Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GarryB wrote:

The first part is right, but the communism has nothing to do with it. There are other communist countries having friendly relations with its neighbors that are also interested in commerce and cooperation.

I mentioned the absence of communism to highlight that Russia no longer has an ideology to push... they don't need to convert Taiwan or Turkey any more than they have to convert North Korea or Cuba.  They have no need to convert of change the countries they trade with... unlike the US/West.

GarryB wrote:

You really think Russia would offer to India bigger aircraft carriers than what Russia plans to have?

India was operating Su-30MKIs at a time Russia had Su-27s.

GarryB wrote:

You said some thing about why Russia would need their aircraft carriers. To escort ships and subs, for better sight with AWACS platforms, for better air warning of threats, and by economic reasons. Can you elaborate more about what is threatening these Russian ships and subs to need to be escorted? Can you elaborate more about what can threat a good sea based air warning of threats? Can you elaborate more about what can threat sea based AWACS platforms?

Can we agree that Russian subs and ships need protection from enemy air power? I mean they do carry SAMs for that purpose, but then Russian Army units have SAMs as well but the Russian forces would be better protected with the cooperation of the Air Force as well as the Army.

To have air power to support the navy you need a type of aircraft carrier. You can have big ones, medium ones or small ones. Each has advantages and problems... the big ones are capable but expensive to buy and to operate. The little ones might not be that useful for longer deployments.
My opinion is that the medium ones (ie 40-70K ton) are better than the big ones (100K ton) or the small ones (20K ton).

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

......

What about a smaller carrier around 70+kT, similar to the Kuz?

Kuz is roughly 50kT but something like that would make more sense, especially if it is based on other type of ship like Lider destroyer

So basically Izumo or Wasp class equivalent with nuclear propulsion (20-30kT tops)

However everyone here is obsessed with "100K or nothing" approach

Nobody gives a crap if something like that his even needed

This is precisely why people who do this for a living stay the hell away from forums

Guys, i found the perfect carrier to work from, it's a carrier with a weight of 65 to 75T (max),and it's pretty close to the Kuz design.

hoom wrote:

Guys, i found the perfect carrier to work from, it's a carrier with a weight of 65 to 75T (max),and it's pretty close to the Kuz design.

Problem is supposedly Ukraine sold the full design documentation (literally double digits M^3 of the original blueprints) to China

So I think unless China can be convinced to hand them over/Russian ship design companies have been heavily involved with Chinas' CV program (rumoured to be so) then new CVs will be either heavily based on K or a clean-paper (clean CAD file?) design.

I really like the style of the well known Shtorm concept but I don't see any problem with doing a fixed/modernised K.

AlfaT8 wrote:Also why is the Yasen (Kazan) costing as much as a Nimitz Carrier???

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:You know, i notice we're doing this cost estimate game without the price of the Kuz, so does anyone have the Kuz's cost?

Also why is the Yasen (Kazan) costing as much as a Nimitz Carrier???

Around 4 billion without her aircraft.

4.3 Billion I believe is what that soviet file said.

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.


The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.
The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

GarryB wrote:

But the communism has nothing to do with it. Do you see China trying to convert other countries? It is possible to be communits a try to convert, and it possible to be communit and to to try not. Like it is possible to be anti-communist and try to convert, and it is possible to be anti-communist and to try not.

Communism had everything to do with it... communism was bad because Russia was communist.

Now it is just bad to be Russian.

China was not bad because they were not a threat... even though they are still communist.

Communism is like religion... you are not happy unless everyone believes the same as you do.

Non communist countries don't like to deal with communist countries.

Now that Russia is not communist it has no need to convert those it deals with to its way of thinking...  unlike the west.

GarryB wrote:

This is a mistake difficult to repeat. It was other time.

Of course it was not a mistake... money from india and direct investment in a range of Russian technologies kept several companies viable during a very hard time. The PAK FA would be nothing like it is now without the investment into Sukhoi and other Russian companies like KRET.

GarryB wrote:

According to the Maritime Doctrine of 2015 Russia must have a project of aircraft carrier ready by 2020. At this point the Project 23000 is the alone known project of aircraft carrier, and is proposed with 90000 to 100000 tons. Do you expect to see other project? Based on what? I see nothing to expect a different project. Only comments of people, in many cases with a pro-Western record here, I do not agree with.

Russia has a history of leaking the unlikely project... the one that probably wont go ahead in the hopes a foreign customer might save it. A good example of this was the Mi-28 which was revealed 5-6 years before the Ka-50 was seen in public because the Ka-50 had won the contract for Army Aviation helo to replace the Hind. OF course later requirements that added night and all weather capability meant a rematch and adoption of both the Mi-28N and Ka-52, but that is beside the point.

The best designs for a new carrier will not be revealed any time soon.

Experience from the campaign in Syria will be included but information about what they want to be able to do along with what they need to be able to do will be used to decide what they need... having a project ready by 2020 does not mean ship in the water by 2020... it means basic design finalised by 2020. There wont be anything operational before 2025-2030 at least.

GarryB wrote:

What tools make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems?

Aircraft from Russian carriers will be most useful for extending the radar horizon of the group so threats can be seen earlier. It extends the reach of the group because air launched missiles fired 1,000km closer to the threat area will reach targets much faster and without revealing the location of the carrier or the ships of the group.
It also means aircraft can launch drones to enter airspace of the enemy to look for targets for ship launched cruise missiles to attack and can monitor that attack to determine if a further attack is needed. The drones could be equipped with warheads to further effect the defence systems of the target area if needed.
Equally if the enemy attacks the Russian ships air power offers a fast defence and a fast attack for reactions to enemy actions.

If Russia wants a more active role in the world, then landing food aide to Yemen will require some serious hardware to prevent intervention by third parties. Operating fighter aircraft within a SAM network provided by several ships and an AWACS aircraft is a huge deterrent even to some fairly strong air powers.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.


The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.
The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

NO.

You compare oranges with flute music.


Again, the logic simple:

Akula = Seawolf < Yassen.


3 * Seawolf = 2 * Nimitz.

I think the above calculation is simple and easy to understand by anyone.

So, you can complain about :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $


But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.


If all three point above true , and you still think that the nimitz is not comparable to anything that is not nimitz then I suggest to visit the pokemon.com to discuss more interesting stuff than the reality.

Isos wrote:

NO.

You compare oranges with flute music.


Again, the logic simple:

Akula = Seawolf < Yassen.


3 * Seawolf = 2 * Nimitz.

I think the above calculation is simple and easy to understand by anyone.

So, you can complain about :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $


But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.


If all three point above true , and you still think that the nimitz is not comparable to anything that is not nimitz then I suggest to visit the pokemon.com to discuss more interesting stuff than the reality.

Yassen is expensive because of corruption. The minister of defence at the time expressed concerns about its expensive price.

Akula is 1.6 billion $ while seawolf is 3 billion. Your maths are so stupid.

Nimitz is 4.6 billion $ without aircrafts. You need FIGHTERS on a carrier so you must INCLUDE the price of the planes in the price of the carrier. Lets say you need 40 fighters F-18 and 2 more awacs : 100 million for Super hornet and 200 million$ for E-2 => 4.4 billion $ +4.6 billion $ =9 billion $ PLus you need missiles and bombs for your planes.

1.6 billion $ << 9 billion $

Do you get it now ?