rickusn

Surely a long-term project. It will be interesting to see if and how the program develops.


Interfax: Russia will build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - Navy Command

Russia will build nuclear-powered aircraft carriers - Navy Command

ST.PETERSBURG. June 23 (Interfax-AVN) - Admiral Valdimir Masorin,
the commander of the Russian Navy, believes the Navy should have in its
disposal in the future aircraft carriers, especially nuclear-powered
ones.

"The overall design of the future aircraft carrier is being worked
out, with the active participation of the scientific community and
industry. But it's already obvious that it will be a nuclear-powered
aircraft carrier with a tonnage of around 50,000 tonnes," Masorin told
Interfax-AVN on Saturday.

"Our plans are that the carrier will have around 30 aircraft:
planes and helicopters." "The behemoths the U.S. Navy builds, with up to
100-130 planes and helicopters, we will not build," Masorin said.

He stressed that the only carrier currently in the Russian Navy,
Admiral of the Soviet Navy Nikolai Kuznetsov, will serve at the minimum
up to 2015.

"In fact we project that it will serve for about 30 years
from the date of its commissioning, before 'retiring'." It will be
replaced by the new ship of the project. Masorin said.

md

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

wabpilot

"Our plans are that the carrier will have around 30 aircraft:
planes and helicopters." "The behemoths the U.S. Navy builds, with up to
100-130 planes and helicopters, we will not build," Masorin said. I want a Charlie big nose too!

ArmchairGeneral

This is an interesting paper about Soviet/Russian carrier development.
A Brief Look at Russian Aircraft Carrier Development

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

entropy

The Russian VTOl Yaks, I've heard they are horrible. Is this true?

__________________
If memory serves...

FiRepower

This carrier will be small , i was expecting something better

Levsha

The Yak-38??

The “FORGER” had great difficulty in even getting of the deck when the carrier was sailing in tropical latitudes. Eventually some sort of oxygen boost system was lashed up to help get it’s ass of the ground. Even in the Soviet Union’s own Black Sea there were problems making a take-off in the Summer months! In any case the Yak-38 had a very poor payload/range performance.

The Yak-38 had very poor Avionics – I believe they were derived from the MiG-21.

Every time I read about the FORGER the only item that receives any kind of praise seems to be the automated crew escape system (which was indeed quiet sophisticated), which can hardly be reassuring to the pilot, if you think about it...

Still though, the Yakovlev design bureau should have gained a lot of experience in this type of technology, the Yak-41 was said to be a lot better.

dave angel

well no other bugger wanted them, so i assume they weren't so brilliant as to have every member of WARPAC begging down the 'phone to Moscow for a few hundred.

it appears to have had appalling 'hot n high' - or even just 'hot' - performance, it was tried in A'stan but couldn't fly during the day or carry more that 2 x 100kg bombs. that it has dissapeared from the radar (geddit?) perhaps gives the greatest indication of its performance....

__________________
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

braindead

Here is a good article on Yak VTOL-s : Soviet Jet VTOL: Yak-36, Yak-38, & Yak-41

__________________
....

joey

50000 Tonnes and nuke propulsion is useless IMHO. why the hell to go for nuke propulsion with 50k tonnes displacement only?

__________________
www.techenclave.com
I'm very much gentleman :)

Opteron 146 EPAW (Venus SH-E4)||Asus A8N32 SLI Deluxe (Rev 1.02 & BIOS 1205)||Twinmos 1Gb Ram (2-3-3-5)||Geforce 6800Ultra (NV40C)||Creative X-FI Platinum||Seagate 7200.10 320GB SATA II (ST3300622AS)||Samsung 40Gb PATA (SP0411N)||Sony CDRW CRX230EE||SONY DVD-ROM DDU1621||Benq 1650||Antec NeoHE 500 Watts||Antec P180 (Custom Modded with Thermaltake Blue LED Smartfan and New Front Panel)||LG Flatron 775FT||Samsung Generic Keyboard||Copperhead

ArmchairGeneral

What does displacement have to do with choosing nuclear propulsion? The de Gaulle displaces 38,000 tons light. The Kirovs were 29,000 tons, and the US built plenty of nuclear powered cruisers. The reasons for using nuclear have more to do with endurance, especially at high speed. A nuclear powered ship can go much, much further without replenishment of supplies, as well.

joey

Well your correct and that I know, but having a nuke powered vessel looks like a granduer strategy , so suddenly 50k tonnes seems too low when the world is moving beyond it.

FiRepower

I was expecting at least 80.000 to be honest

-{SpoonmaN}-

The Russians aren't intersted in expeditionary operations for now. I guess they don't have the money nor the need. They do need to overhaul their fleet, for safety if nothing else, but they're really only starting to have disposable income now so it's gonna take a while.

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

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!