Quote:
Originally Posted by TopHatter
Whatever happened to economy of scale? Why build something as hideously expensive as a nuclear-powered carrier but then give it a complement of 30 aircraft? That's 30 airframes, fixed-wing and helos.
To quote Marshal Andrei Antonovich Grechko from the link that ArmchairGeneral provided: "Why are you splitting hairs here? Make an aircraft carrier like the Americans have, with that kind of aircraft fleet."
I'm sure you're right about that.
But that begs the question: Why build a power-projection platform in the first place? Do they have rubles coming out of their ears and no place to spend them?
Where do they intend on taking this thing? To conquer Seychelles?
Questions, questions, questions! I need answers, answers, answers!  |
Good points, and I don't have any answers. Although I have a feeling it might be capable of carrying many more aircraft if they wanted. US carriers used to carry nearly 100 planes each, using deck parks. Now they're down to about 65. I expect the French could use deck parks to increase their capacity, and the Russians probably could too.
It is certainly strange, from a practical position, for Russia to build a nuke carrier. But from a PR POV, it makes a bit more sense. Maintain Russia's position as major power and all that. As for her practical use, maybe just a successor to the
Kuznetsov as a fleet air defense ship. As mentioned before, she has little power projection capability, due to the lack of catapults.
Hm. Looked up the
Kuznetsov. Officially she carries 41 planes. It certainly would be odd to make a nuke with a smaller wing than their present carrier. Who knows?