Russian Navy: Status & News #3

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...  

Data about what? about how the Project 23000 is not a fantasy project is a real project perfectly doable and about how there are current aircraft carriers in the sea that are like the Project 23000?

Perfectly doable? Sure. Question is... for whom?

Yes, there are like 11-12 of them floating at this moment, question is, how many are built by Russia?

..the “Lider” will be 205 meter long and have a deadweight of at least 55,000 tons. It will have a nuclear powered engine based on two new-model RITM-400 with an effect of at least 110 MW. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-industry-and-energy/2016/12/government-says-new-monster-icebreaker-will-become-reality

Tsavo Lion wrote:Government says new monster icebreaker will become reality

..the “Lider” will be 205 meter long and have a deadweight of at least 55,000 tons. It will have a nuclear powered engine based on two new-model RITM-400 with an effect of at least 110 MW. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-industry-and-energy/2016/12/government-says-new-monster-icebreaker-will-become-reality

For comparison, the reactors on the Nimitz class CVNs have 104MW output https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4W_reactor
So, Russia will have the reactors for her new nuclear a/c carriers.

Tsavo Lion wrote:None, but there is a 1st time for everything! How many nuclear icebreakers did USA built? Technically, the Lenin was the 1st nuclear powered aircraft carrying ship!
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/00954359004a4796be77d84aca63d711/mi-2-helicopter-lands-on-lenin-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-b9cn5h.jpg
All subsequent icebreakers been carrying helicopters, as well as 4 CGNs with 3 each in a hangar below deck. http://n7.alamy.com/zooms/5caae96227df411d864870c003cc2113/a-helicopter-aboard-the-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-arktika-b9dd8w.jpg
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/helicopter-on-board-russian-nuclearpowered-icebreaker-50-years-of-picture-id148507970?s=170667a
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/B9DD8E/a-helicopter-on-the-helipad-aboard-the-nuclear-powered-icebreaker-B9DD8E.jpg http://www.bing.com/cr?IG=6637F7CDF2EF49A9A0BF0FF339ECB88F&CID=1A0C77B1BBA061FD38767D07BAA66096&rd=1&h=oYuGjdJ4lbUr0o4XiehFAsC2QcYmtljEWlHxUoCo_JE&v=1&r=http%3a%2f%2fl450v.alamy.com%2f450v%2fa2mahd%2frussia-arctic-circle-franz-josef-land-helicopter-on-the-deck-of-nuclear-a2mahd.jpg&p=DevEx,5068.1
http://jeffhead.com/modelbuilds/RUS-CGN099.htm
http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/4/6/3/1180364.jpg
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/images/1144_3.jpg

Tsavo Lion wrote:Wrong! From 2015: http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/mission-impossible-a-new-us-icebreaker

..a major study found the U.S. needs six new icebreakers — three heavy and three medium — to carry out the Coast Guard's increased missions. ..the Navy says explicitly in their strategic planning documents that they depend on the Coast Guard to access icy waters. The Navy has no icebreakers of their own..
http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/06/01/411199853/as-the-arctic-opens-up-the-u-s-is-down-to-a-single-icebreaker

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-02-icebreakers_x.htm https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/politics/obama-to-call-for-more-icebreakers-in-arctic-as-us-seeks-foothold.html
The most efficient heavy icebreaker is a nuclear 1!

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...  

Data about what? about how the Project 23000 is not a fantasy project is a real project perfectly doable and about how there are current aircraft carriers in the sea that are like the Project 23000?

Perfectly doable? Sure. Question is... for whom?

Yes, there are like 11-12 of them floating at this moment, question is, how many are built by Russia?

Which are the technologically not doable components for Russia?

Where are exactly the technological limits that the US reached in 1975 that Russia can only dream with in a "fantasy project", according with the "proved expert" (clear intoxicator) Papadragon?

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

Militarov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

eehnie wrote:...................
and you think with this knowledge you can talk about fantasy projects (note that we see just the same in the sea since decades)

Care to back up that BS with some data?

Just politely asking before rest of the naval crowd here tears you a new one...  

Data about what? about how the Project 23000 is not a fantasy project is a real project perfectly doable and about how there are current aircraft carriers in the sea that are like the Project 23000?

Perfectly doable? Sure. Question is... for whom?

Yes, there are like 11-12 of them floating at this moment, question is, how many are built by Russia?

Which are the technologically not doable components for Russia?

Where are exactly the technological limits that the US reached in 1975 that Russia can only dream with in a "fantasy project", according with the "proved expert" (clear intoxicator) Papadragon?

At this moment list for technologicaly not doable components is long like Chinese voting list.

To start with there is no adequate shipyard available, actually there is very little available at this moment for such major project. In decade... maybe, now... dont make me start. Its not lego, it doesnt work the way most of you imagine it either, "oh ye see, we have built nuclear icebreaker, lets enlarge it 5 times, and strap some airstrip to it, and whoala, mighty Shtorm is there".

I am even skeptical about production of marine grade steel of such quantity and quality in Russia at this moment, judging by problems recent submarine projects had due to steelworks underperfoming and overpicing their products. Lets not go any further into million and 1 challenges of such project.

..we need to construct some number of ice breakers, harden our ships to operate in the High North and overall be prepared to face the extreme increase that we’re seeing on the part of Russia across the Arctic Sea. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/why-oceans-matter

miketheterrible wrote:Excuse me, which submarines? Borei seems to be fine, same with all the Kilo class subs. So you are saying their subs are spotty quality now?

Use references so you don't look like an assholes.

eehnie wrote:

Pure intoxication.

Nothing said that means a real technological limit that Russia can not reach in the following years.

To build a ship of 100000 tons is nothing technologically outstanding. Countries like South Korea, Japan, France or Finland have been building ships over 200000 tons. It means these countries (and others) have shipyards big enough to build aircraft carriers of this size. The intoxicators are saying that Russia can not have a shipyard like those that are real today in countries like Finland? Just a weird joke. A shipyard for a ship of 100000 tons means nothing technologically outstanding today.

And to order ships over 100000 tons is also nothing outstanding. Private companies have been doing it, private companies that are a lot weaker economically than Russia, private companies that manage not a superior technological level than Russia.

The intoxicators are talking about lack of technological capabilities of Russia, a country that has been leading by decades the technologies that allow to build spacial stations. Absurd.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Is it more demanding than steel for icebreakers? If so, China could supply it for le$$ than SK!

miketheterrible wrote:Once zvezda shipyard is operational, it can do up to 130,000 tons.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Exactly- just a few months ago Sevmash offered to build Storm to India. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/07/11/russia-india-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-storm/86937106/ http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08/coming-soon-russian-built-super.html
They must be very confidant that they can do it w/o losing face like they did with delays delivering the Ex-Gorshkov!

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:

Militarov wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:Once zvezda shipyard is operational, it can do up to 130,000 tons.

I do not question that.

Than what is your point?
Anyway, Zvezda will be operational at latest in 2019.

Currently, the shipyards able to cope with a ship of that size are  Zaliv (in Kerch, Crimea) and most probably Sevmash (where they refitted the carrier for the indians).

Tsavo Lion wrote:Exactly- just a few months ago Sevmash offered to build Storm to India. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/07/11/russia-india-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-storm/86937106/ http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08/coming-soon-russian-built-super.html
They must be very confidant that they can do it w/o losing face like they did with delays delivering the Ex-Gorshkov!

Tsavo Lion wrote:No, much earlier- it's easier to build a new 1 than modify a TAKR! BTW, can the steel from 2 Kiev class TAKRs now in PRC be recycled?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev-class_aircraft_carrier#Ships

AlfaT8 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:Exactly- just a few months ago Sevmash offered to build Storm to India. http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/07/11/russia-india-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-storm/86937106/ http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2016/08/coming-soon-russian-built-super.html
They must be very confidant that they can do it w/o losing face like they did with delays delivering the Ex-Gorshkov!

Yea... and if Indians signed such crazy contract they would get carrier in 2055.

That's to pessimistic, i say 2040.