Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

eehnie wrote:https://iz.ru/785074/2018-09-04/manturov-zaiavil-o-gotovnosti-rossii-stroit-sobstvennye-vertoletonostcy

Manturov announced Russia's readiness to build its own helicopter carriers
 
September 4, 2018, 04:55
 4734
HELICOPTER RUSSIA MINPROMTORG DENIS Manturov
 
Photo: JOURNALISM / Alexey Maishev
Russian shipbuilders are able to build helicopter carriers and, with the interest of foreign customers, are ready to sell them, said Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov.


Aircrafting riddles: what officials promise
Head of the Ministry of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov and Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Borisov spoke about the prospects of Russian aircraft carriers
In August, it was reported that the Russian Federation would build universal amphibious ships instead of helicopter carriers. At the same time, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Alexei Rakhmanov, said that USC will build an expedition ship for the Russian Navy, combining the functions of a helicopter carrier and an amphibious assault ship.

"I propose not to catch anyone by the tongue. Terminology is very multifaceted and complex both in the army and the manufacturers, which always adapt to the requirements of the customer. Therefore, it is better to clarify this issue from the main customer, "Manturov clarified the matter.

"I can only say that we can accurately produce helicopter carriers and can sell them to customers, including foreign customers, who will be interested in this," he said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

In 2011, Rosoboronexport signed a contract with the French DCNS / STX to supply two Mistral-class helicopter carriers worth € 1.2 billion. However, a year later, because of the sanctions, Moscow and Paris terminated the contract.

August 20, experts noted that Russia has the opportunity to build warships designed to transport helicopters and aircraft that are capable of vertical take off and landing.
Información del Traductor de GoogleComunidadMóvilAcerca de GooglePrivacidad y condicionesAyudaEnviar comentarios

The reality comes again.

And Russia is doing right. The bet for aircraft carriers of 70000+ tons full load is right.

At the same time, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC), Alexei Rakhmanov, said that USC will build an expedition ship for the Russian Navy, combining the functions of a helicopter carrier and an amphibious assault ship.

Gibraltar wrote:Anyone saw this video? It's CGI but too good to be made by fanboys,
was it part of Krylov presentation?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXJ1_S6p8A

kumbor wrote:

Gibraltar wrote:Anyone saw this video? It's CGI but too good to be made by fanboys,
was it part of Krylov presentation?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmXJ1_S6p8A

This video is contradictory and rather silly!

GarryB wrote:Which basically means they can get better performance from a smaller lighter ship design, but I still suggest they will arm it properly... with way better systems than those shown and in greater number.

In Russia, developed a draft expeditionary ship for the Navy

MOSCOW, December 3 - RIA News. Designers of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) made a universal project of an expeditionary vessel for the Russian Navy to implement several tasks at once, USC head Alexei Rakhmanov told reporters on Monday.

Earlier, he said that in Russia it is planned to build an expedition ship that will combine the functions of an aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and landing ship.
"In one of our design bureaus, we made a universal vessel design that can serve four purposes, that is, an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks," said Rakhmanov.

This is not very clear to me, probably due to translation:
"...an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks"
So the same hull that can configured for different missions ("modular" vessel) or will it have just one configuration??

Tsavo Lion wrote:

This is not very clear to me, probably due to translation:
"...an identical ship at the bow and below the waterline with specialized superstructures that are provided for various tasks"
So the same hull that can configured for different missions ("modular" vessel) or will it have just one configuration??

In the original Russian it means "the same TAKR layout but with specific permanent superstructures for those extra functions", i.e. for helo carrier & ampib. assault.
The QE of the RN combines a CV & LHD in 1 ship.  

LMFS wrote:I am tempted to think it has the worst of both: slow and only capable for STOVL like the LHD, without well deck and capacity for land vehicles like a carrier... or am I wrong?

Wow a 70k ton cruiser? Has anybody ever created anything like this after ww2?

hoom wrote:

Wow a 70k ton cruiser? Has anybody ever created anything like this after ww2?

Sure, the big K.
Kuznetsov is afterall a Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Missile Cruiser  
Kievs too at 45Kton.

hoom wrote:
Kirovs are the biggest post-WWII era pure surface combatant.
But the Kirovs are less than half the size of K and I really think Gary just made a bit of a brain-fart there.

LMFS wrote:TAKR only means the carrier is denominated "cruiser" so it fits Montreaux terminology and has some weapons accordingly, it does not mean it is small or multipurpose.

kumbor wrote:
Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!

GarryB wrote:Personally I would like to see a larger fixed wing carrier in the 70-80K ton range... they could unify the hull design with the escort cruiser that will operate with it.

kumbor wrote:Maybe, but cruiser hull must have very different hydrodynamic properties, different L/B ratio, different seaspeed in range of 28-30 knots, not less. LHD/LPD/LHA are different ships, requiring much more hull space than cruiser, they must be broader, fatter, they are slower by definition and have a well deck on the stern. Japanese have built and are building a kind of multipurpose ships - big destroyer with assault ship capabilities, but they are a hell of a cost, that Russia cannot afford!