Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_2500-1.JPG

Nellis_14_2495-1.JPG

Nellis_14_1221-1.JPG

Nellis_14_0352-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Future Russian Aircraft Carrier

This is a discussion on Future Russian Aircraft Carrier within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; New Aircraft Carrier to Be Launched by 2017 The Russian Federation naval commander-in-chief, Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroedov, has ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old July 29th, 2005   #1
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Russia
Posts: 6
Threads:
Future Russian Aircraft Carrier


New Aircraft Carrier to Be Launched by 2017

The Russian Federation naval commander-in-chief, Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroedov, has announced plans for introducing a new aircraft carrier into the combat fleet by 2017. A draft of the new aircraft carrier will be developed by 2010, and by 2016 - 2017 it will enter the Northern Fleet.

Moreover, the construction of another aircraft carrying cruiser has been planned, but for the Pacific Ocean Fleet. In 3 years, there also will be a new multirole airplane developed for carrier-based ((PALUBNAYA)) aviation.


This is somewhat old news. I was just wondering if anyone has anymore info on this.
pawa_k2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Us Threatens To Block Israeli Aid If Phalcon Sale, to india proceeds. Psychosaint Air Force & Aviation 21 May 25th, 2011 04:15 AM
The threat SU-30 poses to Pakistan. By Air Commodore Tariq Mahmud Ashraf adsH Air Force & Aviation 15 November 14th, 2005 06:49 AM
Aurora secret hypersonic aircraft (extension of X-15 project) kashifshahzad Air Force & Aviation 1 July 16th, 2005 03:04 PM
Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Royal Navy adsH Navy & Maritime 11 May 8th, 2004 02:28 PM

Old February 9th, 2008   #2
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Any more updates on this?
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008   #3
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 73
Threads:
With the Russian economy and navy being what they are, I think that the Russian's are just setting a pretty ambitious goal. Just look at Russia new Borei Class SSBN. It's big, it's expensive, it's going to take a lot to maintain, and there were several production problems due to funding. If this is what happens to their new sub, what will happen to their new carrier?

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/BM...r_DHS_999.html

The part about the Borei is at the bottom half of the article.
onslaught is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008   #4
Senior Member
Major
nevidimka's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,002
Threads:
How come it says the borei will only hold 12 missiles? I thought it would only hold 16 instead of 20?
nevidimka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Croatia/Split
Posts: 330
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevidimka View Post
How come it says the borei will only hold 12 missiles? I thought it would only hold 16 instead of 20?
Only first of Borei class will hold 12 missiles ... others will hold 16.

Boreis are modulary designed and they are mutch less expensive to build than any previous Russian SSBN class. With the amount of money being poured in are being constructed and new designed for destroyer and aircraft carrier are being in motion for some time so you can be sure that Russian navy by 2020 will be whole new potent force ... as well Tu-22M3 will get modernization to level M5 as well as Kh-22 to level Kh-32 witch will add further stike componetn in russian naval strike force.
Viktor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 9th, 2008   #6
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Should Russia have the will, the money, and plans to expand and build new warships, . . . the design and building of warships will be a HUGE challenge.

The only new Russian warship project post cold war is the Steregushchy class corvette. This is in contrast to the Aegis DDGs worldwide, Horizon class, FREMM, etc.

This tells me that Russia has gone backwards to start again with smaller warships. A corvette is just a step up from a patrol boat.

Since Russian shipbuilding has been relatively stagnant over the past decade, the skilled designers, welders, shipfitters, electricians and electronics specialists have moved on due to lack of work, old age and retirement. Russia will need to cultivate a new cadre of shipbuilding professionals and this is no easy task as a warship is infinitely more complex than a commerical vessel.

So given all this, a large project with the magnitude of a Kirov class will be difficult to pull-off.

Time will only tell, and yes, . . . it will take plenty of time.
I posted this in another thread WRT the Kirov class.
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008   #7
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 480
Threads:
I've just come back from a week running around Russian shipyards and design bureau's, the word from these guys is that design work is being done and plans are a foot to build 4 carriers, our Russian agent believes it's all smoke and mirrors and nothing will ever come of it, I believe him, plus all the big stuff in Soviet times was built in the Ukraine, Russian shipyards don't have any carrier experience. I believe China will build a carrier long before the Russians build another one.
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008   #8
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 189
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
I've just come back from a week running around Russian shipyards and design bureau's, the word from these guys is that design work is being done and plans are a foot to build 4 carriers, our Russian agent believes it's all smoke and mirrors and nothing will ever come of it, I believe him, plus all the big stuff in Soviet times was built in the Ukraine, Russian shipyards don't have any carrier experience. I believe China will build a carrier long before the Russians build another one.
Traditionally Russian destroyers have been frigate-sized and cruisers destroyer-sized, so my guess is that Russia will construct a L-something-H , which will be immensely useful for real world operations and call it a new generation multifunction carrier.
Jon K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008   #9
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Croatia/Split
Posts: 330
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon K View Post
Traditionally Russian destroyers have been frigate-sized and cruisers destroyer-sized, so my guess is that Russia will construct a L-something-H , which will be immensely useful for real world operations and call it a new generation multifunction carrier.
Kirovs are destroyer sized? Slavas are destroyer sized?
Viktor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008   #10
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
AFAIK Udaloys and Sovmerneys are named destroyers and dispace about as much as a destroyer should.

Destroyers:
Udaloy: 6200/7900 tonnes
Sovermenny: 6200/7900 tonnes
Arleigh Burke: 6800/8300 tonnes

Frigates:
MEKO: 3600 tonnes
La Fayette: 3200/3600 tonnes

Seems pretty close to me.
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10th, 2008   #11
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 189
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viktor View Post
Kirovs are destroyer sized? Slavas are destroyer sized?
Hate to admit it, but you're completely right, thanks for pointing it out. An argument from the 1970's came to my mind. But back to the point, I think Russian future carriers may be L-something-H's instead of CV's/CVN's.
Jon K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2008   #12
Banned Member
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 763
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
..all the big stuff in Soviet times was built in the Ukraine, Russian shipyards don't have any carrier experience.
That's not correct! Kirov class CGNs and all nuclear icebreakers were built by BlT SSZ in Leningrad, now St Petersburg. So, the SSZ Ocean in Ukraine was used not because it's so unique, but to speed up the buildup of Soviet "blue water navy".
Firehorse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2008   #13
Defense Enthusiast
Sergeant
Lostfleet's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 215
Threads:
Maybe they can resurface the plans for Ulyanovsk Class carrier ( Project 1143.7 OREL) which they scrapped before it was complete. Probably they would change the design from the know-how they gained from the Kuznetsov.

Although financialy a suicide, in my humble opinion, the presence of a true Russian Aircraft Carrier either in Atlantic or Pacific will alter the force balance in both regions.

I have a question though, does anyone of you have any links for plans of Ulyanovsk, all I can find is about specs.
Lostfleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2008   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
Captain
Salty Dog's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 799
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfleet View Post
Maybe they can resurface the plans for Ulyanovsk Class carrier ( Project 1143.7 OREL) which they scrapped before it was complete. Probably they would change the design from the know-how they gained from the Kuznetsov.

Although financialy a suicide, in my humble opinion, the presence of a true Russian Aircraft Carrier either in Atlantic or Pacific will alter the force balance in both regions.

I have a question though, does anyone of you have any links for plans of Ulyanovsk, all I can find is about specs.
One carrier should not alter the force balance.

Here is at least a concept drawing of the Project 1143.7. Looks like a Nimitz class with a ramp for both CATOBAR and STOBAR. A "Nimitzski"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...143_7-pics.htm
Salty Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13th, 2008   #15
Senior Member
Brigadier General
Ozzy Blizzard's Avatar
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,846
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lostfleet View Post
Maybe they can resurface the plans for Ulyanovsk Class carrier ( Project 1143.7 OREL) which they scrapped before it was complete. Probably they would change the design from the know-how they gained from the Kuznetsov.

Although financialy a suicide, in my humble opinion, the presence of a true Russian Aircraft Carrier either in Atlantic or Pacific will alter the force balance in both regions.

I have a question though, does anyone of you have any links for plans of Ulyanovsk, all I can find is about specs.
Its just too big. As salty dog said one ship/platform/fighter/whatever would not alter the naval ballance anywere. Single vessels do not present a capability on their own. Without the ability to susteain or protect it the supercarrier would be a paper tiger and a waste of time. Anyway it could only remain in theater for 3~6 months and then it would have to head back to port for refit and maintinance.

What they really need is a pair of smaller, 40~50,000 tonne CV(N)'s broadly in the class of the Charles De Gaul. A Kutzenov 2 if you will, just a bit smaller and incorperatng the lessons learnt. 2x cats would be great, they work well with nuke power, but even if STOBAR was retained, better engines would go a long way. It should be able to operate an CAG of a full (16~24 depending on the size) combat squadron of multirole fighters (SU-33 block 2 or whatever), 3~4x AEW platforms and ~8 ASW helo's. Whatever it is it needs to be maintainable and sustainable. 2 smaller carriers will provide twice the capability of a supercarrier becasue they can provide around the clock capability, probably for comperable cost. Additionally 5x escorts per vessel would be needed in addition to the fleet size needed for home defence (i.e. truely blue water).
Ozzy Blizzard is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.