Wraith601

Nuclear power is good for large supercarriers like the Nimitz, not smaller medium sized vessels like the de Gaulle. Of course the ship became a debacle thanks in large part to France's lack of expertise in building nuclear powered surface ships.

__________________
"We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be, detested in France."
-Sir Arthur Wellesley

Feanor

Main point in case, there will probably not be any russian aircraft carriers built for a long long time. I mean seriously if our obsolete tanks are being replaced at the rate of one battallion a year . . . .

-{SpoonmaN}-

Indeed, but you have to prioritize based on the situation as it stands. Right now you're dealing with multiple low to mid intensity insurgencies, just came out of a high-intensity one and may face another any day. Aircraft carriers are not needed to deal with such a threat. Russian Armour is probably good enough and can be upgraded to deflect IEDs and RPGs exactly the same as American Armour. You don't need a massive fleet of inter-continental bombers and 5th Generation stealth fighters to deal with three guys with some sniper rifles hiding outside a Police station. So it's all about getting the individual training, conditions and equipment up to scratch. That means proper uniforms, decent pay, body armour, adequate training that isn't based on brutalizing new conscripts for a laugh, and better conditions. The subs are important because they are Russia's primary deterrent Terror Weapon, and because they are excessively dangerous to their crews, and indeed to National Security, unless the ones in service are brought up to scratch and kept that way until they can be replaced. Then there's the whole "old planes crash" thing which means aviation will need to be overhauled.
This can, and will be done. The Russian leadership is not stupid, they just have to wait until they have the resources.

__________________
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."

Stan187

Indeed, but carriers cost a lot of money, comparatively.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

wabpilot

Given de Gaulle's size, nuclear power was the most sensible choice. Conventional power would have taken up too much space and increased the crew load.

BenRoethig

Unfortunately they screwed it up by using sub reactors with around half the power needed for a ship its size.

__________________
F/A-18E/F Super Hornet: The Honda Accord of fighters.

wabpilot

No question about that. But, we made a similar choice with Enterprise. All that saved her was we had space to mount eight Westinghouse PWR A2W reactors. They take up roughly the same space as the boilers do in Saratoga. Thus, Enterprise does not realize all the benefits of nuclear power that subsequent designs have. The French have remedied some of CdG's problems by replacing the props with more efficient ones built in the US. This has lessened the propulsion load enough so that they can divert enough steam to the catapults for gross weight launches in most wind conditions.

IDonT

The old Soviet carriers of the Kiev class are used as heavy cruisers than actual carriers. The airwing itself plays a secondary and support role to its main batteries of heavy long range anti-ship missiles. The airwing provides additional and extended air and subsurface defence that compliments the large defensive armaments of the Kiev.

The Kuznetsov class carriers are the ultimate culmination of these design. This "aircraft carrying heavy missile cruiser" uses the SU-33 as the another layer of defence against air attack along with concentric SAM missile defence. The classification itself is a dead giveaway as to how the ship was meant to be used. In the Soviet fleet, the airwing is SECONDARY. The main armament are the long range anti-ship batteries. In this regard, the Kirov, Kiev and Kuznetsov are the direct descendant of the battleship mentality.

Without its airwing, the Kuznetsov is still one of the most powerful warships afloat with 16 Shipwreck missiles and a large SAM batteries. The Nimitz, carrier in a pure sense, is useless without its airwing. There is a difference between an actual carrier than a cruiser that carries aircraft.

Feanor

Actually that's exactly right. Soviet anti-ship missiles were always a strong point in the otherwise average Soviet Navy.

Levsha

I think it's on the Soviet 'Kirov' class large missile cruiser which employs a combined nuclear and oil fired system. The nuclear reactors were only powerful enough to maintain normal cruising speed (20kts?). Once the warship entered into a combat situation full speed was brought about by lighting up the oil burners to create more steam.

I suppose if you've got an aircraft carrier whose little "Horoshimas" can't produce the neccessary power you could always try augumenting them with a gas turbine for high speed bursts.
Should be compact enough - and there should be no short supply of jet fuel either...