Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

New Russian Navy aircraft carrier will be equipped with nuclear reactors RITM-200 - source
06.22.2016 11:55:32
*** Russia is able to build such a ship for two five-year plan

Moscow. 22nd of June. Interfax-AVN - Promising Russian nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm" project will receive 23,000 nuclear reactors RITM-200, which will be tested before roadworthiness on the icebreaker "Arktika", said Wednesday "Interfax-AVN" a source familiar with the situation.

"Most likely, the future Russian aircraft carriers will have a nuclear power plant it has already been developed, and its analogue will be practiced on the recently deflated on the icebreaker water." Arktika ", - said the agency interlocutor.

According to him, "taking into account the time required for the design of an aircraft carrier, Russia has the opportunity to build such a ship" from scratch "for eight or nine years."

June 16 in St. Petersburg, the company "Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding" (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) held a ceremony launching the largest and most powerful in the world (60 MW) nuclear icebreaker project 22220 "Arctic", the head in a series of three ships of this type. Contract term order completion - December 2017.

The icebreaker "Arktika" is equipped with a two-reactor power plant with the main source of the vapor from the reactor facility RITM-200 with capacity of 175 MW.

The aircraft carrier project 23000E (code "Storm") exists only in the form layout. The concept ship developed in Krylovskaya research center together with Nevsky engineering company.

According to preliminary data, the ship's length is 330 meters, width - 40 meters and draft - 11 meters. Carrier speed will reach 30 knots.

Preliminary design of prospective aircraft carrier provides for him as a springboard, and catapult launch aircraft. And there will be two tracks springboard from which great length of 250 m. It is also provided on the aircraft carrier aircraft lifts both vertical and kachelnogo type that saves space occupied by them on the ship.
Earlier, representatives of Krylovskogo center reported that the technical design stage the carrier may occur in 2017-2018, respectively.

Austin wrote:New Russian Navy aircraft carrier will be equipped with nuclear reactors RITM-200 - source
06.22.2016 11:55:32
*** Russia is able to build such a ship for two five-year plan

Moscow. 22nd of June. Interfax-AVN - Promising Russian nuclear-powered aircraft carrier "Storm" project will receive 23,000 nuclear reactors RITM-200, which will be tested before roadworthiness on the icebreaker "Arktika", said Wednesday "Interfax-AVN" a source familiar with the situation.

"Most likely, the future Russian aircraft carriers will have a nuclear power plant it has already been developed, and its analogue will be practiced on the recently deflated on the icebreaker water." Arktika ", - said the agency interlocutor.

According to him, "taking into account the time required for the design of an aircraft carrier, Russia has the opportunity to build such a ship" from scratch "for eight or nine years."

June 16 in St. Petersburg, the company "Baltiysky Zavod - Shipbuilding" (part of the United Shipbuilding Corporation) held a ceremony launching the largest and most powerful in the world (60 MW) nuclear icebreaker project 22220 "Arctic", the head in a series of three ships of this type. Contract term order completion - December 2017.

The icebreaker "Arktika" is equipped with a two-reactor power plant with the main source of the vapor from the reactor facility RITM-200 with capacity of 175 MW.

The aircraft carrier project 23000E (code "Storm") exists only in the form layout. The concept ship developed in Krylovskaya research center together with Nevsky engineering company.

According to preliminary data, the ship's length is 330 meters, width - 40 meters and draft - 11 meters. Carrier speed will reach 30 knots.

Preliminary design of prospective aircraft carrier provides for him as a springboard, and catapult launch aircraft. And there will be two tracks springboard from which great length of 250 m. It is also provided on the aircraft carrier aircraft lifts both vertical and kachelnogo type that saves space occupied by them on the ship.
Earlier, representatives of Krylovskogo center reported that the technical design stage the carrier may occur in 2017-2018, respectively.

That is RITM-400.

The 400 showing the thermal capacity of the reactor.

Russia to begin designing advanced aircraft carrier in 2020 — source

The Russian Navy said previously that the fleet expected to get an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by the end of 2030

ST. PETERSBURG, June 30. /TASS/. Russia will begin designing an advanced aircraft carrier for its Navy not until 2020, a source in the shipbuilding industry told TASS on Thursday.

"This work is currently underway. The actual design work will start in 2020. According to the currently existing plans, the aircraft carrier will be created in the third decade of the 21st century. The vessel design will begin in 2020, and it will be built before 2030," the source said.

"It's logical, if we analyze the military shipbuilding over the last 20 years ... Everything fits in the principle from small things to large, as over these two decades it was necessary to create new production capacities and modernize the old ones, which will enable us by 2030 to build large ships", he said.

The Russian Navy said previously that the Russian fleet expected to get an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by the end of 2030.

According to Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, the contract on the aircraft carrier building could be signed by the end of 2025. "I believe this will most likely take place closer to the end of 2025. We have three projects offered by the Krylov Center.

They are fairly good and a decision on the aircraft carrier will be made closer to 2025," he said.

As of today, the Russian Navy operates the sole heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. Head of the Russian Navy Shipbuilding Department Vladimir Tryapichnikov said in January this year the Russian Navy expected to receive an advanced aircraft carrier with a nuclear power unit by late 2030.

The Krylov State Research Center (shipbuilding research and development institute) previously announced the development of a heavy aircraft carrier of Project 23000E Storm with a displacement of up to 100,000 tons and an air group comprising 80-90 aircraft.


More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/885592

Development of Aircraft Carrier May Cost Russian Navy $15 bln


The cost of developing an aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy may have a price tag of 1 trillion rubles ($15 billion). The construction of such a ship may cause financial problems for both the Russian Defense Ministry and the whole of the country, expert Sergei Ischenko writes in an article on the Svobodnaya Pressa news website.

The recent launching of the world’s most capable advanced Project 22220 icebreaker, the Arktika, by the Baltic Shipyard in St. Petersburg has inspired Russian shipbuilders considerably. The Arktika will become a test bed for the RITM-200 nuclear reactor. If the testing is a success, the reactor also will equip the future Project 23000 Shtorm aircraft carrier, which construction, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov says, is going to be ordered by year-end 2025.

The Arktika’s recent launching is a cause for optimism. It has shown that Russia’s shipbuilding is gradually recovering from its long-time crisis and is capable of building large up-to-date vessels and ships again. The icebreaker with a displacement of 33,500 tons (50% more than that of the Project 1144 Pyotr Veliky (NATO-reporting name: Kirov-class) nuclear-powered guided missile cruiser) was laid down relatively recently, in November 2013, i.e. less than three years ago, and will enter service as soon as 18 months, if all goes to plan.

Compare her development schedule with the 12 years spent on developing the Pyotr Veliky or with the development of the lead the Project 22350 (Admiral Gorshkov-class) long-range frigate. The Admiral Gorshkov was laid down in 2006 and has not been commissioned by the Navy yet. It goes without saying that warships are a far cry from even nuclear icebreakers as far as design sophistication is concerned: the up-to-date cruisers, destroyers and frigates are far more advanced in terms of weaponry, electronics and machinery and are much more difficult to build. However, the previous icebreaker, the 50th Anniversary of the Victory, was laid down on 1993 and commissioned 14 years later.

Experts wonder if the good news from the Baltic Shipyard mean that Russia has the grounds to think about an advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier displacing up to 100,000 tons. For this is such colossal and ambitious an endeavor that many doubt if the country is able to execute it even in the medium term.

The first, and, probably, primary, issue is the price. According to open sources, the price tag is unlikely to be less than $15-20 billion (around a trillion rubles at the current exchange rate). However, even this huge sum of money is likely to grow as the ship leaves her slipways, because Russia is going to build an analog of the USS CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford that cost the Pentagon almost $40 billion.

Mind you, a trillion rubles is just an estimated cost of the ship proper. The cost of the Shtorm’s air wing of about 90 fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft is a different issue altogether.

The carrier air wing is supposed to include a carrierborne version of the T-50 fifth-generation fighter among other things, with the type not in the inventory yet. Since the navalized variant does not exist yet, its future price is a moot question. Some time ago, India was willing to buy the land-based T-50 for $100 million apiece. The future aircraft carrier needs dozens of T-50s.

The full-fledged aircraft carrier cannot do without an airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft keeping an eye on the air and surface situation on the remote approaches to the ship. Russian aviation has never had an aircraft like this. We tried to build an AEW&C plane for the Ulyanovsk nuclear aircraft carrier laid down in Nikolayev in the twilight of the Soviet era. The first Soviet AEW&C plane was about to be developed, even a full-scale mockup was made. The aircraft with a crew of six and a takeoff weight of 40 tons was expected to loiter for six hours at a stretch at 700 km/h and guide up to 40 fighters to their targets. The aircraft was designated Yak-44. The program was terminated in 1992.

Judging at least by the above considerations, the overall cost of the Shtorm’s air wing is bound to surpass that of the carrier herself, a trillion rubles.

An AEW&C plane cannot take off from the ski-jump ramp, hence the need for a steam or electromagnetic catapult. Russia has never made either of them. In addition, no shipyard in the country can handle the construction of a 100,000-ton carrier for want of a dry dock large enough for that. There also will be problems with basing the ship.

It took the Chinese four years to build the berthing and other shore infrastructure for the Liaoning carrier (former Varyag) - their only one so far. Presumably, the very duration of her construction gives a general idea of the scale of the financing required. Mind you, the Chinese parked the Liaoning in Qingdao that is hardly the Arctic, for one. Secondly, both the Liaoning and the Admiral Kuznetsov are twice as little as the future Shtorm.

Hence, why does Russia need the carrier that will cause financial problems? Vice-Premier Dmitry Rogozin said previously: "The construction of ships like this is a geopolitical issue, rather than a military-technical one." In this case, geopolitics stands for the misconceived national prestige, rather than strategic expediency. Even US experts have been increasingly insistent in saying that aircraft carriers are outdated. At least two solid analytical reports on the subject have been published overseas this year.

The Washington Post has published one titled US Carriers' Unchallenged Primacy May be Coming to a Close and authored by ranking Pentagon official Michele Flournoy and former US Navy intelligence officer and current State Department official Kurt Campbell in the Center for a New American Security. According to Flournoy and Campbell, the era of the effectiveness of aircraft carriers in modern-times wars is quickly drawing to an end. The potential enemies, Russia and China, can sink the huge ships with their long-range coastal defense missiles quicker than the carriers can scramble their air wings for an attack.

The experts call for the money that can be saved by abandoning the current shipbuilding program to be spent on other types of cutting-edge weaponry for naval warfare, say, on developing railguns or building cruise missile-carrying nuclear-powered multirole submarines capable of getting covertly in range for a salvo against a hostile shore.

Ben Ho Wan Beng, a senior analyst with Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, says about the same in the other report. His views must be shared by the US Naval Institute that published his report.

According to expert opinion, Russia’s leadership should think hard how to spend trillions of rubles in the most effective manner, especially the trillions it lacks, expert Sergei Ischenko writes in his article with the Svobodnaya Pressa online news agency.

Trillion rubles for a carrier should be wrong. Ford class carried cost 17 billion - R&D and first ship. That includes new reactor design, new catapult design, bunch of improvements and so on.

With work in russia being cheaper, I don't see a Ford equivalent (even if tech lags a bit here or there) costing over half that sum. And if we're talking about a bit smaller or conventional carrier even - then figures closer to what Brits have paid for QE class should be in order. Five-ish billion should be enough to give a carrier larger than and superior to Kuznetsov in every regard.

Interesting article, Max Steel, but there are quite a few errors and leaps of logic in that.

According to open sources, the price tag is unlikely to be less than $15-20 billion (around a trillion rubles at the current exchange rate). However, even this huge sum of money is likely to grow as the ship leaves her slipways, because Russia is going to build an analog of the USS CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford that cost the Pentagon almost $40 billion.

Straightaway the writer is on very shaky ground doing a straight forward comparison like that. And that is even ignoring the extremely notoriously expensive, over priced "gold-plated" and creative accounting practices of the US defence industry.

Some time ago, India was willing to buy the land-based T-50 for $100 million apiece. The future aircraft carrier needs dozens of T-50s.

Just because "India was willing to pay $100 million apiece" for the T-50 does not mean that automatically translates that the Russian State will be paying that. How accurate is that "$100 million" anyway?

Judging at least by the above considerations, the overall cost of the Shtorm’s air wing is bound to surpass that of the carrier herself, a trillion rubles.

Again, it's a very shaky thing to build an entire article around this odd premise.

An AEW&C plane cannot take off from the ski-jump ramp, hence the need for a steam or electromagnetic catapult. Russia has never made either of them. In addition, no shipyard in the country can handle the construction of a 100,000-ton carrier for want of a dry dock large enough for that. There also will be problems with basing the ship.

It took the Chinese four years to build the berthing and other shore infrastructure for the Liaoning carrier (former Varyag) - their only one so far. Presumably, the very duration of her construction gives a general idea of the scale of the financing required. Mind you, the Chinese parked the Liaoning in Qingdao that is hardly the Arctic, for one. Secondly, both the Liaoning and the Admiral Kuznetsov are twice as little as the future Shtorm.

Wrong again.
The Yak-44 was designed to not only use the 2 waist catapults on the Ulyanovsk, but was also stressed and designed (with excess power) to use the ski-ramp on the bow of that vessel.
Speaking of which, it is again totally wrong to say "Russia has not made a steam catapult". Even a moments pause for thought by the writer would show the ridiculousness of his statement.
The Ulyanovsk was in the process of being built. It had been laid down in 1988, before work stopped after 3 years due to the breakup of the USSR.
It was designed to use 2 catapults. Does the author really think that this largest ever carrier outside the US had been designed and construction started without a vital part of its design having being designed?
The steam catapult design was called the Mayak, and was designed and built in the Proletariat factory in Leningrad.
There was a picture of the catapult being built in the factory on an aviation forum a few years back that I remember seeing. When the time during the construction stage had been reached, they would have been installed.
The work on this steam catapult started back in the 70's, with the first one that was installed at NITKA subject to a lot of problems. However, development work continued while the first carriers were ski ramp equipped, which is why Ulyanovsk 10 years later was to be the first equipped with operational catapults.




Lastly, I was under the impression that Baltic Shipyard in St Petersburg easily has a slipway large enough to build such a vessel.
I went and googled, and it seems the Slipway A is 350m long, and the fitting out quays (900m long) and associated equipment are easily able to cope.
I must admit though that I'm unsure of the slipway width though.

Sevmash probably also has facilities not too far off.

More importantly why would Russia need a 100,000 ton carrier?

Russian carriers are air defence carriers, not strike carriers like the US carriers.

The biggest beneficiary of the new nuclear reactors will likely be the Kirov class ships that they keep operational and the Slava class vessels... both with upgrades, and the new destroyer types which will likely be cruiser sized vessels in the 15K ton weight range.

The carriers they build will likely be in the 60-80K ton weight range and include fighter aircraft as well as unmanned drones.

I expect they will have EM based cats, and AWACS type aircraft but by then new types of radar equipment will be available... after all we are talking about operational service entry of 2030 or later if they are laying down the vessel in 2025...

By then there will likely be a light 5th or perhaps 6th gen fighter that is rather more affordable, or enormous numbers of unmanned attack drones to defend the fleet.... they might even have huge airships as AWACSs and drone carriers that replace ship based systems.

I agree completely Gary...the Russian doctrine and needs are not the same as the US.

There is simply no need for a large fleet of 100 000t carriers.

The way I see it, Russia does need to maintain and indeed further develop a fixed wing naval aviation component. The reasons for that include, amongst other things, the need to be able to protect Russian interests abroad in a more and more competitive and smaller world, as well as keeping abreast of technology and keeping abreast of other naval powers...to a degree. By this, I mean up and coming or existing powers that operate such as China, India, Britain, France etc. The US would also only ever deploy a portion of it's carrier forces, due to other commitments elsewhere.

I think a single carrier is a useful only in a limited way, as the French are finding out. This is why China, India, and Britain are going for 2 or more carriers.
I also think a carrier should be nuclear powered due to the nature of what is being asked of it. The US and French understand this, and I think Britain made a mistake in this regard concerning their two new carriers. Russia has a long history, and a developed industry of naval nuclear power, so that is additionally a no-brainer.

I suspect it will be the other carrier navies, particularly those in neighbouring areas, and not the US, that eventually decide the size of a Russian fleet.
I'd suspect that an eventual fleet of 3 would be quite sufficient. And these would not need to be the gold-plated overly expensive type as built by the US defence industry.

A carrier in the class of the Ulyanovsk, the intended Kuznetsov follow on in any event, is the kind of size that would be perfectly adequate. At 75 000t, it would be larger than any carrier outside the US, and carried a full complement of aviation. It would be considerably cheaper than the 100 000t bohemoths that have little to do with Russian needs in any event.
One of he most important bits would be to ensure it isn't a drain on the Russian state or navy, but as stated, Russia would need to keep a naval aviation component in light of Russian interests, and what the other neighbouring navies in the area are doing.

IMHO of course.

An aircraft carrier with stealth fighters can have two main benefit-
1. protect the submarines/fleet on the ocean
2. force the adversaries to start to deploy expensive radar and air deffence systems,and deploy aricrafts on contionous duty to protect the homeland.

the second is especial problematic for the US, cosnidering that the current strategy/cost structure priorising the attacking assets.

[quote="wilhelm"]Interesting article, Max Steel, but there are quite a few errors and leaps of logic in that.

According to open sources, the price tag is unlikely to be less than $15-20 billion (around a trillion rubles at the current exchange rate). However, even this huge sum of money is likely to grow as the ship leaves her slipways, because Russia is going to build an analog of the USS CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford that cost the Pentagon almost $40 billion.

Straightaway the writer is on very shaky ground doing a straight forward comparison like that. And that is even ignoring the extremely notoriously expensive, over priced "gold-plated" and creative accounting practices of the US defence industry.

Some time ago, India was willing to buy the land-based T-50 for $100 million apiece. The future aircraft carrier needs dozens of T-50s.

Just because "India was willing to pay $100 million apiece" for the T-50 does not mean that automatically translates that the Russian State will be paying that. How accurate is that "$100 million" anyway?

Judging at least by the above considerations, the overall cost of the Shtorm’s air wing is bound to surpass that of the carrier herself, a trillion rubles.

Again, it's a very shaky thing to build an entire article around this odd premise.

An AEW&C plane cannot take off from the ski-jump ramp, hence the need for a steam or electromagnetic catapult. Russia has never made either of them. In addition, no shipyard in the country can handle the construction of a 100,000-ton carrier for want of a dry dock large enough for that. There also will be problems with basing the ship.

It took the Chinese four years to build the berthing and other shore infrastructure for the Liaoning carrier (former Varyag) - their only one so far. Presumably, the very duration of her construction gives a general idea of the scale of the financing required. Mind you, the Chinese parked the Liaoning in Qingdao that is hardly the Arctic, for one. Secondly, both the Liaoning and the Admiral Kuznetsov are twice as little as the future Shtorm.

Wrong again.
The Yak-44 was designed to not only use the 2 waist catapults on the Ulyanovsk, but was also stressed and designed (with excess power) to use the ski-ramp on the bow of that vessel.
Speaking of which, it is again totally wrong to say "Russia has not made a steam catapult". Even a moments pause for thought by the writer would show the ridiculousness of his statement.
The Ulyanovsk was in the process of being built. It had been laid down in 1988, before work stopped after 3 years due to the breakup of the USSR.
It was designed to use 2 catapults. Does the author really think that this largest ever carrier outside the US had been designed and construction started without a vital part of its design having being designed?
The steam catapult design was called the Mayak, and was designed and built in the Proletariat factory in Leningrad.
There was a picture of the catapult being built in the factory on an aviation forum a few years back that I remember seeing. When the time during the construction stage had been reached, they would have been installed.
The work on this steam catapult started back in the 70's, with the first one that was installed at NITKA subject to a lot of problems. However, development work continued while the first carriers were ski ramp equipped, which is why Ulyanovsk 10 years later was to be the first equipped with operational catapults.


So, what happened whit that catapults? Is it installed on Ulyanovsk or it is stored in the factory warehouse? How is navy satisfied with steam catapults? They are testing it very well at NITKA but never installed it on carrier. In Western press is assuredness that an air carrier must have catapult or it is ineffective because its air wing can not take of with full load of fuel and weapon. To be honest, I do not believe in that.

Came across this article today.
I make no claims to its accuracy, as I'm wary when it comes to quotes from officers/diplomats who ask for anonymity, and am also aware that reporting in Indian media or on defence matters can be a very partisan affair, depending on which direction it is coming from.
I'm simply posting it here as it has to do with the topic.

Some of the points make sense....IF India is indeed looking at nuclear propulsion for a carrier, they certainly won't be getting any assistance from the US.

Russia Offers India Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
Vivek Raghuvanshi, Defense News 8:48 a.m. EDT July 11, 2016
636038235288218851-Model-aircraft-carrier-project-23000E-at-the-Army-2015-2.JPG


NEW DELHI — Russia has offered its nuclear aircraft carrier, dubbed "Storm," to India for purchase, a senior Indian Navy official said. The offer comes as India and the US discuss the transfer of technology for India's future nuclear aircraft carrier, the INS Vishal.

A diplomat with the Russian Embassy confirmed that a Russian team visiting India last week made the offer.

Krylov State Research Center (KSRC), a Russian shipbuilding research and development institute, is designing the carrier, also known as Shtorm or Project 23000E.

"First revealed in May 2015, the Project 23000E multipurpose aircraft carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defense," the Navy official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

India plans to build its second homegrown aircraft carrier, INS Vishal, which will be nuclear-powered, 300 meters long, 70 meters wide and displace 65,000 tons.

"The choice [India's] is to have a nuclear powered carrier, technology for which will not be easy to get, and international help will be needed by India in the design and development of the super carrier," Nitin Mehta, an independent defense analyst, said.

Russia has already overhauled and modernized a Kiev-class carrier-cruiser, renamed INS Vikramaditya, for the Indian Navy from 2004-2013 in which they "gained valuable insights into carrier-building techniques through that process," Mehta said.

The US, meanwhile, has offered the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS), which is does not include nuclear propulsion technology and is unavailable for the Russian carrier, according to the Indian Navy official.

"EMALS is a major attraction because it is flexible and allows variety of aircraft to come on the deck including the lighter, homemade light combat aircraft and heavy fighter aircraft," he said.

India and the US have formed a joint working group on aircraft carrier technology cooperation, but there is no discussion so far on offering nuclear technology for Indian aircraft carrier.

India has still to decide whether to buy the super carrier or build it locally.


DEFENSE NEWS
Skepticism Persists in Strengthened US-India Ties



"We will have to pay at least $12 billion to buy a nuclear power aircraft carrier that has EMALS capability but [the Indian] government will never approve the funding," the Indian Navy official said.

Anil Jai Singh, a retired Indian Navy commodore and defense analyst, is doubtful if India would buy a nuclear carrier.

"It is doubtful if India will be able to source a 65,000-ton carrier from another country, and [it] will be too expensive to buy", Singh said. "Does the Indian Navy really think it would have the kind of global footprint to justify that expense in the next 15 years or so?"

An Indian Ministry of Defence official said India must still finalize details on how to acquire its next homegrown carrier.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/navy/2016/07/11/russia-india-nuclear-aircraft-carrier-storm/86937106/

After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

and where Russia should be? BTW Where Indians should order then?

Currently they said Russia has the lead that said, if I was India, I would wonder if Russia could build a 100k ton carrier in the time frame they say, they have no real experience building such a vessel.

It is fair to assume given the shape of their current ship building industry that such a vessel would take them much much longer then it would others to finish.

There has been considerable investment and a modernisation drive in the shipbuilding sector, with the intention of rectifying the decay after the breakup of the USSR.
This is starting to bear fruit now, and will only keep getting better as modernisation of the sector reaches completion.

Context is very important: If one has paid close attention, much of the holdup to some of the current vessels are naval turbine related, not on design capability or fabrication of hulls, superstructure, etc. Vessels not using gas turbines sourced from Ukraine, a holdup from the days of the USSR, or other imported components subject to sudden political whims and sanctions, have not been effected in anything like the manner. By this, I mean vessels previously using German diesels, or vessels affected by the Mistral debacle.

The half of the Mistral vessels constructed in Russia were done so efficiently, on time, and within budget. More pertinent to large nuclear powered vessels, the giant nuclear icebreaker was also built efficiently. Various large nuclear subs have been built. The nuclear reactor design is available and has been built.
These above (in other words clearly defined) are a far better indicator than vessels already designed and built, but which are hamstrung for a couple of years due to sudden sanctions on imported propulsion units.

Of course a large carrier will be no walk in the park, probably the most ambitious programme along with nuclear subs/SSBN's...but it is not helpful using unrelated issues as examples of why it would be hard work. A properly run programme is certainly well within the capabilities of Russia.

Plus it is a good sign that they want to build such a vessel...

The new shipyards and expanded capabilities of existing shipyards are supposed to allow the production of really large gas carrier vessels and other such enormous vessels, so why not build carriers too.

I will repeat... the Russians don't need a US Nimitz class equivalent... they wont be looking at a 100K ton vessel... much more likely to be 60-80K ton, with much less emphasis on the strike element as they prefer to use long range land attack cruise missiles or strategic bombers for such missions.

The Russian Navy is more interested in defending itself, so the primary mission is air defence of a surface fleet.

They will have subsonic, supersonic, and hypersonic land attack cruise missiles in service when this carrier is ready... there is little need to risk a manned aircraft for such missions.

I rather suspect it might even carry land attack strike drones like the SKAT from MiG rather than bombers...

eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal? A little context pls? Given that the Indian-built INS Vikrant will have taken nearly 10 years from laying down the keel (Feb 2009) to her expected service entry (Dec 2018) and will have cost ~$3.8B (original estimate was only $0.5B!!), she is a close match for the Vikramaditya who required 10 years and $2.35B. Vikramaditya is bigger, faster and carries more aircraft, and after her extensive reconstruction she is essentially a brand new ship.

I'd say that India made the right call. Buy one carrier, while build one of your own. If anything, they'll get more bang for their rupee with the Russian offering.

On the context of building large nuclear powered vessels, and the percieved "lack of efficiency" of Russian yards, the following is interesting:

The latest British SSBN submarines of the Vanguard class took roughly 7 years on average from laying down to commissioning.
One of the the smaller British SSN's of the Astute class, the HMS artful, took 11 years from laying down to commissioning.
Even the non-nuclear carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class are going to average 11 or 12 years from when steel was cut to commissioning.

The French Charles de Gaulle took 12 years from laying down to commissioning.

The US navy Seawolf class SSN's took between 7 to 8 years from laying down to commissioning.
the Gerald Ford class nuclear carriers look like they will average out at about 7 years between laying down to commissioning. Impressive, but then remember that to all intents and purposes, the US keeps what amounts to basically a production line of carriers going.

The new, relatively simple 40 000t Indian carrier, Vikrant, was laid down in 2009, and it is intended for commissioning in 2018, but there are acknowledged delays, and I don't think anybody is expecting it remotely to be ready by then. Think more 2020 to be very optimistic, and probably well after.

Bearing in mind the shambles that followed the breakup of the USSR, it's no surprise that some of the earlier vessels of the new designs took longer to complete.
But look at the more recent nuclear vessels.
The most recent Borei SSBN vessel took 8 years from laying down to commissioning. And the more recent ones look like they will take 4 to 5 years from laying down to commissioning.
The same applies to the Yasen class SSN.
Although it isn't strictly a naval vessel, the Arktika nuclear powered icebreaker, the largest ever constructed, was launched only 2 and a half years after laying down, with a commissioning date set at between 3 and a half to 4 years after laying down.

So, that suddenly doesn't look too bad all of a sudden.
Like I said, if it is nuclear powered, and there is the new reactor design for the Arktika that will be used, and the programme is well conceived and managed, with indigineous components instead of relying on wishy washy "partners" subject to pressure, then there is no reason at all it can't be built efficiently and on time.
I would think that the catapults and their design would be one of the main things that governs the time it is built. And in this regard, it would be better to simply go for an EMALS catapult. It's not exactly rocket science. Westinghouse had a very earlier version called the Electropult all the way back in 1945. Obviously, aircraft have got bigger, but then, electric technology has improved out of sight in those 70 years. And the architecture onboard is much simpler for EMALS than a steam catapult.
And Russia has begun the design of one:

MOSCOW, September 16. /TASS/. Russia has started developing an electromagnetic catapult for new-generation aircraft carriers, a defense industry source told TASS on Wednesday.
"The electromagnetic catapult development is under way, and a mockup has been made," the source said.
According to the source, the prototype of the advanced catapult has been brought to the Central Aerohydrodynamic Institute. The catapult needs no big steam boilers and is powered by a battery.
As is known, the United States is working on an electromagnetic catapult too. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) is essentially a linear induction motor with a number of coils generating a travelling magnetic field. The magnetic field accelerates the object. The EMALS has a 100,000-hp (73.5MW) motor affording the catapult-launched manned and unmanned aircraft a takeoff speed of 333 km/h. Electromagnetic technologies offer a sizeable reduction in the catapult’s maintenance cost, an increase in its reliability and effectiveness, much higher launch power and more accurate control of the aircraft’s final acceleration speed during takeoff. In addition, the electromagnetic catapult allows smoother acceleration and less stress on the aircraft.
The EMALS is designed to equip advanced heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in the CVN-79 Gerald R. Ford class.

More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/821618

The longer flight run allows Su-33s to take off with full fuel and weapons.

Thats really interesting, how certain of that are you?

The Yak-44 was designed to not only use the 2 waist catapults on the Ulyanovsk, but was also stressed and designed (with excess power) to use the ski-ramp on the bow of that vessel.

Also very interesting.
I wonder how practical it could be to restart that program? Seems like a pretty big ask though & not really anything else in the wings in the right kind of size to replace it on a new CV.

I've wondered if it would be practical to make an AEW Su-33 variant based off the 2-seater with enlarged front/rear radomes &/or or a longitudinal antenna like the Saab AEW/Wedgetail?
Looking at rough dimensions Su-33 has similar length/payload/range vs the Saab 340 which carries that radar  
That could give significant development/logistic advantages compared to developing an all new plane.
Dunno what sort of low speed loiter time an Su-33 has, probably a bit on the low side (?) but should at least be much better endurance than a helicopter based AEW.
Otherwise I'd have thought AEW is a pretty perfect task for a new large drone. (but does Russia have any decent sized drones likely to be CVable in the works? Even if they do it'd presumably be a looong lead thing just like a new normal plane)

it seems the Slipway A is 350m long, and the fitting out quays (900m long) and associated equipment are easily able to cope.
Sevmash probably also has facilities not too far off.

Also Zaliv at Kerch is supposedly big enough for 100k tankers.
Though the question of drydocks is probably a legit one, Sevmash is clearly not big enough for a 100k CV.

The carriers they build will likely be in the 60-80K ton weight range and include fighter aircraft as well as unmanned drones.

I feel thats the logical thing too but they are making a lot of noise about going for the 100k size, not much/anything about option of going smaller.
US Navy seems very sure that there is a big capability reduction by going smaller particularly in the ability to do simultaneous launch & landing ops.
By deck layout Kuznetsov can already do it with 1 short launch run but the 100k model doesn't seem to improve this (while the similar sized 65kish US Kitty Hawks had 1 cat that can do it)

A big question may be if Russia still has access to the Ulyanovsk design? I read Ukraine shipped several truck loads of blueprints to China who are using it for their CV program.
On the other hand Ulyanovsk design doesn't have the advantage of a couple of decades operational experience with Kuznetsov that VMF now has, so an optimised/reworked/somewhat bigger version of Kuznetsov may be a preferable option.
I wonder if Vikramaditya is known to have fixed some issues?

Thats really interesting, how certain of that are you?

Ummm... it is not rocket science... the Su-33 is basically a Su-27 with a few minor upgrades including the ability to carry the Kh-31 in the anti ship role.

Otherwise the main armament is R-27E air to air missiles and R-73 air to air missiles... or up to a 500kg bomb.

Normal max weapon load is all AAMs and the Su-33 has no capacity to carry external fuel tanks... so of course it is going to be able to take off from a 250m runway with a skijump at the end... it can take off with the same load at farnborough without the ski jump and without being on a ship sailing at 20knts into the wind...

I wonder how practical it could be to restart that program? Seems like a pretty big ask though & not really anything else in the wings in the right kind of size to replace it on a new CV.

AFAIK it was not based on any existing aircraft design... so why should it need to be now?

Looking at rough dimensions Su-33 has similar length/payload/range vs the Saab 340 which carries that radar Shocked
That could give significant development/logistic advantages compared to developing an all new plane.

They could probably make a variant of the Su-33 or a drone into an AWACS type, but I suspect if they are going to the trouble of making and EM cat then a proper AWACs aircraft like the Yak-44 but more modern and capable would be worth the money.

A small cheaper AWACS aircraft would be popular on the export market I suspect... I think Iran would buy one and Iraq would probably be interested too... with countries using them mainly as a shore based defence manager type aircraft... India might want a few to fly around their borders at times of tension looking for small low flying threats etc.

US Navy seems very sure that there is a big capability reduction by going smaller particularly in the ability to do simultaneous launch & landing ops.

Simultaneous launch and landing ops are based on the angled deck design and has nothing to do with size. Even the Kuznetsov can have two aircraft sitting on the short runs up the ski jump with a light load while an aircraft can come in to land on the angled deck behind them.

If they really want to be innovative then a cat design with two separate hulls with angled decks on each would allow two aircraft to be recovered at one time and four aircraft launched at one time. When not recovering aircraft you could use two long run takeoff runs and have 6 aircraft getting airborne at one time... that would be important when mounting a raid or responding to an enemy attack...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

eridan wrote:After the Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal, i'd think India would be quite wary of ordering something from someone who's got little experience in building it themselves. Planes? Ok. Subs? Fine. But when it comes to shipbuilding, especially large, specialized vessels, russian know how seems not to be where it should be.

Vikramaditya/gorshkov ordeal?  A little context pls? Given that the Indian-built INS Vikrant will have taken nearly 10 years from laying down the keel (Feb 2009) to her expected service entry (Dec 2018) and will have cost ~$3.8B (original estimate was only $0.5B!!), she is a close match for the Vikramaditya who required 10 years and $2.35B.  Vikramaditya is bigger, faster and carries more aircraft, and after her extensive reconstruction she is essentially a brand new ship.

I'd say that India made the right call.  Buy one carrier, while build one of your own.  If anything, they'll get more bang for their rupee with the Russian offering.

An interesting find  for this discussion - not to mention level of nuclear reactor technology in Russia is on top world level and also unit costs say 2 for India 2 for Russia makes significant unit cost reduction. Guess latest news about leasing SSN Kashalot to India, modernization of SU-30 MKI, selling/off-setting Yak-242 or PAK FG might be a part of bigger deal.




http://flotprom.ru/2016/ТорговляОружием65/

Russia has offered to build India nuclear aircraft carrier project 23000Э "Storm". On this edition of Defense News said a high-ranking source in Indian defense Ministry.

For future nuclear aircraft carriers Russian design selected integral reactor RITM-200, which is designed for nuclear-powered icebreakers of the new generation of project 22220. Its peculiarity is the enrichment level of the fuel uranium-235 lowered to 20% (from 40 - 90% at naval nuclear power plants previous generations). It allows you to export these reactors without violating agreements on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons technologies.

Aircraft carrier project 23000 (code "Storm") so far only exists in the form of layout that Krylov state research center have demonstrated for the first time in 2015. Its concept was developed together with the Nevsky design Bureau.

Displacement of the ship is expected to reach 100 thousand tons, length - up to 330 meters, maximum speed - 30 knots. The carrier is counting on the placement of 80 - 90 aircraft.

At the end of June the information appeared that the technical design of advanced nuclear aircraft carrier "Storm" for the Russian Navy will begin in 2020, and construction would not be completed until 2030-ies.

Very interesting project, I hope they advance with it, and the first unit can be done by 2025.

Surely there is not better use of the Mistral funds for Russia than to impulse the Project 23560 of new Destroyer/Cruiser and the Project 23000E of new Aircraft Carrier, opening completely the production lines of modern ships for the entire range of military ships by 2025.

New large floating dock laid down at Zvezda in Pacific.
http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2101932.html

114 x 14 x 485 meters
Apparently they have orders for 7 'Aframax' tankers/gas carriers & its for that.
...But those are also the kind of dimensions suitable for servicing (or building?) a 100k size carrier

Do u think Russia should build 1-2 aircraft carriers based on Kuznetsov class until they start the project of 23000E??

Like the Chinese do.
https://www.russiadefence.net/t2634p25-future-chinese-aircraft-carriers#176005

George1 wrote:Do u think Russia should build 1-2 aircraft carriers based on Kuznetsov class until they start the project of 23000E??

Like the Chinese do.
https://www.russiadefence.net/t2634p25-future-chinese-aircraft-carriers#176005

They can't just pull what the PRC and PLAN did. First they need to build/convert a shipyard to bring it to the USSR's Nikolayev's standard and that alone will take many years. The Chinese invested a good two decades in their programme to get a second CV on the pipeline (1st indigenous attempt) that's probably bigger than the Kuz itself.