Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Russian shipbuilders to present designs of new aircraft carrier by year end

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said
Share

MOSCOW, May 16. /TASS/. The United Ship-Building Corporation will present several finalized preliminary designs of a new domestic aircraft carrier to the Defense Ministry by the end of this year, a source in the defense sector told TASS on Wednesday.

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said.

"The United Ship-Building Corporation has been instructed to submit its finalized proposals [on the new aircraft carrier] to the Defense Ministry for examination by the end of the year. One of the versions envisage, in particular, building an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 75,000 tonnes," the source said.

If one of the designs is approved, "the ship’s technical designing and the preparation of the design documentation may begin from 2019 and the aircraft carrier may be laid down in 2021-2022 and its construction will last about 10 years, according to preliminary estimates," the source explained.

Russia’s state armament program for 2018-2027 stipulates "initial financing" under the new carrier’s program.

The United Ship-Building Corporation did not comment for TASS on the information provided by the source.

The Russian Navy currently operates the sole medium-size oil-fueled aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser according to the domestic classification). As the Russian Navy stated before, the fleet expects to get a cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a displacement of no less than 70,000 tonnes by late 2030.

The Krylov State Research Center earlier designed and unveiled a preliminary design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic Navy. Project 23000 was named Storm. Its sketch design suggests the aircraft carrier will displace 80,000-90,000 tonnes and feature a combined powerplant (both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine). The carrier’s air group is expected to comprise up to 60 aircraft.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1004641

Militarov wrote:"both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine"

LMFS wrote:

Militarov wrote:"both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine"

Wait, this could actually make sense couldn't it? The nuclear reactor for cruising and the gas turbine for speeding?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL

How reliable? Very reliable most likely.

In reality that is how Arktika-class icebreaker is being powered.

Militarov wrote:
Its called CONAS and its weird solution to say at least. Defeats the purpose imo.

Militarov wrote:
How reliable? Very reliable most likely.

In reality that is how Arktika-class icebreaker is being powered.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
v
Then what makes them design solutions from 70-80 into 2030a? Isnt it easier to make all electrical besides power plant? where's the catch?

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
It takes over a decade for 5000t Gorshkov to get built so 70kt carrier would be well over a century at current pace...

Not really. The superstructure is not hard to build. Systems and implementation of the systems inside the hull are.

If they use same systems as on Gorshkov (radars, communication, battle management system, weapons ...) it could be achieved really quickly. There would be problems however with catapult and new system that are specific to cartiers.

LMFS wrote:
Wouldn't that be rather CONAG? Gas turbines are mentioned

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
v
Then what makes them design solutions from 70-80 into 2030a? Isnt it easier to make all electrical besides power plant? where's the catch?

Dont look at me, i just dont like oil fired boilers on a carrier. If they want conventional... go for gas turbines... if they want nuclear... go damn nuclear dont bring more problems to already complex system.

Having two independent propulsions makes the carrier more survivable.

Militarov wrote:

Dont look at me, i just dont like oil fired boilers on a carrier. If they want conventional... go for gas turbines... if they want nuclear... go damn nuclear dont bring more problems to already complex system.

According to the source, in the case of a positive decision on one of the projects, "the technical design of the ship, the preparation of design documentation can begin in 2019, the aircraft carrier can be laid in 2021-2022, its construction, according to preliminary estimates, will last about 10 years ". The interlocutor added that the state program of armaments for 2018-2027 provides for "initial financing" under the program of a new aircraft carrier. If you translate this into Russian, it means only one thing: there is no money and there will not be, but you are there, in the navy, hold on. That is, if the aircraft carrier in Russia and build, then in 20 years. And then, if oil prices are high.
How and for what money the aircraft carrier will build such a huge displacement, it is not clear. Especially when you consider that Russia does not build large warships today. The admiral seems to  have enough "mosquito fleet". Plans for the construction of large combat units - destroyers of the project "Leader" - are put on hold. No, if for sale abroad - for example, in India - the resources are. But for the destroyers for their fleet, as a rule, no means. Unless it's for small missile ships, it's good that they are even coastal zone, but with "Caliber". That is, they can at least frighten the adversary.
But who did not shout about the fact that Russia is ready to build aircraft carriers. And the deputy prime minister from the defense industry, Dmitry Rogozin (now, of course, already a former), and Senator Colonel Klintsevich (he generally promised to build a half-dozen aircraft-carrying cruisers in a couple of years). But everything ends as always - there are assumptions of sources, there are vague promises of admirals and, of course, readiness of shipbuilders to master budgetary money. If, of course, they will.
Meanwhile, as Izvestia writes If everything remains "as it is now," by 2030 Russia will essentially lose its fleet. "Of the 35-40 corvette / frigate class ships that were supposed to enter the fleet before 2020, at present only eight units have been transferred to the customer, and by the end of 2020 there will be a maximum of 14, the newspaper writes. Plans for the renewal of the amphibious forces of the fleet have been completely foiled - out of the six planned BDC project 11711 the fleet has not yet received a single one and the maximum will receive two units, and the construction of domestic universal landing crafts instead of Mistral those not received in connection with the Ukrainian  crisis has been postponed to the new program. At the same time, given the load carried by the remaining Soviet-built ships within the Syrian Express, this failure is fraught with a rapid reduction in the already small landing capabilities of the fleet in the coming years."
But if the country is not capable of building even large amphibious ships, what kind of aircraft carriers can we talk about?
http://www.ng.ru/columnist/2018-05-16/100_aviabo1605.html

Isos wrote:

In reality almost nothing from Gorshkov is useful for a carrier

UKSK will be used, redut too probably, so the radars from gorshkov could work for a carrier. Sigma management system and the computers associated are meant to be used on all new ships. Communication should work too with maybe more sattelite connexion because it is a carrier. That's already a lot of systems in common.

LMFS wrote:

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL      

Man, if they use a 80.000 ton carrier to launch that crap it would be too much for me

BTW, nobody commented on my suggestion in this thread to create a "take-off assistant" UAV to operate full-loaded conventional planes from a smaller carrier, so please answer sincerely, was it that dumb??

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
BTW do you see how much V gen MiG with canards is similar to Yak VSTOL?  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
No, not at all, but why not in this thread?