the point of PapaDragon. And myself AC has many applications besides WWIII but none of them requires six mega ones. Small hybrid of LHD/ ASW helicopter carrier or light AC. For all kinds of humanitarian actions/ colonial wars or Arctic routes air/sub defenses. 20-30 air-wing. Look at what was successfully applied in Syria.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

JohninMK wrote: So, can anyone come up with a sound reason to build a new carrier?

That was exactly the point of PapaDragon. And myself AC has many applications besides WWIII but none of them requires six mega ones.  Small hybrid of LHD/ ASW helicopter carrier or light AC. For all kinds of humanitarian actions/ colonial wars  or Arctic routes air/sub defenses.  20-30 air-wing. Look at what was successfully applied in Syria.

As you imply, it all depends on the task envisaged. At WW3 level there is no point, even if a carrier survives there will be no home to go back to. Up to that level if you can get to the target from a land base it is much more cost effective, as proved in Syria. Not sure even about the need or viability of a helicopter carrier. Note that the MoD is not rushing to replace the Mistrals, I suspect many heaved a sigh of relief when they got the money back instead. Would they even have been any use in Syria?

Russia is a land based power on the largest continent. It has no real need for a blue water navy capable of projecting power the other side of oceans. It has never had to protect sea supply routes stretching round the globe, road and rail has always been more important.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Those in reserve & under construction better not be counted! Even after their reactivation/induction, some of those active now will take their place in the yards.
By ur #s, over 10000 tons (CG and CGN) 21-8=13 active now. 13/3 or 13/2= 4-6 ready 24/7, in all 4 fleets. Since they don't have enough DDGs/FFGs yet, 2 per group r needed. Will that be enough to escort 3-4 LHAs/LHDs + 1-3 CVNs + go on other deployments they may be called to do?

The guy continues eliminating what he dislikes, and continues applying his supposed 24/7 factor only to the escort, and no to the aircraft carriers.

Your claims are false. The overall count of ships of the previous page proves it.

If you want to check by fleet this is the current distribution of the 88 ships mentioned in the previous page:

NORTHERN FLEET: (Likely to be home of the new future aircraft carrier)

Over 10000 tons
CGN Admiral Nakhimov Project 11442 1988 Reserve
CGN Pyotr Velikiy Project 11442 1998
CG Marshal Ustinov Project 1164 1986

5000 to 10000 tons
DDGS Vice-admiral Kulakov Project 1155 1981
DDGS Severomorsk Project 1155 1987
DDGS Admiral Levchenko Project 1155 1988
DDGS Admiral Kharlamov Project 1155 1989 Reserve
DDGS Admiral Chabanenko Project 11551 1999 Reserve
DDG Admiral Ushakov Project 956 1993

500 to 1500 tons
FSG Aysberg Project 12341 1979
FSG Rassvet Project 12341 1988
FSS Brest Project 1124M 1988
FSS Yunga Project 1124M 1989
FSS Nar`yan-Mar Project 1124M 1990
FSS Onega Project 1124M 1990
FSS Monchegorsk Project 1124M 1993
FSS Snezhnogorsk Project 1124M 1994

08 ships over 5000 tons (3 of them reserve)
17 ships pontential escort (3 of them reserve)

PACIFIC FLEET: Likely to be home of the current aircraft carrier)

Over 10000 tons
CGN Admiral Lazarev Project 11442 1984 Reserve
CG Varyag Project 1164 1989

5000 to 10000 tons
DDGS Marshal Shaposhnikov Project 1155 1985 Reserve
DDGS Admiral Tributs Project 1155 1986
DDGS Admiral Vinogradiv Project 1155 1988
DDGS Admiral Panteleev Project 1155 1991
DDG Burnyy Project 956 1988 Reserve
DDG Bystryy Project 956 1989

1500 to 5000 tons
PSKR Dzerzhinskyy Project 11351 1984
PSKR Orel Project 11351 1986
FFС Sovershennyy Project 20380 2017

500 to 1500 tons
FSG Smerch Project 12341 1984
FSG Iney Project 12341 1987
FSG Moroz Project 12341 1989
FSG Razliv Project 12341 1991
FSS Kholmsk Project 1124M 1985
FSS MPK-221 Project 1124M 1987
FSS Koreets Project 1124M 1989
FSS Sovetskaya Gavan Project 1124M 1990
FSS MPK-107 Project 1124M 1990
FSS Metel Project 1124M 1990
FSS MPK-82 Project 1124M 1991
FSS Ust`-Ilimsk Project 1124M 1991

09 ships over 5000 tons (3 of them reserve)
23 ships pontential escort (3 of them reserve)

In both cases more than enough to find combinations with a total firepower tying the total firepower of the US standard escort (1 CG + 2/3 DDG + 1 FFG).

Russia has the escort for a second aircraft carrier before to begin its construction. And in the following years the potential escorts only will improve.

JohninMK wrote:
As you imply, it all depends on the task envisaged. At WW3 level there is no point, even if a carrier survives there will be no home to go back to. Up to that level if you can get to the target from a land base it is much more cost effective, as proved in Syria. Not sure even about the need or viability of a helicopter carrier. Note that the MoD is not rushing to replace the Mistrals, I suspect many heaved a sigh of relief when they got the money back instead. Would they even have been any use in Syria?

Russia is a land based power on the largest continent. It has no real need for a blue water navy capable of projecting power the other side of oceans. It has never had to protect sea supply routes stretching round the globe, road and rail has always been more important.

1) most important Northern Route - having antisub choppers and 20 fighters on place can help a bit dont you think?

2) LHD - Mistral was IMHO 95% political move. Russia as any coutnry needs troop transport . Depending on strategy different number and roles though.
Africa, South east Asia - where commerce will develop. You can have immediate support of 24 fighters and couple of calibers can make difference in hostage/embassy crisis. Helicopter carrier? LHDis always a good workhorse .

All troops and supplies movement, any Russian citizens and or diplomats extraction . And if needed use drones VSTOL fighters to bomb shit out of US sponsored terrorists moderate opposition

JohninMK wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:......
What scenario do you take into account when you design a carrier ? Fighting some poor huys in syria armed with ak-47 .....

This is only application aircraft carrier has in this day and age, if they plan on building one they should design it accordingly

Midway will not be happening again

I can't see Russia building another carrier in the next 10-15 years. Why would they as there is no strategic need?

Unlike the US, in World bully mode, Russia will never need to locate an air force off some country in order to bombard it into obeying.

Also Russia, as the pole developer of AShM is only to aware of their vulnerability, even surrounded by escorts.

Plus, given that Russia will never be flush with money, there are much better uses for it in the Navy let alone the other arms of the military. You just have to see what they are actually spending money on, Borei and Kalibre carrying craft of many types.

So, can anyone come up with a sound reason to build a new carrier?

Correct, Russia will not be building CVNs. They spent decades coming up with method of making them obsolete and redundant so they sure as hell won't be wasting money on them now.

U got it backwards: if they get 3-4 CVNs, the # of extra escorts will only increase, as each will need 5-6 surface warships: 1CGs, 1FFGs, & 3-4 DDGs among them!
To have them ready, 24/7/364, multiply those # by 3 & u get:
3-4CGs, 3-4FFGs, & 9-12DDGs total.
Don't tell me again that I don't apply this 24/7 rule to CVNs, I always have! U need 3 CVNs to have 1 ready to sail in the harm's way.
Combined firepower isn't the only factor; seakeeping & endurance r also important before deploying as an escort. I doubt they'll be able to deploy 2 TAKRs/CVNs at the same time with all the needed up to date escorts from start of the cruise to finish, &/ with some joining along the way. They could get away with smaller boats/ships in sub/tropical waters like the Med.(as recently off Syria), Red, S. China Sea & the Caribbean in the off storm season but still, to get there, the Barents, Baltic, Black, Japan & E.China Seas, + N. Atlantic, N. Pacific & N. Indian Oceans must be crossed 1st from their respective 4 fleets. Also, regular exercises must be held in areas closer to their bases- in the same Barents, Baltic, Black, Japan Seas, + Okhotsk Sea & N. Pacific off Kamchatka. All those seas r not suitable for smaller boats/ships as escorts u keep counting!
They now don't have enough suitable escorts for more than 1 TAKRs/CVN. In ~20 years, a 2nd TAKR/CVN may be built & by then they may have the #s needed. Will they be able to build/upgrade them all w/o importing some from the PRC? Time will tell!

Tsavo Lion wrote:U got it backwards: if they get 3-4 CVNs, the # of extra escorts will only increase, as each will need 5-6 surface warships: 1CGs, 1FFGs, & 3-4 DDGs among them!
To have them ready, 24/7/364, multiply those # by 3 & u get:
3-4CGs, 3-4FFGs, & 9-12DDGs total.
Don't tell me again that I don't apply this 24/7 rule to CVNs, I always have! U need 3 CVNs to have 1 ready to sail in the harm's way.
Combined firepower isn't the only factor; seakeeping & endurance r also important before deploying as an escort. I doubt they'll be able to deploy 2 TAKRs/CVNs at the same time with all the needed up to date escorts from start of the cruise to finish, &/ with some joining along the way. They could get away with smaller boats/ships in sub/tropical waters like the Med.(as recently off Syria), Red, S. China Sea & the Caribbean in the off storm season but still, to get there, the Barents, Baltic, Black, Japan & E.China Seas, + N. Atlantic, N. Pacific & N. Indian Oceans must be crossed 1st from their respective 4 fleets. Also, regular exercises must be held in areas closer to their bases- in the same Barents, Baltic, Black, Japan Seas, + Okhotsk Sea & N. Pacific off Kamchatka. All those seas r not suitable for smaller boats/ships as escorts u keep counting!
They now don't have enough suitable escorts for more than 1 TAKRs/CVN. In ~20 years, a 2nd TAKR/CVN may be built & by then they may have the #s needed. Will they be able to build/upgrade them all w/o importing some from the PRC? Time will tell!

3 aircraft carriers, the magic number under his doubtful 24/7 argument emerges...

Russia has 1 aircraft carrier, Russia has 2 fleets with complete escorts ready to home aircraft carriers (Northern and Pacific fleets), and Russia will have by the end of the 2020s 2 aircraft carriers.

Not 3.

To note that the combat readyness of both fleets is significantly bigger than 1/3 (33.33%)

Giving the Russian passports does not give Russia any say in the laws or behaviour of any of the Baltic states

Times have changed: Russia won't tolerate their oppression as she used to. https://politexpert.net/106841-tragediya-pribaltiki-estoniya-eto-novyi-krym-dlya-rossii?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=lentainform&utm_campaign=politexpert.net&utm_term=1270375&utm_content=6342178
Ukraine has no chance: https://rueconomics.ru/vse-novosti

If they got 12 FFGs right now... no questions asked... what would they do with them?

The same things they do now with their FFGs & corvettes, only more- i.e. longer times at sea & farther away, like permanent presence in the Med. Sea just announced: https://syria360.wordpress.com/2018/05/20/russias-navy-establishes-permanent-presence-in-mediterranean-sea/

So stop building all ships and subs.... all they need is email... much cheaper. ..Who cares what the US navy does... it covers up child molestation cases in Japan when US sailors rape children... should Russia do that too?

Pl. stop being silly & exaggerating everything to prove ur point! CVNs r not "all ships"! Besides email, official radio/tv announcement can also be used to communicate warnings. They could demonstrate a threat by sinking an old moving ship from 500km away with Granits/Calibres just before going to the exclusion area being blockaded.

none of them can use torpedoes and only the Tu-95 and Tu-160 would have the range to get anywhere near Venezuela or Africa, but their ALCMs have no use against ships... they hit fixed targets on the ground that are not moving...

Tu-22M3Ms can be mid-air refueled & escorted by MiG-31s, & they do carry AShMs. There's also a SL version of Caliber, 91RE1 with a torpedo, similar to the American ASROC/SUBROC, & it could be adopted for AL if needed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr#Club-S

Piss off... that is just bullshit...But they are not getting them so they don't need escorts for Mistrals. the Kuznetsov is in overhaul and by the time it is out there will be a Kirov class ship that can escort it, so what does it need these Chinese ships for again? ..why take an enormous step back with this crap... amazing Type 054A... it looks bloody ordinary to be honest... it is not worth the time or effort... they have corvettes better armed than that. yeah... they will buy some chinese ships... when they start buying Chinese fighter planes... they make them fast too don't they? ..the Americans turned the chinese against the Soviets... They don't have a CVN... why would they have a full escort for a carrier they don't have...Why do you think if they had a CVN and wanted to sail it somewhere that all their ships would be in training or in reserve?

- just because u say so? They'll have other class(es) of LHA/Ds to escort. But after he said they already have "enough escorts for carriers", i.e. more than 1, I replied to that. A CGN may or may not be ready, & it's only 1 instead of 3-4 CGs/FFGs/DDGs that can surround a CVN with protective bubble. Type 054A can be up-armed if it's current weapons r not enough. The US just used PRC-USSR split to its advantage, playing the "China card" against them- don't put a cart before the horse! They didn't try to order Rafale fighters after the Mistral deal, did they? No shame if "u scratch my back, I scratch urs!"- these kinds of deals happen all the time. The US uses Russian rocket engines for space launches, should they order their Su-35s too? If it's cost effective why not? ~2/3 r in training/reserve, not all of them- don't put words in my mouth!

Would be cheaper and easier to build new ones that dig up the dead that would be useless... you are already complaining they don't have escorts for the CV they have WTF do they need any more now for?

That's in ur judgement! They do have escorts for Adm.K, & TAKRs don't need as many escorts as CV/Ns.

..what they need is pretty much an air defence force ship that carries AWACS aircraft plus fighters and tankers etc... it will also have SAMs and UKSK launch tubes and will be perfectly capable of defending itself.

Right, when deployed & in a real war, their best/main de-facto role will be to act as decoys to draw the enemy swarms to themselves! Failing that, 1 tactical nuke/EMP burst & they r history!    

Russia will have by the end of the 2020s 2 aircraft carriers.
Not 3.

That may be true, but what will they do with just 2 of them when there is an emergency in the Med. Sea, Indian/Pacific/Southern Ocean while 1 is in repair/refit/refueling & the other hasn't completed training & 100% ready or too far away in the wrong ocean? For example, France is also a continental power & has 1 CVN & may or may not get a 2nd CV, not CVN. But they r allied with the UK which has 2 QE CVs & the USA which has 11 CVNs, 1 of which is forward deployed in Japan, next to the RFE, & it's worth 2-3 CVNs based on US West coast ("911 carrier": it's the emergency ph# in USA). Russia doesn't have that luxury, as the PRC won't be such a close military ally to help Russia with her CV/Ns & therefore can't be relied on. That's why the VMF admirals (like their PLAN counterparts), want 6 CVNs, 3 in the NF & 3 in PacF, to have at least 2 ready in both oceans 24/7. earlier I calculated that LHA/Ds/BDK + CVNs will need ~50 surface escorts, & besides they may & will be tasked with non-escort missions too.
https://iz.ru/746557/2018-05-22/samyi-bolshoi-desantnyi-korabl-vmf-rf-petr-morgunov-spustiat-na-vodu-25-maia

Russia is a huge continental power, but it's also riverways & canal power, connecting the 5 Seas around its European part; maintaining them & building the new Eurasian Canal is more important for her economy & defense than getting new CVNs.   https://larouchepub.com/pr/2018/180517_nazarbayev_proposes.html
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/05/14/kazakhstan-suggests-connecting-black-and-caspian-seas-by-a-ship-canal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia_Canal

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201603301037229773-iran-russia-caspian-persian-gulf-canal/
If/when it's built, ships of the Black & Caspian Sea fleets will be able to bypass the Bosphorus, the Suez & the Red Sea to get to/from the Indian Ocean. All these projects will cost $Bs.
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2018/05/22/76-of-russian-businessmen-call-condition-of-russian-economy-disastrous

GarryB wrote:
The subs are totally independent and will be built or not built whether there is a CVN or not.

The money is finite but the perceived needs are not. So, the money spent in nuclear subs is automatically not available for CVN, so they are not independent...

GarryB wrote:
As the Russians themselves have proposed something between the Kuznetsov and the super carriers... 70-80K ton.

Ok I see. Could agree on that, but what about the Charles de Gaulle? Only 42.500 ton full displacement, 40 aircraft, catapults and AWACS... what is the problem in your opinion with a solution like this?

GarryB wrote:
Hydrogen is less dangerous than petrol... the flashpoint of petrol means a fire burning away can lead to a very big explosion when it reaches flashpoint... AFAIK hydrogen doesn't have a flashpoint...

For hydrogen to actually explode it needs the perfect mix of hydrogen and oxygen and it needs to be compressed... fill the gaps between the hydrogen filled bags with pure nitrogen and there is zero risk of fire let alone explosion... especially when the structure is made of carbon fibre and fire resistant materials in the bags and other things.

AFAIK the hydrogen can burn in any concentration between 4 and 74% of air volume. It is a tricky gas. In your case you would need double failure to explode but the nitrogen would reduce the buoyancy of the airship.

GarryB wrote:
The thing is that powered through the tether the fuel cell is not there to power anything... just change the weight of the airship.

You could put a compressor on there too to compress the hydrogen to make it come down faster... and if it comes down too fast let the compressed hydrogen gas out into a hydrogen bag, or just dump some water... and the lift will increase and the descent will slow...

OK. But if a tethered airship is practical even at those heights then the powering problem is gone. I wonder what the problem here is that precludes this solution from being implemented in ships.

GarryB wrote:
But the L in LHD is landing, so it needs to get close to the landing beach, while the CVN has no business near any beach... just not safe...

Yes, the vessel would have well decks. But it does not need coming very close to the landing beach, there are a lot of types of landing craft, hovercrafts etc. that can cover big distances, some of them at high speed, to the landing point while protected protected by AD and ground attack missiles, aircraft and helicopter from the hybrid carrier.

GarryB wrote:
I think their roles and requirements are different enough to want both capabilities and have them from separate vessels.

Modern weapons are so complex and expensive that you need to reduce their numbers and increase their flexibility to allow yourself building them, this is a established trend.

GarryB wrote:
If you had an AWACS platform it would be detected at enormous range too, but if it is processing the information itself it will transmit its information to the Kirov and all the other ships in the group and also command the aircraft in the air but as they don't need to respond they don't need to give away their presence... or existence.

A carrier group is constantly monitored, even openly on the internet. Satellite and OTH radars exists, as well as human intelligence. The command of the fleet is on board communicating orders and getting information... I see no way you can keep those groups and that activity undetected.

GarryB wrote:
Note the only AEW system that works is the tethered airship... next to the power cable can be a fibreoptic data cable... the ship towing the airship could be huge or tiny... even a fishing boat has enough internal space for electrical power plants and computer power to process the data collected by the airship.... and 20km of cable and carbon fibre cable for the airship... you could put small electric motors so it can control its orientation and it ascent and descent... and its ability to operate at different altitudes with different airspeeds... their might be an altitude where there is less wind or the wind is blowing a more useful direction for the airship to operate in... as I said.. it can be fibreglass and carbon fibre and really quite strong and totally fire proof.

You need the electrical cable for the power!

GarryB wrote:
they don't have ski jumps and they don't have aircraft except the Harrier and the F-35C that could use a skijump... why copy them?

AFAIK every plane robust enough to land on a carrier can use a sky jump, what would be the problem in your opinion?

GarryB wrote:
Helicopters operating in ground effect on the deck of a carrier drop if they leave the ground effect area of the deck... and large planes taking off often do drop a little when they leave the deck surface... the only reason they don't hit the water is because they are going fast enough to get left from their wings...

What I mean is this idea would not be totally based in ground effect like an hovercraft. Would be affected by it as it is unavoidable but of course the lift due to wings, speed at the end of deck and lifting fans would need to be enough to keep the aircraft in the air out of ground effect.

GarryB wrote:
the Ski jump gives a vertical push to the aircraft and as you mention also help orient the aircraft so it is angled up for max lift... not so good for heavy planes... if they are not moving fast enough such a lift and pitch can make them stall and drop like a rock... Also for bigger heavier aircraft a steep ramp upwards actually slows them down... like a truck trying to go up a hill... so not really a time to go slower for an aircraft...

But the advantage of the catapult is it has enormous power to push the plane up the ramp... no need for the plane to slow down.
Every plane needs the rotation to take off on its own, so in fact it would only an advantage to use catapult + sky jump, if they were compatible.

As I was saying:

The President of Russia set the task: by 2024 the country should enter the top five of the world's largest economies. Similar orders by Vladimir Putin over the past ten years have sounded repeatedly, but Russia, with a GDP of $ 1.72 trillion ( IMF data ) in 2017, not only failed to enter the top five economies, but also to approach world leaders - USA, China, Japan, Germany and Great Britain. What can you not say about California - for the same ten years, the American state, which occupies only 2.4 percent of Russia's area, was ableto achieve great success and by the size of GDP (2.7 trillion dollars in 2017) to surpass not only Russia, but also larger economies. ..Russian authorities have been trying to introduce Russia into the world's top five economies for many years, but we have not succeeded in replicating the success of California, and Russia's nominal GDP lags behind the US state's gross domestic product by one trillion dollars. Despite this, the Kremlin does not lose its spirit: Vladimir Putin on May 7, 2018, on the day of his inauguration, signed a decree that Russia should enter the top 5 economies by 2024. Such statements the president made before: in 2007 the head of state said that Russia should enter the top five by 2017, in 2008 the border was pushed aside by the year 2020. In 2011, Putin made similar statements twice: according to the first (in June), the upper limit of Russia's entry into the top 5 economies of the world was postponed until 2021, according to the second (in September) - the head of state considered this task absolutely feasible by 2016 year. In 2012, Putin shortened this term: speaking to the State Duma , he said that "in the next two to three years, Russia will be among the five largest economies in the world" - that is, it should happen no later than 2015. However, against the backdrop of the global economic crisis of 2007-2008, sanctions against Russia, which followed in 2014 because of Ukraine and Crimea, the fall in oil prices and the weakening of the ruble, the task proved difficult to achieve. At the end of 2017, Russia's GDP grew by 1.5 percent, and inflation was the lowest in modern history (2.5 percent). .. However, despite these achievements, in the ten years that have passed since Vladimir Putin's first statement about Russia's entry into the top 5 economies, the country, according to the IMF, has not been raised in the list above the eighth position (in 2008, 2012, 2013), although it did not fall below the 12th (2009, 2015, 2016 and 2017). ..
However, according to the Russian Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin , the speech in the presidential decree is it's not about joining the list of the five largest economies in the world in terms of nominal or real GDP, but about the top 5 countries with the largest gross product at purchasing power parity. This indicator is considered very conditional: it is calculated in US dollars and establishes the purchasing power of the countries' currency in relation to one set of goods (for example, bigaku), eliminating the difference in prices and leveling the jumps in the exchange rates. This indicator is published annually by the IMF and the World Bank only for states. According to the IMF data for 2017 and World Bank data for 2016, Russia ranks sixth in the PPP GDP rank, the United States was in second place. Thus, according to the GDP of PPPs, Russia really was on the threshold of the top five leaders of the rating, and only one position separates it from entering the top 5.
However, the PPP GDP indicator, despite its widespread use, does not really give an idea of ​​the welfare of people living in the territory of a country, but shows how much in US dollars all goods and services produced by Russia or any other country for the year. In order to assess the welfare of the population, economists usually use GDP per capita at purchasing power parity - an indicator that is calculated in US dollars and allows you to see how much a country produces goods and services per person per year. ..
Russia in this ranking does not fall even in the top 50 countries and takes, according to the IMF, 52nd place from 27.83 thousand dollars per person. The United States does not enter the top ten countries and takes 12th place from 59.5 thousand dollars per capita. https://lenta.ru/articles/2018/05/29/californication/

59.5/27.83= Russia's per capita GDP is 2.13x < than USA's.
IMO, capital (pun intended) ships, incl. new CVNs, will be very hard to justify building any time soon!

Tsavo Lion wrote:As I was saying:
59.5/27.83= Russia's per capita GDP is 2.13x < than USA's.
IMO, capital (pun intended) ships, incl. new CVNs, will be very hard to justify building any time soon!

If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

AlfaT8 wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.

One thats says that they have 100k supercarrier already under construction?

Sure, that's some quality material right there...

But even morons need to read something so enjoy I guess

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

Well the Kuz will need to be replaced, it really hasn't aged well, and the future looks bleak, so better to have 'em then not.

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:You have the answer to this question in the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, that I posted for you multiple times, but you hate to read.

One thats says that they have 100k supercarrier already under construction?

Sure, that's some quality material right there...

But even morons need to read something so enjoy I guess

The Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is the "given Russia's defense doctrine" in the refered to the Navy. It was your reference.

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:..........

If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

And again, what for? In what way do carriers justify their price and investment given Russia's defense doctrine?

Well the Kuz will need to be replaced, it really hasn't aged well, and the future looks bleak, so better to have 'em then not.

The kuz wasn't used for anything worth its price. I join PD' view. They should figure what they carrier concept they need first and why they need it and then build it.

All they have said till now is Shtorm is as capable as Nimitz if not more and it will be a supercarier. Reminds me soviet union building everything western countries build only because they build it with no need at all for soviets.

Isos wrote:The kuz wasn't used for anything worth its price. I join PD' view. They should figure what they carrier concept they need first and why they need it and then build it.

All they have said till now is Shtorm is as capable as Nimitz if not more and it will be a supercarier. Reminds me soviet union building everything western countries build only because they build it with no need at all for soviets.

The reason it didn't do anything was because of Russia's decline.
Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?

Granted, not sure what the hell Naval Command was smoking, when they simply pushed for the Shtorm, without any back-up plans.

It's not always that bad, making some SLCMs out of the Boreis like the U.S did with the Ohio, would be a great move.

Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?

Idk if they need it or not. They should know what they need carrier for, not me.

But if the reason to have it is because US has them ... then Putin should change its admirals.

And if the new missiles like tzirkon are so good at destroying carriers they shouldn't build them because more and more countries even the poorest can have antiship missiles, even armed groups like Houtis or hezbollah have some.

If we're gonna go by that logic, then 10/2.13=~4.7.
So 2 new carriers, should be very much doable for Russia.
(10 currently deployed U.S carriers)

There's no direct correlation as many other factors r involved & they must be included in that equation, incl., but not limited to:
available/suitable shipyards; other shipbuilding plans & priorities; manpower (incl. pilots) & workforce; avail. port/base infrastructure or its absence; new aircraft production, escort/supply ships & subs needed; demographics; fluctuating oil prices; domestic political in/stability; international relations/sanctions; possible future costly interventions/relief on RF perimeter & in the M/FE/S.Asia/Africa/L. America; & new counter CVN weapons already being developed, to name a few. a case in point: they r building new base on the Caspian after completing 1 on the Black Sea, & they won't be used by CVNs:
Why Russia needs a new military base on the "inner" sea
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42867?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2599&utm_content=1687732&utm_campaign=1291

Doable isn't = beneficial after all the above things r considered. The doctrines may & will be changed as needed, they r not written in stone.

AlfaT8 wrote:

The reason it didn't do anything was because of Russia's decline.
Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?

Surely before 2030s. Economy first. Read technology. Now as every child know a new economy cycle starts (Kondratiev wave if you prefer). either Russia gets on train or gets to league of Iran / North Korea (proud independent but not able to withstand US aggression dure to small economy and fairly low technology level) . IMHO thet's why first Russia developed Kiznhals & co to keep enemies at bay. Overseas operations are on hold till economy can sustain more effort.

AlfaT8 wrote:......
The reason it didn't do anything was because of Russia's decline.
Now that Russia is reasserting itself, you honestly think they won't need carriers?
.......

If they are serious about reasserting themselves they should focus on figuring out how to build more than handful of frigates and forget about money pits like carriers

They never knew how to build them properly, they don't know how to operate them properly and above all they have no need for them whatsoever.

PapaDragon wrote:If they are serious about reasserting themselves they should focus on figuring out how to build more than handful of frigates and forget about money pits like carriers

They never knew how to build them properly, they don't know how to operate them properly and above all they have no need for them whatsoever.

Bhhahaha........ if they don't have anything to protect those Frigate, then those Frigates themselves will be money pits.

BS, the union collapsed before they could build more, and that ain't a reason to not build 'em.
The U.S says the same about the Chinese, is that deterring the Chinese, nope.
Protect your ships from Enemy Air-power and AWACS to guide long range munitions.

Tsavo Lion wrote:There's no direct correlation as many other factors r involved & they must be included in that equation, incl., but not limited to:
available/suitable shipyards; other shipbuilding plans & priorities; manpower (incl. pilots) & workforce; avail. port/base infrastructure or its absence; new aircraft production, escort/supply ships & subs needed; demographics; fluctuating oil prices; domestic political in/stability; international relations/sanctions; possible future costly interventions/relief on RF perimeter & in the M/FE/S.Asia/Africa/L. America; & new counter CVN weapons already being developed, to name a few. a case in point: they r building new base on the Caspian after completing 1 on the Black Sea, & they won't be used by CVNs:
Why Russia needs a new military base on the "inner" sea
https://vpk-news.ru/articles/42867?utm_source=24smi&utm_medium=referral&utm_term=2599&utm_content=1687732&utm_campaign=1291

Doable isn't = beneficial after all the above things r considered. The doctrines may & will be changed as needed, they r not written in stone.

Semantics, either way it's doable, and the worsening geopolitical situation may force it's need.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Surely  before 2030s. Economy first. Read technology. Now as every child know a new economy cycle starts (Kondratiev wave if you prefer). either Russia gets on train or gets to league of Iran / North Korea (proud independent but not able to withstand US aggression dure to small economy and fairly low technology level)  . IMHO thet's why first Russia developed Kiznhals & co to keep enemies at bay. Overseas operations are on hold till economy can sustain more effort.

The economy is at least capable of handling 1 more, and if they start in the 2020s by 2030s the can build another carrier.
BTW how many Carriers will flippin India have by then, 4,5?

Isos wrote:Idk if they need it or not. They should know what they need carrier for, not me.

But if the reason to have it is because US has them ... then Putin should change its admirals.

And if the new missiles like tzirkon are so good at destroying carriers they shouldn't build them because more and more countries even the poorest can have antiship missiles, even armed groups like Houtis or hezbollah have some.

Not all Russia's allies will be close to Russia's borders.

What, the Admirals want to protect their new Ships from enemy Air-power, get rid of them.

If the MTCR didn't exist, then we'd be in agreement.

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:If they are serious about reasserting themselves they should focus on figuring out how to build more than handful of frigates and forget about money pits like carriers

They never knew how to build them properly, they don't know how to operate them properly and above all they have no need for them whatsoever.

Bhhahaha........ if they don't have anything to protect those Frigate, then those Frigates themselves will be money pits.

Yo "genius", do you know why US has all those destroyers floating about? They are there to protect aircraft carriers​, not the other way around.

AlfaT8 wrote:BS, the union collapsed before they could build more, and that ain't a reason to not build 'em.
The U.S says the same about the Chinese, is that deterring the Chinese, nope.
Protect your ships from Enemy Air-power and AWACS to guide long range munitions....

"Union" died and rotted away 30 years ago. Accept it already.

Midway was 8 decades ago. In this day and age you fight aircraft with missiles.

AlfaT8 wrote:Semantics, either way it's doable, and the worsening geopolitical situation may force it's need.

Only thing that can force them to waste money on carriers is if someone travels back in time and stops missiles from being invented.

AlfaT8 wrote:
Not all Russia's allies will be close to Russia's borders.

What, the Admirals want to protect their new Ships from enemy Air-power, get rid of them.....

In that case those allies are fucked because why bother with allies away from borders when even ones close to borders have notoriously​ shitty loyalty?

As for ones away from the border I give you example of Angola back in CW. One of many.