Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

The trimaran for the USN:
http://www.mspfound.com/news/independance-litoral-ships.php

Russia to Go Ahead With Lavina Amphibious Assault Ship Project, Preliminary Design Completed - TASS
POSTED ON THURSDAY, 10 DECEMBER 2015
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/year-2015-news/december-2015-navy-naval-forces-defense-industry-technology-maritime-security-global-news/3335-russia-to-go-ahead-with-lavina-amphibious-assault-ship-project-preliminary-design-completed.html

Rolling won't be that great during flight ops as waves move before the wind, but the CVN is moving against the wind & oncoming waves at zero angle. I've been on the monohull CV in the Pacific; when it hit big waves head on, there was just some 2 sec. shudder.
How many more models of redesigned CVNs will be produced before the real construction starts?! The problem is that they want to have a multi-role CVN combining several ships into 1, just like they did with initial Soviet assault ship Project 1178 Kherson:  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_1178

The character and purpose of the vessel changed during development. The original purpose of the vessel was only amphibious operation. UDC had to have a solid deck, allowing to use both helicopters and Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing aircraft. The General staff proposed to turn the 11780 ships project into universal aircraft-carrying ships, equipped with hull penetrations [a/c lifts] and catapults like other aircraft carriers. ..At the request of the Minister of defence of SOVIET UNION Marshal Ustinov the project 11780 tasks have been added for peacetime tracking of enemy submarines in the oceanic zone. Ultimately, all these changes led to the project 11780 never being laid down. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/11780.htm

Again, the Soviet centrally planned economy couldn't do it all. Another problem is that the Russians talk too much (we have 1 who does it here too & is using google to translate), compared with Asians who don't see any value in idle talk.
Russia could open more special economic zones in the FE for South Korea & Japan investments but she is technically still at war with Japan w/o a formal peace treaty. It's a catch 22! The 300M+ Chinese (2x the RF entire population) in the NE PRC r viewed as a potential long term threat in Moscow. http://www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/02-03-2018/140242-putin_missiles-0/
Of all the past invasions of Russia, only 1 from Central Asia succeed.
In fact, thanks to the Mongol-Tartar 300 year domination, Moscow, "the 3rd Rome", became its capital! Now less talkative Chinese r building 2 CVs simultaneously & will soon start their 1st CVN.

PapaDragon wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:....
Hell, they don't need some 100k ton carrier, something smaller in 60-70k range that is less expensive and can be produced in reasonable quantities(3+), it's not like they need the whole package of fighter, AWACS, ASW aircraft, just maybe entirely drones(navalized Hunter-B or such) with a few naval Su-57s sprinkled in.

Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

Situation you describe is called post-industrial neo-colonial warfare and yes small carriers would be very useful (30-50k would be my estimate)

And yes making it a combination of LHD and carrier is a way to go, saves time, money and serves actual purpose 90% of time with troop/cargo and anti-sub functionality

Basically Avalanche-class with some tweaks

But good luck explaining that to local "experts"

Yes, something like the Wasp-class would be ideal for Russia, however with more modularity in the design, so you can go full aircraft carrier or amphibious assault ship, with an appropriate amount of UKSK.

Only difference I would have is that electromagnetic catapult system be installed on it. And perhaps with a nuclear reactor in order to not have to carry around fuel for the ship itself which takes up volume/mass.

It's simply impossible, there is no chance on earth to design an hull at around 40.000 tons displacement able to perform any meaningful aircraft carrier mission and to be convertible to amphibious role.

Amphibious assault's facilities are fixed ones: there is nothing modular in a flooding dock, to name just one.

And the same applies to fixed wing aircrafts' supporting infrastructure: there is no modularity in a Ski jump, a blast deflector or some thousands cubic meters of jet fuel tanks with related fire suppression devices and armored fuel lines.

Peŕrier wrote:Mixing the roles of an aircraft carrier and an amphibious assault one is counterproductive  at best, impossible at worst.

They have been making such ships since 1989. She is called LHD Wasp. version like It costs 1,5 bln usd / ship vs 10 bln bln USD per first two. Or bigger and more expsnsive America class with 3,4 BLNs $ per ship. (10,3blns per first 3ships)

Sometimes ago I posted a link to US Pentagon's document that function of Light carrier was mentioned in reference to such ships.

But first they displace around 70.000 tons full load,

Wasp is 41500 tons and America like 45,000

second they have no flooding dock nor have they any landing craft at all: they are designed to be compatible with vertical assault large scale operations, up to the point to be able to operate the CH-47, but in doing so they would leave back most of its fixed wing aircrafts

This sounds more mixed role not "

Still, the main and foremost mission behind their project is pure fixed wing aircrafts' operations, with everything from the flight bridge down to the deepest fuel tank or weapons depot designed to maximize high tempo fixed wing aircrafts' operations efficiency.

This is in US Navy called "Sea control " role Assault role there are no fixed wing aircradt carried.

But it will have to be a purpose built air superiority aircraft carrier, designed to maximize the air cover it could provide and maintain,

+
to fight successfully to get local air superiority in order to create a safety bubble where enemy could not exercise its air power

To fight with whom? US CVSGs? no. With high technological enemy? no. Putin yesterday confirmed the Midway style battles is the past.
You have either airborne hipersonic missiles with nuclear warheads and 2000km range or nuclear-powered cruise missiles, or nuclear powered drones with different kind of warheads.


Colonial wars like Syria? well what wa precisely number of fighters in Syria? 8? all fixed wing ? 20? Isnt it exactly what LHD Wasp represents? with 15% of costs? or bigger and moreexpensive America class for 33% price?

I dont be nagging you about price of airwing PAK FA based. Not to mention that PAK FA surface is like 1,5 F-35. so Where you can fit 70 F-35 you can only 35 PAK-Fas... Fors is 110 000 tons alreqdy. So Rusia's one hs to bi like 150,000. Iam sure MoF will kindly explain that those 12 blns can be invested in education of economy instead of shiny ships without practical meaning

PapaDragon wrote:

x_54_u43 wrote:....
Give it a well deck for carrying naval infantry and their vehicles and you'll have a aircraft carrier + amphibious assault ship. Call it universal force projection vessel, powerpoint makers will have a field day.

Situation you describe is called post-industrial neo-colonial warfare and yes small carriers would be very useful (30-50k would be my estimate)

And yes making it a combination of LHD and carrier is a way to go, saves time, money and serves actual purpose 90% of time with troop/cargo and anti-sub functionality

Regardles what not only e say here but admirals say Siulianov says yes or (more likely when sees the bill) cyka blyat idi nahui

BTW for US amphibious assault carrier America they said with 40$ per barrel or moar nuclear power should be chosen as more economical.

Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

Wasp as any other LHD in history has never been an aircraft carrier nor has never had the slightest chance to perform any aircraft carrier like mission.

The USA tried with the America to get something close to a modern day escort carrier getting rid of the flooding dock and giving away any amphibious capability, crashed their faces against reality of comcept's failure and reversed the project from the third hull reinstating the flooding dock and practically eliminating most of the fixed wing aircrafts support infrastructure, i.e. giving away the escort carrier concept.

GarryB wrote: It is OK... the Russian Navy aren't fools.... they have made bigger carriers and they have made smaller carriers (Kuznetsov and Kiev respectively) and they clearly want the bigger carriers.

A carrier group is going to be expensive to operate whether it has big carriers at its core or one or two smaller carriers... neither option is going to be cheap, but the bigger carrier is going to be more effective and useful.

Against what precisely? Syrian jihadists? or Somalian Pirates. Against US CVSGs wont be used regardless small or large. Its core can be only one carrier as its tasks is not to fight other carriers or technological advanced adversary.

There is clearly no convincing you that you are wrong...

No one knows who will be right in this regard...
It just depends whose lobby win... but the fact is that if they have to develop a catapult system to get AWACS platforms airborne then it makes little sense to waste time and money on VSTOL... having a cat means even the heaviest fixed wing fighter can get airborne at full load safely.

Most of their fighters will be operating at no where near max weight as they will be armed for Air to air...

Lets agree on this point. ut there is one more factor. Siulianov as  Gandalf stopping firefly CV: you shall not pass

Having two large carriers wont be that much more expensive than having 4-6 mini carriers, and the carrier groups will cost the same, so having 3-4 carrier groups worth of support ships and support infrastructure will make the smaller carriers more expensive than the bigger carriers, while at the same time rather less capable.

You need uber-fords only in one case=  full conventional war. Which never happens for Russia.

Who is talking about Ford class ships?

Didnt you read 90 airships both fixed and rotary. Where Ford (110,000tons) has 70 and F-35 surfece is like 2/3 of Su-57.  This  either Russian one is 150,000 behemot or will have like 30 fighters...

And no. 2 large CVs (10bns each) + 2-3 LHDs (2 blns USD each) is not cheaper then 2-3  amphibious assault carrier as they call America class  LHD. so you have 16blns vs 7 blns.

Why shouldn't their new carrier have 4-10 times the number of aircraft?

cost vs mission demands?

You need power projection? fine, 4 Su-35s and 4 Su-30SM in Syria. Third year there were not more than 8 fighters,  And they have done their job havent  they?  If 70 fighters would be needed why they were not sent there?

It is a bit expensive using cruise missiles to hit every target... if you are using carrier aircraft it is because it is too far away for aircraft to operate from Russia... which means not just fighters but also AEW and AWACS and light strike and also surveillance would be needed... if not from land then from sea.

Obviously a lot of the observation and light strike could be drones operated from the carrier... but you need a lot of space for extra stuff like that.
The other change from the cold war (other than in raw fire power) is that the new vessels are multi role and that would include the carrier...

again agreed but as for number of all air wing in Syria how many was in peak times? 24? 28? so 20-24 airwing is just fine for such kinds of was as it was proven by example. Dont you think that Russian could send more planes then they actually did? They didnt do it for a reason. Cost effectiveness.

When you go to the Chemist do you buy extra small condoms because they are cheaper and you can fit more in your pocket, or do you buy the super large condom because you like it nice and tight around your dick?

They say size doesnt matter      

Little ones break on big dicks... and you don't get your money back.

but you already agreed that there is not gonna be any dock to dick combat

I believe drones will do the job. In order to have good look on the horizon you need altitude. There are such drones in testing. V/STOL

The vertical landing component means they will be weight limited... there is a reason the Boeing Century is based on a very very large aircraft... even the Ka-31 is a 12 ton helo... not really a light weight. With 12 tons drone you can have bigger, payload range and ceiling than Ka-31 . And Sentry is no shipborne  like A-100

Persistence, and it is for war... but like previous wars not including WWI or WWII... it is a way of showing smaller countries that in a local event that Russia can turn up and help and no other power could impose and enforce a blockade.
It is a sabre rattling thing... but not to bully little countries... to protect them from bullies.
And no, I am not talking about becoming the world police part two... it will only be for trading allies that the US is trying to bully to stop being trading partners.

4 Su-30SM were enough to keep US from bombing Assad. Example proved you need little because adversary knows after shooting Russian fighter hell gets loose.

That's a good one, for 80's 90's but now surely they didnt think abut it having multi-sensor data fusion and cameras with image recognition  :-)

Smoke and DIRCMS will deal with cameras... and IR flares will give it volume in the IR spectrum...

sure it will be not foreseen :)bT is so why US Navy is afraid of Russian missiles?

Sure and people are prepared for everything right? AFAIK They build solutions on Boyd's loop principle. Strategies are trained off line or in batches and operational parameters adjusted in real time.

The problem is shown with opposing forces training... ?
Garbage in Garbage out.

When they built Google Brain couple of years ago there were also civilian technologies when AI was trained by other AI agent. You dont need to know everything about Russian style of fighting. Algorithms will check millions trials for best strategies. So far in any fight between man and computer in any game computer wins.

Almost 400 ordered F-35Bs also doesn't confirm your thesis.

These orders are politically motivated... which alternative option did they have to replace Harriers on carriers too small for fixed wing fighters?

not really convincing, they didnt have to replace harriers. They wanted V/STOL because of its value in naval conditions.

[/quote]

Peŕrier wrote:Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

Yes you probably are right US Navy is trolling! and your source may I kindly ask? Otherwise your statements are only shoving emotional imbalance instead of putting forward your reasons.


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

 "The largest of[/b] all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck."

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=148

At the most basic level, an amphibious force consists of a Navy element � a group of ships known as an amphibious task force (ATF) � and a landing force (LF) of U.S. Marines (and occasionally, U.S. Army troops), in total about 5,000 people. Together, these elements � and supporting units � are trained, organized, and equipped to perform amphibious operations. The Amphibious Ready Group consists of:

An Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA or LHD) � Primary landing ships, resembling small aircraft carriers, designed to put troops on hostile shores. In a secondary role, using AV-8B Harrier aircraft and anti-submarine warfare helicopters, these ships perform sea control and limited power projection missions.

Trolls' exact address. Fele free to send them that you are in phase after anger and starting denial
Point Of Contact
Office of Corporate Communication (SEA 00D)
Naval Sea Systems Command
Washington, D.C. 20376


http://www.military-today.com/navy/america_class.htm[/quote]

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Didnt you read 90 airships both fixed and rotary. Where Ford (110,000tons) has 70 and F-35 surfece is like 2/3 of Su-57.  This  either Russian one is 150,000 behemot or will have like 30 fighters...

And no. 2 large CVs (10bns each) + 2-3 LHDs (2 blns USD each) is not cheaper then 2-3  amphibious assault carrier as they call America class  LHD. so you have 16blns vs 7 blns.

So you have 2 - 3 Amphibious ships (there is no "amphibious assault carrier" as the failure of the America Class has one more time in history proved) instead of 2 - 3 amphibious ships plus 2 large carrier.

Yes there is a big saving.

The same way as having only a dozen SSKs instead of having a dozen of SSKs plus a dozen of SSNs.

It suffices to give away with capabilities, and savings pop out everywhere.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

Yes you probably are right US Navy is trolling! and your source may I kindly ask? Otherwise your statements are only shoving emotional imbalance instead of putting forward your reasons.


http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4

 "The largest of[/b] all amphibious warfare ships; resembles a small aircraft carrier; capable of Vertical/Short Take-Off and Landing (V/STOL), Short Take-Off Vertical Landing (STOVL), Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) tilt-rotor and Rotary Wing (RW) aircraft operations; contains a well deck to support use of Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) and other watercraft (with exception of the first two LHA(R) class ships, LHA 6 and LHA 7, which have no well deck). LHA 8 will feature a well deck."

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=148

At the most basic level, an amphibious force consists of a Navy element � a group of ships known as an amphibious task force (ATF) � and a landing force (LF) of U.S. Marines (and occasionally, U.S. Army troops), in total about 5,000 people. Together, these elements � and supporting units � are trained, organized, and equipped to perform amphibious operations. The Amphibious Ready Group consists of:

An Amphibious Assault Ship (LHA or LHD) � Primary landing ships, resembling small aircraft carriers, designed to put troops on hostile shores. In a secondary role, using AV-8B Harrier aircraft and anti-submarine warfare helicopters, these ships perform sea control and limited power projection missions.

Trolls' exact address. Fele free to send them that you are in phase after anger and starting denial
Point Of Contact
Office of Corporate Communication (SEA 00D)
Naval Sea Systems Command
Washington, D.C. 20376


http://www.military-today.com/navy/america_class.htm

[/quote]

Thanks you gave yourself the sources.

From LHA-8 onwards, America Class will cut down stores and facilities supporting fixed wing operations to make room for a flooding dock and landing crafts, vehicles and troops. It is so because experience with America showed it was anyway unable to sustain a meaningful rate of sorties of its embarked aircrafts and at the same time had a real hard time trying to get ashore the troops only by helicopters, the more so because any single take off of a fixed wing aircraft require to stop any helicopter operation for minutes.

In short words, America proved to be a failed concept and they reversed as soon as possible to switch the following hulls to the classical LHD, with a marginal fixed wing aircraft capability aimed only to provide CAS to the troops ashore, nothing more.

As their parlance explains it clearly, an Amphibious Assault Ship resemble only an aircraft carrier, but it is not.

And yes, against somebody like the Talibans, an Amphibious Assault Ship could even exercise limited power projection: after 11/9 even the puny italian light carrier Garibaldi, displacing around 13.000 tons and able to operate six Harriers, maybe eight at most, was sent by Italy in the Indian Ocean to drop some bombs upon the Talibans and perform some reconnaissance sortie through its terrific air wing.

By the way, Garibaldi has been designed as a pure STOVL aircraft carrier, otherwise with amphibious facilities added within the hull, its air wing would have dropped to two or three aircrafts.

Peŕrier wrote:Stop trolling, it's simply useless using such nonsense and false statements.

Wasp as any other LHD in history has never been an aircraft carrier nor has never had the slightest chance to perform any aircraft carrier like mission.

The USA tried with the America to get something close to a modern day escort carrier getting rid of the flooding dock and giving away any amphibious capability, crashed their faces against reality of comcept's failure and reversed the project from the third hull reinstating the flooding dock and practically eliminating most of the fixed wing aircrafts support infrastructure, i.e. giving away the escort carrier concept.

Any mission of any future Russian aircraft carrier will involve precisely what you see in Syria today: bombing cavemen into oblivion.

Anything bigger than cavemen will involve flyboys with those big fancy missiles and some light warships also with those aforementioned missiles.

Days of Midway-style naval air war are long over.

Wasp-class is more than plenty. Stuff a reactor on something like that and build a bundle of them. Cavemen bombing remains an option while they spend 90% of their service life hauling materiel and looking for subs (just like rest of Russian Navy for past 80 years and counting)

False, there is no point in such approach because the only meaningful missions for russian carriers would be to provide air cover and local air superiority to the surface fleet in defending russian territory, and exercising deterrence in support of allied nations far from russian territory.

Bombing "cavemen" does not exist as a mission or requisite for any major navy in the world.

The second tier western navies pursuing some surrogate naval air power are doing so just to be able to cooperate with main western navies, to get political paybacks.

Any relevant navy is operating, building, pursuing aircraft carriers trying to get the most in terms of embarked air power for deterrence and if necessary war against peer or near peer (meaning either slightly inferior or superior) opponents.

China is building aircraft carriers, India is building aircraft carriers, United Kingdom is building aircraft carriers, France is since long years looking for the way to build a second and possibly larger aircraft carrier, Italy has switched from a puny 13.000 tons aircraft carrier to a 27.000 tons light carrier, Brazil has resorted to purchase a several decades old aircraft carrier in order to maintain at any costs trained its naval air wing, waiting for the day it will get the funds to build a brand new one.

Japan could in short time opt to build some light aircraft carriers as first step to recover the capability of operating them first time since end of II world war.

Nobody in the world but Spain (maybe) is building LHDs pretending to say they have an aircraft carrier and the related embarked  fixed wing aviation capability.

Calling an LHD a substitute for a carrier is simply a false statement, without any exception.

Peŕrier wrote:...Bombing "cavemen" does not exist as a mission or requisite for any major navy in the world...

And yet with couple of exceptions, that's precisely what they have been doing for past several decades

Also, other than UK ones, all those you mentioned are pretty much same size or smaller than Wasp/America-class

So what mission are talking about here again? (keep in mind, dick waving ain't mission)

False.

It would be the same as saying the US has developed and maintained the B-2 in order to bomb the Talibans.

B-2s actually bombed the Talibans, don't they?

They, meaning any military in the world, will resort to use what is the most useful tool in the arsenal even if confronting shepherds, but they never develop and purchase main weapon systems in order to fight shepherds.

The US made the mistake amidst the growing casualties suffered in Irak and Afghanistan to develop and purchase in the thousands several specialized MRAPs type, only to dismiss the whole of them as soon as they pulled off from major combat operations in both countries.

Strangely enough, no weapon system developed to fight against peer opponents has endured the same fate.

And any balance conscious (sometimes even cash strapped) military in the world is designing its force structure and its equipment in order to fight against likely peer opponents, not to bomb shepherds.

Even the US themselves have realized the concept, just they did after spending some tens billions dollars before getting there.

The requisite to build ships, aircrafts and whatever to bomb "cavemen" does not exist.

And any balance conscious (sometimes even cash strapped) military in the world is designing its force structure and its equipment in order to fight against likely peer opponents

Which, when it comes to Navy, Russia did, first with Zircon and now with all this fresh stuff

Only role left for carrier is to (like I said) haul troops and look for subs with helicopters (cavemen are just expected bonus feature)

First of all... that new missile presented under a MiG-31 flying down Russian airspace and releasing its 2,000km range mach 10 missile over the Crimea is rather interesting... that would reach an ABM site in about 10 minutes... much more practical in terms of time...

Second the 90 aircraft description will likely include all aircraft... including drones and will have nothing like the attack aircraft component that US carriers have... remember these carriers are not about invasions, the are about air defence of the ships they operate with... if they want to blow the crap out of my house here in New Zealand, they can launch one of their new unlimited long range cruise missiles from the Northern Fleet naval base and have it fly around international waters to the south pacific and into my bedroom window... they don't need to send an entire carrier group.

Of course handing me nuclear jet motor technology would not be on their agenda so they might keep those for WWIII, but in any case any of their SSGNs could sail down here completely undetected by anyone and launch a conventional cruise missile from thousands of kms off the coast and just sail away with no risk... wipe off all the made in Russia labels and replace them with made in the US or China...

If, however, my cover is blown and the huge coloured revolution I tried to start fails and they have to evac me out of here, then naval spetsnaz could be used to take me home to Russia, but then if we get a bit of traction and people start supporting me, we could cut off the north island, but we would need military support... not just one bomber, or a few cruise missile attacks... a mobile airfield and a few large ships would be ideal... especially if in time for the Warbirds over Wanaka airshow...

At the moment the big draw card is some old F-16s from the US... perhaps a carrier with some MiG-29KRs and Su-33s could steal their fire...

Only role left for carrier is to (like I said) haul troops and look for subs with helicopters (cavemen are just expected bonus feature)

No, the role of a US carrier might be that... the role of a Russian carrier is to carry aircraft to protect the other ships it came with... using a bigger heavier AWACS aircraft in the near future with the new EM cats.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18943/putins-air-launched-hypersonic-weapon-appears-to-be-a-modified-iskander-ballistic-missile    
Russian Naval Aviation – 32 in inventory as of 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan_MiG-31#Operators

I'm sure the Tu-22M3s/160Ms could carry it too!
I like ur analogy, but Australia will get involved in NZ just like the US did in Central/South America & the Caribbean as it's her backyard.
The cavemen/shepherds epitet is wrong. Smaller nations & tribes were, & r being supported, armed & used as proxies by bigger "thugs" in their own squables. Only now it's called "Hybrid Warfare". Chinese "laundrymen" saved NK, Vietnamese "pig/rice farmers" kicked all invaders out, & saved N. Vietnam & took Saigon, & Afghan "shepherds" with foreign fighters kicked the Soviet 40th army out. The Pakistan backed the Talibs until 9/11. The Iraqis stopped Khomeini's army from taking Baghdad. Neither of them did it all by themselves.
But, even if Russia starts building CVNs, I doubt they'll sell more than 1-2 abroad. Who will buy them? Brazil, Egypt, S Africa, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia or re-unified Korea? China & India will build their own, & Turkey won't get any offensive weapons from Russia- they fought 12 wars already! So, good luck!

But, even if Russia starts building CVNs, I doubt they'll sell more than 1-2 abroad. Who will buy them?

Why would Russia sell CVNs?

How many Blackjacks or PAK DAs will they sell?

With experience of building two CVNs they might get a contract from India to help India develop and build their own CVNs... mainly based on the Russian design but altered (and paid for) by the Indians to better suit their wants and needs.

Plus the Australians and Americans would not enjoy fighting in the South Island of New Zealand... it is good guerilla country...

GarryB wrote:

But, even if Russia starts building CVNs, I doubt they'll sell more than 1-2 abroad. Who will buy them?

Why would Russia sell CVNs?

How many Blackjacks or PAK DAs will they sell?

With experience of building two CVNs they might get a contract from India to help India develop and build their own CVNs... mainly based on the Russian design but altered (and paid for) by the Indians to better suit their wants and needs.

Plus the Australians and Americans would not enjoy fighting in the South Island of New Zealand... it is good guerilla country...  

considering india has built it's own CVN russia is in no shape to "Help" them when it comes to carriers it's Russia who needs help.

Considering India has built is own what now?

Please tell me about Indias new CVN... it is not even laid down yet and is not planned to do so until at least 2025... and more likely 2030...

Ohh, it might be on the slipway next to the Lider class they are also building...

India has already asked for British, French, Russian, and American assistance in the development of the new CVN which will be an impressive and ambitious programme if it ever goes ahead...

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20151001031028/http://news.usni.org/2015/07/21/india-asks-international-defense-firms-for-help-with-new-aircraft-carrier-design

At least they aren't as arrogant as you, believing Russia can't make anything any more...

India has a big trade surplus & can afford expensive imports. But they'll try to build their own CVNs with or w/o help from any1. Russia may offer a CV/N "export version" as the site posted earlier said. But, if they don't sell any, their treasury alone shall foot the bill. I won't be surprised if new icebreaker construction take precedence & CVNs r farther delayed, if not cancelled. Atomflot "needs 6 more", & they r to be built on the same shipyards.

Peŕrier wrote:
Any relevant navy is operating, building, pursuing aircraft carriers trying to get the most in terms of embarked air power for deterrence and if necessary war against peer or near peer (meaning either slightly inferior or superior) opponents.

Russian navy is second best in the world and doesn't operate a single carrier right now with Kuznetsov on remont. Different naval strategies emphasize different arnaments and Russia, not having aggresive ambitions nor resources for carriers, stays superior Russian way, focusing on submarines.

Details on aircraft #s in Syria:
http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2018-03-02/1_986_siria.html

Most future crises/conflicts involving Russia won't be hugely dependent on carrier & land based naval aviation, unless she gets colonies/dependencies overseas with big bases & garrisons on them.
http://www.apn.ru/index.php?newsid=37094

China will have even more trade with the most of the same nations as Russia, so any threat to disrupt it will effect her trade too, triggering naval response. Why duplicate an effort & over$pend? As mentioned, RF fleets r widely separated & 2-3 CVNs r needed in both NF & PF as they may not have time to reinforce each other to plug any gaps. Recall the Baltic Fleet Tsushima disaster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima#Departure_of_the_Second_Pacific_Squadron

GarryB wrote:Considering India has built is own what now?

Please tell me about Indias new CVN... it is not even laid down yet and is not planned to do so until at least 2025... and more likely 2030...

Ohh, it might be on the slipway next to the Lider class they are also building...  

India has already asked for British, French, Russian, and American assistance in the development of the new CVN which will be an impressive and ambitious programme if it ever goes ahead...

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20151001031028/http://news.usni.org/2015/07/21/india-asks-international-defense-firms-for-help-with-new-aircraft-carrier-design

At least they aren't as arrogant as you, believing Russia can't make anything any more...

not laid down until 2025.....

So has whacking it to russia so much deluded your memory or something?

Geez.....I wonder what that Vikrant-class carrier is. Must be a giant toy made outta plastic.

Oh again you ignorant child, not saying Russia cannot make anything just that it will take them a god-awful long time to make such things.

Fanboys I swear annoying no matter which side they are on.