Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

Good info eehnie, thanks!

I would say nothing looks very extravagant in the planes outlined in your post above. There are some points that could allow for surprises (multi-role carrier can be interpreted in many ways for instance) but in general they will broadly replicate (in the scale they can afford at a given time) what USN does and for roughly the same reasons. Russia does explicitly aspire to being a naval power, so better forget about purely defensive roles. This is very nice but it is better not to forget that Russia see itself as entitled as any other nation to defend their interests abroad. Better get used to it, we talk about a country striving for national development and not about an ONG.

for all dreamers about 11 CSGs and naval power - a cold shower of reality:       Russia should protect and project power. Sure when will be money why not. Menwhile in Russia:

All what RuNavy is going to receive is ₽2,6 trln for 10 years. ₽2,6trln  < $40 blns,  


1 Shtorm class ~ ₽350-₽400 bln CSG? 2x? 700 blns?  2 CSGs ~  ₽1,4 trln ? ~  54% of budget?    

I cannot see it happening and do you?      

The Russian naval forces (Navy) were deprived of the GPV-2027. In the HPV-2020, they were allocated 4.7 trillion. rubles, which the Navy could not master completely due to a combination of problems in the Russian shipbuilding industry, as well as the influence of Western and Ukrainian sanctions. As a result, the GPV-2027 is expected to reduce funding for the Navy to 2.6 trillion. rub. Despite the existence of ambitious plans that are discussed in documents such as the recently approved Naval Doctrine, in naval shipbuilding Russia plans to focus on the construction of submarines and small ships.

https://echo.msk.ru/blog/ponarseurasia/2139964-echo/

GunshipDemocracy wrote:for all dreamers about 11 CSGs

Who's that? Stop inventing false discussions, nobody is saying such thing.

Obs. 1:
do you have a confirmation of the RuN slice of the budget, beyond "estimations"? It was 4.7 trillion. IIRC in GPV2020. Your source says 3.8 trillion until 2027.

Obs. 2:
would be nice if you also stop inventing the price of the carriers, additionally to navy's budget. Between 100 and 250 bln. Rubles would be the price of a Russian carrier according to Vlasov. So take they go for a light version of say 130 bln, adjust it to 190 due to inflation if you want, two of them would be 10% of the budget your source states over ten years. And then RuN would have three capable carriers considering the modernised K. Now consider what would happen if they only build one at a time. Burden would be almost negligible.

The very article you quote as source of your info (very good BTW) is saying building two Shtorms at the same time would be quite acceptable (20% of budget)... even taking a higher cost for the carrier than what Vlasov stated. So you cherry pick data and slash or double what you want... that is not serious man.

Budget is there, doctrine too, and shipbuilding capability in the making. Outlined plans can be delayed as they always are, but they would mean to have a design in next years (early 20's), build a carrier until early 30's and then make some units more until 2050. All planed in the long term and at a pace that can be afforded.

The "Harvard" level maths of GunshipDemocracy resist not a minimum contrast with the reality.

350 billions of Rubles is less than a 2% of the total budget of the State Armament Program 2018-2027.

Unfortunately for him this is perfectly affordable for Russia, and he will see the first unit of the new Russian aircraft carrier produced under this program.

eehnie wrote:The "Harvard" level maths of GunshipDemocracy resist not a minimum contrast with the reality.

350 billions of Rubles is less than a 2% of the total budget of the State Armament Program 2018-2027.

Unfortunately for him this is perfectly affordable for Russia, and he will see the first unit of the new Russian aircraft carrier produced under this program.

You have a thread only for you where you can use all the colors you want. So be a nice kid and go play there

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote: Build the Carriers, complain about economics all you like, it's all a BS excuse. [
+++
cute guesstimates, a pity we don't know anything about the Carriers price.

You unlikely to learn for next 12 years of so as no serious work on those start      
There are many estimates. all are about $5,3bln for CVN Shtorm class only not for the whole CSG      


Shtorm=350bln rub
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A8%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BC_(%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%82_%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B0)


in pprices from 2014 it was estimated 100-250bln rubles) but then ruble was like 1$ =33  rub
https://ria.ru/interview/20140203/992456922.html

here is corrected estimate by inflation coefficient -340-400blns Rub
https://vz.ru/society/2018/3/23/913289.html

No clue what your talking about in this second part.

CSG =Carrier Strike Group

885M Kazan - Russian SSGN built with attacking CSGs in mind.

One Shtorm = 10 885Ms

Semantic garbage, the strategic realities are clear, if Russia wants to expand it's influence they need Carriers, there is no 2 ways around this.
Supposed cost estimates be damned.

You have a thread only for you where you can use all the colors you want. So be a nice kid and go play there

Sometimes people wont read properly what is being said or interpret it their own way, so I can understand emphasising words to try to better make them clear... I do it myself when imparting important Mod information.

It can be annoying when some choose to ignore what is posted for whatever reason...

AlfaT8 wrote: the strategic realities are clear, if Russia wants to expand it's influence they need Carriers, there is no 2 ways around this.
Supposed cost estimates be damned.

Sure but not before 2030-40s. If there is enough money. You dont seem to understand it. I dot mind as this is your , not Russian Navy, problem

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Sure but not before 2030-40s. If there is enough money. You dont seem to understand it. I dot mind as this is your , not Russian Navy, problem

We'll find out after 2020, priorities are on Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Subs along with LHDs, at the end of the day no matter what Russia does if it wants to play big it needs to go big.

And no amount of VTOLs and LHDs is gonna change that.

Some pearls out of Gunship's link:

https://vz.ru/society/2018/3/23/913289.html

Who can guarantee that the Americans and their NATO partners once again bypassing the UN security Council does not decide to liberate from the yoke of "totalitarian regime" any state of the third world, with whom we have close partnerships? Wouldn't it be better instead of notes Ministry of foreign Affairs to send to the shores of this state our next CAG and prevent armed intervention, as it was during the Indo-Pakistani war 1971 (with the difference that there was no CAG and GAC)?

Many more examples provided of situations where a carrier makes sense, not reproduced due to their extension

Maloestetichny (dwuhosnovny) giant concept design, Krylov state research centre, well known on numerous exhibitions and publications media index 23000 and code "Storm" should not be taken seriously. First, because of its wide popularity (development, endorsed by the military, would be held in the strictest confidence), and secondly, to the conceptual (KGNZ – not a design company to develop the project of an aircraft carrier in Russia can only Nevskoe PKB).

Nevertheless, Krylov seems willing to challenge that. IMHO their last proposal should be considered, it would be a real breakthrough in terms of capacity for a given displacement and specially considering the scarce hangar space of the K and Artic operation requirements.

As for the air group (overseas – wing), we are clearly "planted" on the deck of the su-57. Given the disastrous, as they say the provisions of the Park "Super Hornet", plans for their upgrade and partial replacement for the F-35C and full – on new-generation F/A-XX (not earlier than the turn of 2020-2030-ies), we have a chance to beat the competition on a curve. Thus acquires a certain meaning misinformation (as I would like to believe) about the planned development of aircraft vertical/short takeoff and landing (dead-end branch of carrier-based aircraft) – that competitors have been slow with the implementation of the program F/A-XX.

Completely agree on the golden opportunity for the RuN that the complacency of USN has created and can be reaped with the Su-57. This is serious anti-Gunship trolling from the author, but let's wait for events before crushing our fellow poster

The design strength of the air group (AG) PR. 11437 was 68-70 aircraft (LA), which approximately corresponded to the conventional norm of 1,000 tons [normal] displacement on one LA. It seems reasonable to leave on the new aircraft carrier the same number of cars as 11437, but to distribute them by analogy with the proven combat experience of the structure of the wing of aircraft carriers type "Nimitz".In this case we would have 4 three-tier (4х12) squadron su-57 (three drums with the function of samoupravleniya and one for long-range air cover KAG), 4 AWACS aircraft, 4 specialized electronic warfare aircraft, and one mixed squadron of helicopters from 12 machines for various purposes. Total 68 LA.

Wow, that air wing would be an overkill but if USN responds (and it will) it may be good to have numbers too.
Would have included more U(C)AVs in the mix but maybe the author didn't want to speculate in that regard.

In the case of military service in the Arctic (Northern sea route), the number of group will be determined by the size of the hangar, which should definitely be bigger than on the "Kuznetsov" (according to various estimates, 32-36 machines from 46-50), for example: 1х12 and 2x8 su-57, 4 AWACS, 2 REB, 8 helicopters, for a total of 42 LA.

Given the fact that the decision on the application on the new destroyers nuclear power plant (NPP) is already taken carrier , without a doubt, will also be atomic. The jump will be necessary, electromagnetic catapults, most likely, too (their development, according to the former Director General of Nevsky design Bureau S. Vlasov, has already begun). Shifted in the feed compact "island", at least three samoletostroenie (on the "Kuznetsov" two). From the weapons, apparently, there will be only SAM and antiaircraft in the middle and the near abroad.

It is clear that we cannot afford the same gigantic Navy, like the United States, which is the basis for the security of the richest countries in the world. Accordingly, 10-12 supereminence with wings, escort ships and infrastructure for us: a) unaffordable, b) redundant.

Thus, to respond quickly to the challenge thrown to us by someone in distant waters, it is necessary to have in a combat fleet of six aircraft carriers (more on this at the time, said Navy commander Admiral Vladimir Masorin).

Theoretically, if well-planned chart of secondary repairs, you can do five aircraft carriers, but one of them will have to wander from one fleet to another. Four of AV (and especially when a smaller number) continuous BS in two far apart areas of the World ocean has not come out, and, if anything, we have to mobilize all our naval forces in an emergency mode as it was with the British during the Falklands war.

Six CVs seem a little optimistic to me and not really necessary but what do I know. Don't understand why rotating ships is so bad, would allow to have permanent presence with three to four carriers

Not quoting the elaboration about shipyards and costs due to extension but recommend to read them carefully:

> Apparently three shipyards in Russia would be in conditions to build carriers
> Costs of even the most expensive proposals are taken as acceptable given available budget

It seems that the leadership of the country achieved a clear understanding of the need to have such an effective tool of foreign policy, as permanent in both hemispheres of the planet of the operational fleet, consisting of naval aircraft carrier and amphibious groups, staffed according to the principle of reasonable sufficiency. All that is required from us in the foreseeable future, not turning and not heading straight to go to the target. It's worth it.

LMFS wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:for all dreamers about 11 CSGs

Who's that? Stop inventing false discussions, nobody is saying such thing.

firs stop inventing those gigantic CGS defending Russia's interests in Patagonia. In 3ww all major ships go down immediately.  For conventional ones there is no real money/effect ratio for large/small CSGs

Obs. 1:do you have a confirmation of the RuN slice of the budget, beyond "estimations"? It was 4.7 trillion. IIRC in GPV2020. Your source says 3.8 trillion until 2027.

Is there publicly available such  conformation? feel free to quote otherwise let us talk abou  Russian estimations
As for sources which one? VZ estimated 3,8 Echo of Moscow  2,6 both links are provided posts. OK Im nice so let it be VZ was right then you have ~$75bln for 10 years  

Meanwhile in Russia  you have to replace most of ships form MRK to frigates. Rebuild most of sub fleet. Not sure if you know that  RuN decided to modernize even old 1155 ships...and not replace 22800 unreliable Chinese diesels.

oops 2:
Between 100 and 250 bln. Rubles would be the price of a Russian carrier according to Vlasov. So take they go for a light version of say 130 bln, adjust it to 190 due to inflation if you want, two of them would be 10% of the budget your source states over ten years. And then RuN would have three capable carriers considering the modernised K. Now consider what would happen if they only build one at a time. Burden would be almost negligible.

The very article you quote as source of your info  is saying building two Shtorms at the same time would be quite acceptable (20% of budget)... even taking a higher cost for the carrier than what Vlasov stated. So you cherry pick data and slash or double what you want... that is not serious man.

it is so funny you are accusing me without providing any data or just reading without understanding the ones I've provided.  

1) Vlasov =Nevskoye Design Bureau in 2014 said  large (250blns when usd 33 Rub = 8,3 blns $ and 100blns 3,3 bln $ for small) and 350 blns is Shtorm according to Krylov (in 2015) . but you checked it right?

2) VZ  "estimates" about what is acceptable or not was done blogger with education as navel engineer not MoD

3) Do you understand a difference between CSG and CVN? CVN has cost but ships to escort too. You're inventing new economy or what?

CSG in US: Carrier+1-2 Ticonderoga, +-2-3 AB destroyers + 1-2 nuclear subs + supply ship.

Russian why not should differ much in composition? if you got sources feel free,
Lider (15ktons cruiser) - 0,25 Zumwalt  (onless you have better  estimates feel free) 67blns rub.

+++

Gorskkhov lead ship costs almost 42blns rub, let assume 30 blns serial ship.

http://sudostroenie.info/novosti/22005.html
++++

replenishment ship - Ivan Gren is close to mid  sized  replenishment ships. Cost 5blns rub in 2012.  Now 10blns?

+++

mini CVN - 200 blns


Now substitute cost for Russian equivalent.
1 885M.......................33 blns,
1x Lider......................67 bln
2x Gorskhov................2x30vbln
replenishment ship.......10bln
+ mini carrier.............200 blns

~370 bln Rub in minimal composition (calculate yourself if 2 yasens + 2 liders + 3 gorskhovs) .

1 CSG with fairly small CVN eats your 10% of budget.  But you said 3 CSGs right? Kuz modernization is 65 blns + 150blns escort.
2x 370 blns + 260 blns = 1trln rub !


Ah you didnt forget about amphibious shhips? how will you transport troops so 1 per CSG. Priboy was 30blns in 2015 bo no easily 40blns,
http://bastion-karpenko.ru/lavina-udk/

+ also couple of Grens .

+120bln

Thus  around 1,1 trillins  we are about 29% of tal naval budget (in cae of 3,8 trlns) or 42% of toal budget (in case of 2,6 trln)  

Congratulations admiral. Now wheres money for fighters, missiles and ships to defend your shores. But yest you can be save aborigines  in umpha umpha islands  from evil natostanis.

Budget is there, doctrine too, and shipbuilding capability in the making. Outlined plans can be delayed as they always are, but they would mean to have a design in next years (early 20's), build a carrier until early 30's and then make some units more until 2050. All planed in the long term and at a pace that can be afforded.

aaaaaaaaaaaaa 2050s then tyou contradict yourself and agree with me. Of course if carriers will not be rendered obsolete then. In 2050  map of the world would look a bit  very  different

and I'm not talking about pacific islands then soon become under water.[/quote]

LMFS wrote:Some pearls out of Gunship's link:

https://vz.ru/society/2018/3/23/913289.html

and the author is a blogger ! well Im sure all RuN admirals and MoD are reading only his blogs and nobody else's .

Congratulations

AlfaT8 wrote:[
We'll find out after 2020, priorities are on Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Subs along with LHDs, at the end of the day no matter what Russia does if it wants to play big it needs to go big.

And no amount of VTOLs and LHDs is gonna change that.

thats why VSTOL is officially started? and not CVN? of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:thats why  VSTOL is officially started? and not CVN? of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards.

It's official started because the MoD want to repeat history, they'll just end up making Gold plated bomb trucks nothing more.

So to you, Russia will never have any intentions to expand it's influence, sure whateve.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:and the author is a blogger ! well Im sure all RuN admirals and MoD are reading only his blogs and nobody else's .

Congratulations

No, they are reading your posts and duly modifying the 2050 naval doctrine. No defending aborigines in umpha umpha or starting WWIII over Patagonia have been duly noted

Regarding your funny numbers, I guess you understand that RuN is not going to be duplicated because of having some carriers right? It is rather the existing fleets that will operate under the air cover of the carrier, not that you need to create an additional fleet to nurse around those big useless flat tops, for no use in your opinion other than hiding from USN. But well, if not that excuse, you will make up another and another and then after some posts come back to the original one as if we all had fish brains.

You see the RuN was not in conditions to use the available budget until now (4.7 trillion) and used like 2.6 instead and then assume automatically they will never be available again even if the economy, projects and building capability are there. Have you left your logic forgotten somewhere?

Not going deep in all incoherencies above, like pretending that dollar exchange matters to internal MoD procurement. But I did check data yes, that is why I saw you were posting info and twisting it to fit your agenda when in reality your source (that poor ignorant Russian naval engineer) was arguing exactly the opposite you are saying.

Why is stating the goals of 2050 strategy contradicting myself???

AlfaT8 wrote:It's official started because the MoD want to repeat history, they'll just end up making Gold plated bomb trucks nothing more.

What truck? We dotn talk about US here. Russians said fighter for Navy. Due to program timing it 's likely to meet FA-XX counterparts.
well you have full right to have your view. Even to think, that MoD made this decision without prior OAK's engineering analysis? It had to be positive enough to officially approve. Especially that Putin has proven to be cool calculating every decision he makes.

Or he just he just likes my posts here soooo much

So to you, Russia will never have any intentions to expand it's influence, sure whateve.

On the contrary, building moderate sized ships Russia can both to build and sustain its "waving flag" abilities.

Look at your view: Uber carrier with small escort away form Russian shores in case of war? fights alone 2-3 USN CSGs or 10 Virginians? with positive result of course


My poit lwasy has been that for all other tasks apart from full midway battles a moderate CVN is more then enough.

[quote="LMFS]Not going deep in all incoherencies above, like pretending that dollar exchange matters to internal MoD procurement. [/quote]

My prices were in Rubles , $ equivalent was for info purposes only.

as if we all had fish brains.

not all not all

But I did check data yes, that is why I saw you were posting info and twisting it to fit your agenda when in reality your source (that poor ignorant Russian naval engineer) was arguing exactly the opposite you are saying.

of course he had right to defend his job and ambitions, regardless on real navy's needs!

BTW please provide examples of twisting. and you provided any so far. Be my guest and prove it with corrected data.


Tell me how many Liders are contracted before 2020? One Lider is 3-5 years to build. Well how many long docks are available to build couple parallel. So far till 2027 Groskhovs-M are being considered. Or perhaps you have you insider data you dont want to provide?

Why is stating the goals of 2050 strategy contradicting myself???

CVNs after 2040 and in 50s? Why not, in 1920s, they thought battleship swill be dominant in 1940s. How many battleship battleship battles were in WW2 ?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:What truck? We dotn talk about US here. Russians said fighter for Navy. Due to program timing it 's likely to meet  FA-XX counterparts.
well you have full right to have your view. Even to think, that MoD made this decision without prior OAK's engineering analysis?  It had to be positive enough to officially approve.  Especially that Putin has proven to be cool calculating every decision he makes.

Or he just he just likes my posts here soooo much      

The OAK can say anything they like, in the end they aren't gonna circumvent the realities of VTOL, i laugh at the "fighter" claim.

On the contrary, building moderate sized ships Russia can both to build and sustain its "waving flag" abilities.

Look at your view:  Uber carrier with small escort away form Russian shores in case of war? fights alone 2-3 USN CSGs or 10 Virginians?  with positive result of course


My poit lwasy has been that for all other tasks apart from full  midway  battles a moderate CVN is more then enough.

So 70kT in now an Uber carrier?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:[
We'll find out after 2020, priorities are on Corvettes, Frigates, Destroyers, Subs along with LHDs, at the end of the day no matter what Russia does if it wants to play big it needs to go big.

And no amount of VTOLs and LHDs is gonna change that.

thats why  VSTOL is officially started? and not CVN? of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards.

In "sunny Magadan".

kumbor wrote:

of course some day in fr far future, when London will be under water and in Siberia you can grow orange orchards.

In "sunny Magadan".

actually amid climate shift in 50 years  that actually might be true

AlfaT8 wrote:
The OAK can say anything they like, in the end they aren't gonna circumvent the realities of VTOL, i laugh at the "fighter" claim.

Perhaps they dont know your definition of righter? let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.      

On the contrary, building moderate sized ships Russia can both to build and sustain its "waving flag" abilities.

Look at your view:  Uber carrier with small escort away form Russian shores in case of war? fights alone 2-3 USN CSGs or 10 Virginians?  with positive result of course

My point always has been that for all other tasks apart from full  midway  battles a moderate CVN is more then enough.

So 70kT in now an Uber carrier?

oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway. Only for Syria or flag waving.

70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

oh so now you say 70ktons is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.

WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

A biplane equipped with a Zircon missile can defeat any current of future US aircraft carrier... so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?

70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only. As it is large so unlikely built in more then 2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs... in your tiny brain all they can do is either copy a QE-2 or a 100K ton American heap of shit... they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

GarryB wrote:

let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.

WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

A biplane equipped with a Zircon missile can defeat any current of future US aircraft carrier... so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?

70ktons like QE2 for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas. Simply because ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs... in your tiny brain all they can do is either copy a QE-2 or a 100K ton American heap of shit... they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

Ships don`t have "SEA LEVEL", ships have WATERLINE.

[quote]

GarryB wrote:

let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.

What are they going to say.... yeah, we can make one but it will be crap compared to a more conventional design...

hurray!  we have already two specialists here better than the whole OAK!!! and VVS decision makers      

oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway.

WTF is it with you an confronting the US?

wait the WTF do you need those big big carriers for?  

so why the need to spend billions making an F-35 failed wannabe clone?
+++
Of course... the Russians are idiots and can only copy western designs..

Wait w which line above is true?        BTW why do you always mumbling about F-35 clone?      

7.. they have already presented a model of a design that is innovative... combines the wide deck capacity of a catamaran, but in a vessel that is not wide at sea level that has almost the capacity of the Kuznetsov in a much lighter design... it is a conventional design.... there is no reason why a slightly scaled up nuclear powered model could not be developed to give them greater capacity than the kuznetsov... which they want... in a ship design that could actually be lighter than the Kuznetsov design which would be a good thing too...

Weight is of no value on its own... a really heavy ship with less capacity is worse than a lighter ship with better capacity... but of course a bigger vehicle normally has bigger capacity unless there is a fundamental change in the basic design to allow more efficient use of capacity...

wait, wait  to they are geniuses of shipbuilding but shitty, open mouth breathing morons copying F-35 design to you?

 talking bout size of the brain....

but nice you agree then 24-28 fighters and 40ktons is enough to fulfill  the role      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Perhaps they dont know your definition of righter? let me consider OAK more reliable source of fighter knowledge then you.      

They can claim watever they like, the engineering realities of VTOL will not change.

oh so now you say  70ktons  is ok? with 70 and 30 fighters you wont be able to confront US CSGs anyway. Only for Syria or flag waving.

70ktons like QE2  for VSTOL and troop transport? can be. But still only 36 fighters only.  As it is large so unlikely built in more then  2 pieces. What makes Russia not being able to waive flag in remote areas.  Simply because  ship is 1 in Pacific close to Russia and the second one in Arctic.

No clue who your referring to, i have never stated that it's an Uber carrier.

Whether it be 70 or 90 is irrelevant, so long as you have your own air-support, the enemy will have less of a reason to mess with you.

Good start, then 2 will be 4, then it all depends on how big Russia want's its navy.
So long as they start the construction process.