Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News #1

Big_Gazza wrote:

A1RMAN wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

My guess, they will go with UKSK / Redut combo.

I wouldn't be shocked if K would be modernized earlier than we'll see Redut.

Oh, ha ha fucking ha....  Redut short & medium range is operational - if they are still having problems, its confined to the long range missiles.

By the book, Kuz even today shouldnt be able to enter Black Sea.

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

Singular_Transform wrote:

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

It is third-quoter of the price of a new Ford class super carrier.

The refurbishment of the Kuznetsov cost 35 fighter jet, the construction of the Ford cost 1100-120 fighter jet.

Militarov wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

It is third-quoter of the price of a new Ford class super carrier.

The refurbishment of the Kuznetsov cost 35 fighter jet, the construction of the Ford cost 1100-120 fighter jet.

General overhaul of Reno 4 costs 120 USD... new Reno Megane costs 18.000...

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

Further in the piece was this gem:

"The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

Tsavo Lion wrote:So, they won't expand the hangar bay by removing the Granit missile launchers which will be instead modified for Kalibrs- at this stage, there's more to be gained by doing so- i.e. save time, money, & increase the power projection potential, since after the refit she'll carry more Ash/LACMs, 12x3 per tube=36 total, a 24 increase, & 12 more than P.Velikiy CGN! https://southfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Pyotr-Velikiy.jpg
Just like the modernized Oscars. http://www.janes.com/article/60518/russia-initiates-multiyear-plan-to-modernise-oscar-ii-ssgns
Also, the Su-33 will be retained in the air wing, at least for the time being. Any guesses for reason(s) why? Before, they planned to retire them.

Militarov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

Further in the piece was this gem:

"The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.

kvs wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

kvs wrote:To overhaul a carrier for $700 million is a bargain.

http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-wants-678-million-to-refuel-this-ship-2015-2

The US spends this much just to change out the nuclear fuel.

Further in the piece was this gem:

"The refueling of the USS George Washington coincides with an overhaul of the ship that could take as long as four years. Together with the refueling, it will prove to be a multi-billion dollar exercise."

4 years and "several" billion...  now lets hear again from the Russia bashers how the K refurb is mismanaged, or how the REBUILD of the Nahkimov is taking too long, or costing too much....

GW is few TIMES bigger vessel, with dozens of facilities Kuz never did and never will have that require overhaul, and overhaul is being performed in country where worker gets paid on average 20 times more than in Russia. Apples and oranges.

Don't be silly seriously and compare such things.

Errr... no.  The GW is not really that much bigger.  Her physical dimensions are quite comparable - the GW length/beam/draught is 332m/76m/12m while the K is 305m/72m/11m.  Her displacement may be higher 97,000 tonnes vs 66,000 but much of that is crew space (6k POB vs 1.5k) and storage for strike ordnance (which the K as an air superiority platform doesn't require), so saying the GW is a "few TIMES bigger" simply isn't correct.

The scope of the K's overhaul will be VASTLY greater than the GW.  New boilers (or at least new burners and combustion air supply system), new UKSK systems, upgraded AAMs, upgraded radars and battle-management system, refurbed flight wing etc etc...  Russia will do this for ~1B while the US lays out at least double and gets far less.  

BTW Russias far lower labour costs make this possible, as labour cost is linked to Russia far lower cost of living.

Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point. Labour costs cannot explain western prices. It took
$13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier. Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
was $100,000 per year. The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers. I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
around 20% of this figure. (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).

Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:

Ford-class aircraft carriers
USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

Virginia-class submarines
USS Indiana (SSN-789)
USS Washington (SSN-787)

They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.

So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost. US military product prices are inflated by
profit all the way through the supplier chain. Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.

kvs wrote:
Every part of your post is dead on target except the last point.   Labour costs cannot explain western prices.   It took
$13 billion and 8 years to build the new Ford class aircraft carrier.    Suppose the average salary for workers/engineers/etc
was $100,000 per year.   The 100% of the cost would require 16,250 workers.   I am quite sure that the workforce was actually
around 20% of this figure.   (I include he R&D figure in both the construction and job estimates since they can be lumped
together and even if subsequent construction is 35% cheaper the basic point remains valid).  

Newport News Shipbuilding employs 22,000 workers but has several large projects running concurrently:

Ford-class aircraft carriers
   USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) -- completed but overlapped other construction
   USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)
   USS Enterprise (CVN-80)

Virginia-class submarines
   USS Indiana (SSN-789)
   USS Washington (SSN-787)

They are also dismantling the original Enterprise.  

So its workforce is not dedicated to one project and cannot explain the cost.   US military product prices are inflated by
profit all the way through the supplier chain.   Russian prices are not yet equilibrated at this level and Russian workers
made about $1500 per month before the forex drop, which did not make them poorer and Russian companies operate
in rubles and not dollars so their wage costs have not gone down.

Big_Gazza wrote:..After the upgrade the K will have a VERY potent anti-ship/sub strike capability, even without factoring in her air wing.  She will be more than capable of defending herself against enemy surface/submarine units should it ever be required.  She will truly deserve the designation as a heavy air-craft carrying missile cruiser.

kvs wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Apparently Kalibrs won't be replacing Granits after all "due to high costs".
http://www.ng.ru/news/581004.html?print=Y
They have & will have enough other air, surface & SLCM platforms, so if true, the absence of Kalibrs (& Granits, for that matter) on this ship won't make a noticeable difference. The question is, will some/all Granits be retained or removed? Even w/o making structural changes, those tubes could be used for non-hazmat storage. All of that'll also speed up the shipyard period.

NG is a liberast 5th column rag.   Nothing it writes is credible since all of it is agenda-driven spin.   It only sounds plausible because
not all of its readers have the context to see it for what it is.    The magic of the mass media.  

If they are not replacing the launch tubes because of cost, then they would have designed a Granit replacement missile to use them.
A modern missile with this size would be something impressive.    But it simply not credible that replacing the launch tubes of the Granit
is a cost Russia cannot bear.    This nonsense is obviously predicated on the readers not knowing relative costs.    If Russia can build
war ships from scratch, it can certainly do some welding to replace a few metal shells.

Tsavo Lion wrote:As the saying goes: it's the economy,...! All its future cruises'll be together with CGN & SS/GN escorts, joined in the Med.Sea & elsewhere by SSKs & korvettes, all armed with CMs anyway, so why overdo it? Even the Chinese decided against having any CM launchers below deck on her sister ship Liaoning & removed that compartment all together, all the while not having enough of, & building more SSNs, FFGs & DDGs. And there's not going to be a need to send Adm. K. to the Black Sea & enable it to transit the Turkish Straits by carrying CMs & not being a true a/c carrier. Besides, the sooner this yard period ends, the sooner it'll deploy & the yard can start working on something else.