Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:
the whole point of a carrier is to extend vision and reach so it will have AWACS and it will have very large sensor arrays that smaller vessels wont be able to accommodate. the Carrier will also form the centre of the battle group... coordinating operations in defence and attack...

Is there any possibility of a Russian Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in future Russian carriers?

PapaDragon wrote:Why don't Russia and India simply build aircraft carriers together?

India could build hulls while Russia handles everything else. Seems lot faster and cheaper...

PapaDragon wrote:Why don't Russia and India simply build aircraft carriers together?

India could build hulls while Russia handles everything else. Seems lot faster and cheaper...

Is there any possibility of a Russian Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in future Russian carriers?

Why don't Russia and India simply build aircraft carriers together?

India could build hulls while Russia handles everything else. Seems lot faster and cheaper...

Hachimoto wrote:So it will be a nuclear propultion one seems logical :

http://fr.sputniknews.com/defense/20150810/1017452132.html#ixzz3iPlC0bdF

jhelb wrote:

GarryB wrote:
the whole point of a carrier is to extend vision and reach so it will have AWACS and it will have very large sensor arrays that smaller vessels wont be able to accommodate. the Carrier will also form the centre of the battle group... coordinating operations in defence and attack...

Is there any possibility of a Russian Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in future Russian carriers?

Cyrus the great wrote:So if Russia does opt to put a S-500 Triumfator M on an aircraft carrier like the Shtorm supercarrier, how many jets would it likely be able to hold?

Militarov wrote:
Hard question, Project 23000E is supposed to be between 90 and 100.000t in displacement (all we have is model and rumons however), which would make it comparable to Gerald R. Ford-class which holds 75 in normal loads, probably could go up to 90 if required. So that gives some broad idea, if some ABM is to be placed on it, then you can reduce number by 10ish. But more realistic scenario is that Russians will build carrier 60-80.000t with 40-50 aircraft cappacity.

sepheronx wrote: I don't imagine Russian carriers will hold that many aircrafts.  Maybe about as many as Kuznetsov now can.  I cant see them going for bigger (as you pointed out before, they don't have the capabilities for such sized ships).

Cyrus the great wrote: Thanks, mate. Placing the S-500 Triumfator M onto any supercarrier would significantly increase its effectiveness and capacity to protect itself from Nations of military significance, even if it came at the loss of up to a dozen aircraft. I'm just surprised the Americans haven't put the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 onto their supercarriers.

sepheronx wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:So if Russia does opt to put a S-500 Triumfator M on an aircraft carrier like the Shtorm supercarrier, how many jets would it likely be able to hold?

Hard question, Project 23000E is supposed to be between 90 and 100.000t in displacement (all we have is model and rumons however), which would make it comparable to Gerald R. Ford-class which holds 75 in normal loads, probably could go up to 90 if required. So that gives some broad idea, if some ABM is to be placed on it, then you can reduce number by 10ish. But more realistic scenario is that Russians will build carrier 60-80.000t with 40-50 aircraft cappacity.

I don't imagine Russian carriers will hold that many aircrafts.  Maybe about as many as Kuznetsov now can.  I cant see them going for bigger (as you pointed out before, they don't have the capabilities for such sized ships).

PapaDragon wrote:
Kuznetsov sized ship with nuclear propulsion and more efficiently arranged space would easily have capacity for 10 more aircraft. And that is more than enough for RU Navy. There are also service costs to think about.

Three medium sized cheap ones are lot better than one big expensive carrier. Even US Navy is going down that route...

GarryB wrote:More importantly a modern carrier goes through three phases... operational, in training, and in refit/maintainence/upgrade.

When operational it is of course ready and if it is in training it can be ready very quickly but if it is in pieces at a ship yard getting a serious upgrade or refit it is not ready for business.

That is why the UK and France have been in talks of mutual cooperation because they both plan to be cheap bastards and have one carrier... so they are agreeing that if one has their carrier on the slips that the other will keep their carrier at sea until it is ready and vice versa so together they can guarantee they will have a carrier ready if needed.

Of course it makes rather more sense just to have three carriers which means unless one is damaged that you should be able to mobilise at least two ships in an emergency and possibly all three if its maintainence is minor.