Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 11:42 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 49):
Good Luck. Let them try. As the British and the French have/are finding out, building big modern carriers and their air wings is not that easy. And that is with all the help from the US, including letting their planes (Rafale) train on our carriers and in one case provideing the planes (F35) for the air wing.

The French and the British have been building carriers (albeit smaller ones and in smaller numbers) for years. It was the British who pioneered some of the carrier design concepts we see used on our carriers today.

The Russians on the other hand have no real experience to start from apart from Moskva, Kiev, and Kuznetzov.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 1:58 pm



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 50):
The Russians on the other hand have no real experience to start from apart from Moskva, Kiev, and Kuznetzov.

The Russians are not a starter nation.. they have the capability to build carriers.. before their shortcoming was money. Today, they have the needed cash.
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:51 pm

To all:

I would be curious to see what the Russian justification for 6 carriers would be outside of the fact they are perfectly within their rights to build anything they want. The old Soviet navy existed solely to confront NATO and the USN as part of the Warsaw Pact cold war strategy.

But now?  scratchchin 

I have no doubt that the Russians could build them and operate them as well as anybody. They have time, money and ability. But why? Carriers are very expensive pets to keep if only for purposes of nationalism or international prestige. Russia's major trading routes have land links so trade protection is speculative. Potential rivals do not appear to have major naval interests, but that could change. If anything, Russia has far better cards to play in economic and (un) diplomatic terms than naval strength.

I would presumably expect the USN to contract more in the post-Bush era. Up and coming US politicians will undoubtedly be forced to deal with our most dangerous adversary, the national debt. Sooner or later, the 800 pound gorilla in the room will have to be dealt with
through higher taxes, which will put additional pressures on the defense budget. The foolish ideas of increasing spending while cutting taxes that Ronald Reagan seemed to convince everyone was a good thing(while quadrupaling the national debt)will eventually have to be confronted. If this isn't done, the USN won't have any carriers since we won't be able to afford them. The Russians should save their money.

regards,

F4N
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:41 pm

Baron95, the angled deck (for jet ops) and the development of VSTOL later, were British inventions.
But I do agree that CVF is a challenge, quite rightly the whole process was slowed, it might not have been the main reason why, but it allowed refinement of design.

A botched attempt at a large carrier was done in the 1960's, the CVA-01, it was however cancelled due mainly to changes in defence strategy.
Since the chief designer called the cancellation 'the happiest day of my life', we can tell that the vessel (55,000 tons), was trying to do too much on a limited displacement. Driven due to port limitations and treasury pressure.
As well as very high manpower requirements and a questionable powerplant.

By the mid 1960's, the UK could not afford to do both a substantial worldwide role and European defence in the Cold War. The RN remained large, but geared towards ASW in the North Atlantic, with nuclear subs being the new capital ships. Out of this, came the Invincible class, designed really to carry ASW helicopters and command ASW task groups.
The Sea Harriers were an afterthought, deemed necessary to engage Soviet bombers and patrol aircraft which could provide over the horizon guidance for ship, sub and air launched large ASM's. The Sea Harriers to hit them beyond the reach of Sea Dart SAM's.

It's different for nations like France and the UK, new carrier projects come along every 30-40 years, not a constant building programme that the US has.
Even a substantially larger RN and French Navy would not change this.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:12 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 53):
But I do agree that CVF is a challenge, quite rightly the whole process was slowed, it might not have been the main reason why, but it allowed refinement of design.

More importantly, it allowed MOD(PE) to engage with industry and develop a properly cascaded requirements-based specification, after the complete balls-up of the contractual specifications on Astute...........

Quoting GDB (Reply 53):
Since the chief designer called the cancellation 'the happiest day of my life', we can tell that the vessel (55,000 tons), was trying to do too much on a limited displacement

Which is the sort of thing that happens when the MOD ask the question, and also give the answer, at the same time in the specifications.......
A nasty habit that I'm hoping the UK defence procurement process has finally been cured of..  crossfingers 

Rgds
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13965
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:18 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 52):
I would be curious to see what the Russian justification for 6 carriers would be outside of the fact they are perfectly within their rights to build anything they want. The old Soviet navy existed solely to confront NATO and the USN as part of the Warsaw Pact cold war strategy.

But now?

No doubt protect their interests and values around the world (Asia, Africa, Gulf).
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:37 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 55):
No doubt protect their interests and values around the world (Asia, Africa, Gulf).

Keesje:

I would say that is a given. However, the old collection of soviet era client states has fallen by the wayside with the exception of a few. Most of those states have evolved and have left the
remnants of their cold war dependence on Russia behind. Some have entered into much different economic, political and military relationships with countries that would have been unthinkable in the 1960's. Others simply have the money to buy weapons wherever they want.

What interests then, justify a carrier navy?

regards,

F4N
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:03 am

For those of you who thought the cold war was over..I hate to say it but "I TOLD YOU SO"!!!!
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 2:58 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 51):
The Russians are not a starter nation.. they have the capability to build carriers.. before their shortcoming was money. Today, they have the needed cash.

Logistically there's plenty of room for doubt. The Russians would have to focus on upgrading and upkeeping their existing fleet first. Where to build the carriers has also come up, and the answer points to at best a very loooooooong procurment.

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 57):
For those of you who thought the cold war was over..I hate to say it but "I TOLD YOU SO"!!!!

 checkmark 

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5371
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:33 am



Quoting F4N (Reply 52):
But why? Carriers are very expensive pets to keep if only for purposes of nationalism or international prestige. Russia's major trading routes have land links so trade protection is speculative. Potential rivals do not appear to have major naval interests, but that could change. If anything, Russia has far better cards to play in economic and (un) diplomatic terms than naval strength.

I don't know, but I'd bet that the growing interest in the Artic region has something to do with it.

The icecap is thawing and leaving behind a nice set of brand new and cheaper shipping routes, and more importantly, some possibly considerable natural resources.
Tension has already started to build between Russia, Canada and the US over territorial issues up there, and I wouldn't be surprised if that had at least some incentive in building that new fleet.

Although I get the feeling that Putin is a bit nostalgic of the great former USSR at times, and would simply like to see its army back to its former glory.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
Loran
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 7:53 am



Quoting GDB (Reply 53):
Baron95, the angled deck (for jet ops) and the development of VSTOL later, were British inventions.

Also, the steam catapult and optical landing systems (which later evolved into the meatball) are British innovations.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 42):
Are those planes weight limited going off the ski jump? They really look like they are clawing for speed. How much ordinance could they hang under them?

I assume there are a lot of weight restrictions, although the Su-33 has a good thrust-to-weight ratio. The Su-25's have to use the whole deck to reach take-off speed (no afterburner), and I never saw much ordnance under their wings. If they take off with some load, they probably have to hit the tanker very soon...
703 717 727 732-9 747 757 767 777 787 AB2/6 310 318-321 330 340 359 380 D8M D91/3/5 D1C M11 M81-90 L10 IL1/8/6/7/W/9/4 TU3/5/2 YK4/2
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:58 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 56):

I would say that is a given. However, the old collection of soviet era client states has fallen by the wayside with the exception of a few. Most of those states have evolved and have left the
remnants of their cold war dependence on Russia behind. Some have entered into much different economic, political and military relationships with countries that would have been unthinkable in the 1960's. Others simply have the money to buy weapons wherever they want.

Please explain what exactly this comment, despite being generally correct of course, has to do with the plans to build 6 aircraft carriers?
I understand what happenend to all those states, nevertheless that does not in any case deny or support any will to "protect their global interest"...or should I better say to have some global power projection? It has just nothing to do with it.

After all, they will need/use those carriers in the same role as the US is doing.
And they have exactly the same right as well as interest in it and furthermore it is a good way to counter the US strenght in this area.
Why should one country alone have the power to bring deadly weapons to every place in the world? Balance has always been better than any kind of monopoly!
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
User avatar
Loran
Posts: 690
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:40 am



Quoting Acheron (Reply 36):
Project 1160

Studies made in the early 70's but cancelled due to technical difficulties.



Quoting Acheron (Reply 36):
Project 1143.7 Ul’yanovsk Class.

The real supercarrier, using a mix of catapults and skijumps.
Displacement: 79,500t full
Length 331.2m

Powerplant: 4 PWR Reactors, powering 4 steam turbines conected to 4 screws.

Aircrafts: 70(Su-33, MiG-29K, Su-25UTG, ka-32, Yak-44)

Weapons:
12 P-500 Granit
24 VLS Kinzhal
8 CADS- N -1/Kortik
2 Udav-1

What is the naval platform for their AEW aircraft pictured on catapult 3 and 4? Looks awfully similar to an E-2 to me...
703 717 727 732-9 747 757 767 777 787 AB2/6 310 318-321 330 340 359 380 D8M D91/3/5 D1C M11 M81-90 L10 IL1/8/6/7/W/9/4 TU3/5/2 YK4/2
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12974
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:56 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 51):
The Russians are not a starter nation.. they have the capability to build carriers.. before their shortcoming was money. Today, they have the needed cash.

You think, the Admiral k and Varyag plus those planned but not built were all constructed or going to be constructed in the Ukraine, the Russians don't the facilities to build military ships of the size of a large aircraft carrier.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:41 pm



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 63):
the Russians don't the facilities to build military ships of the size of a large aircraft carrier.

Maybe they can contract NGSS?  Silly
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:01 pm

Please explain what exactly this comment, despite being generally correct of course, has to do with the plans to build 6 aircraft carriers?[/quote]

It has as much to do with the topic as the posts regarding shipbuilding techniques, French and British carrier aviation and reactivating SAC...

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 61):
understand what happenend to all those states, nevertheless that does not in any case deny or support any will to "protect their global interest"...or should I better say to have some global power projection? It has just nothing to do with it.

Most of Russia's global interests would probably not require carriers to support. Russia probably has more influence now than ever before, mostly due to its' position as a major energy supplier.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 61):
After all, they will need/use those carriers in the same role as the US is doing.

Such as?

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 61):
And they have exactly the same right as well as interest in it and furthermore it is a good way to counter the US strenght in this area.

I assume you are suggesting that US carrier aviation needs to be countered for some reason then? Perhaps you'd like to share that rationale with us....

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 61):
Why should one country alone have the power to bring deadly weapons to every place in the world? Balance has always been better than any kind of monopoly!

I gather you are a supporter of the Iranian nuclear "energy" program on that basis...

F4N
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:44 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
Most of Russia's global interests would probably not require carriers to support. Russia probably has more influence now than ever before, mostly due to its' position as a major energy supplier.

Understood! Nevertheless, to compare it equally, the US has comparable economic power in other areas and still is supporting a large (and truly impressive) carrier fleet.
Why? Because there is still a difference in power projection via economic means or by threatening to bomb something.

Don't get it wrong. Its not meant, that the US bomb what they want, just that they have the capability to do so. On any place in the world.

Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
Such as?

As I sad...power projection. Nobody is really thinking the carriers might encounter a full-scale war. They are much to expensive to loose them against some "cheap" air-to-ship missiles.

But they are the ultimative tool to show military power against "rogue countries". Why shouldn't the Russians not want to have that kind of influence, given their plans to be super power again?

Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
I assume you are suggesting that US carrier aviation needs to be countered for some reason then? Perhaps you'd like to share that rationale with us....

No need to get "bitchy". The US carrier aviation is fine...but there is no harm if other countries have the same tools. At last, the US politics is neither impeccable nor the philosphers stone for all people in the world . Nothing wrong with some "control" through equally equipped nations.

(Its not good US, bad Russians anymore)

Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
I gather you are a supporter of the Iranian nuclear "energy" program on that basis...

Hmm, let me see...there are quite a lot of countries in the world having nuclear power and weaponry. Hence, no monopoly. Hence, again, no need for Iran to have access to those.

But what I can't deny is, that I don't believe in any "god-given" (god=whoever that might be) right for some nations to have access to "whatever", with others being barred from it.
We, after all, are equally human sharing the same rights. No need to push democrazy or any other given western ideology on someone else. And no need to make our rules and enforce them on any other country.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:41 pm



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 66):
Understood! Nevertheless, to compare it equally, the US has comparable economic power in other areas and still is supporting a large (and truly impressive) carrier fleet.

The US has, as a truly maritime trading nation with 2 ocean access, maintained a carrier fleet since the 1920's. A carrier navy for the US is not an optional asset.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 66):
No need to get "bitchy". The US carrier aviation is fine...but there is no harm if other countries have the same tools. At last, the US politics is neither impeccable nor the philosphers stone for all people in the world . Nothing wrong with some "control" through equally equipped nations.



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 66):
But what I can't deny is, that I don't believe in any "god-given" (god=whoever that might be) right for some nations to have access to "whatever", with others being barred from it.
We, after all, are equally human sharing the same rights. No need to push democrazy or any other given western ideology on someone else. And no need to make our rules and enforce them on any other country.



Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
Please explain what exactly this comment, despite being generally correct of course, has to do with the plans to build 6 aircraft carriers?

[/quote]

Perhaps you would care to elaborate how the thinly disguised, negative innuendo you have in your reply 66 relates to Russian carrier aviation...

F4N
 
Nicoeddf
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:13 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:11 pm



Quoting F4N (Reply 67):
The US has, as a truly maritime trading nation with 2 ocean access, maintained a carrier fleet since the 1920's. A carrier navy for the US is not an optional asset.

Russia has quite some more coast and and also two oceans...they just had no means to build up a carrier fleet so early. Why shouldn't they now, as they can?

Quoting F4N (Reply 67):
Perhaps you would care to elaborate how the thinly disguised, negative innuendo you have in your reply 66 relates to Russian carrier aviation...

Don't use the quote function to pull my sentences out of context.

People are naturally discussing also political implications of those carriers in this thread. As you questioned the interest justifying a carrier navy I told you, in my opinion of course, its the same in every aspect the US is justifying theirs with.

Read again and you quickly will recognize the connection to russian carrier aviation. If you don't: fair enough. No need to discuss further. We are then just not able to discuss with each other. No harm done.

By implying the following off topic

Quoting F4N (Reply 65):
I gather you are a supporter of the Iranian nuclear "energy" program on that basis...

you pushed me to justify my position and I did so - off topic as well of course.
Enslave yourself to the divine disguised as salvation
that your bought with your sacrifice
Deception justified for your holy design
High on our platform spewing out your crimes
from the altar of god
 
F4N
Posts: 507
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2000 11:37 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:18 am



Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 68):
Russia has quite some more coast and and also two oceans...they just had no means to build up a carrier fleet so early. Why shouldn't they now, as they can?

I do not believe that I suggested in any of my posts that Russia could not or should not build carriers. It is a sovereign nation with a legitimate right to equip its' navy however it sees fit.
My question was regarding why it would want/need to. Russian stategic interests differ from those of the US. Russian commercial interests differ considerably from those of the US, as does the volume of seaborne trade, trading partnerships and routes. Geography dictates the US is a maritime nation. It does not do so for Russia. As such, US naval and maritime strategy and maritime interests diverge from those of Russia. If you consider those factors, I have great difficulty understand how or why you believe the justification for carriers is equivalent.


I understand what you mean if you limit the scope of carrier navies to power projection. It is, after all, the point. However, the US is allied politically,militarily and economically to a number of its' most important trading partners. Much of the activity involved here is maritime. Russia does not have any such equivalent obligations. Their naval strategy does not have to take into account one of the primary rationales for a carrier, which is sea control. Russian naval strategy had always centered on sea denial. The tools best suited for each are not the same.

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 68):
Don't use the quote function to pull my sentences out of context.

It is part of the fun of an internet chat room, no? Let's not take this too seriously...
 Big grin  Big grin

Quoting NicoEDDF (Reply 68):
Read again and you quickly will recognize the connection to russian carrier aviation. If you don't: fair enough. No need to discuss further. We are then just not able to discuss with each other. No harm done.

As you say; fair enough  yes  Time for  coffee 

regards,

F4N
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:50 am



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 63):
You think, the Admiral k and Varyag plus those planned but not built were all constructed or going to be constructed in the Ukraine, the Russians don't the facilities to build military ships of the size of a large aircraft carrier.

Thanks again for your information. You clearly know a lot more about this than me.

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 58):
The Russians would have to focus on upgrading and upkeeping their existing fleet first.

It will be neat to watch whether Russia can really execute their plans after 18 years of doing nothing. Now they have money, but have their capabilities rotted away? They still should have some formidable potential power. It confuses me whey the Chinese don't lend an additional hand, as well.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:19 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 70):
It will be neat to watch whether Russia can really execute their plans after 18 years of doing nothing. Now they have money, but have their capabilities rotted away? They still should have some formidable potential power. It confuses me whey the Chinese don't lend an additional hand, as well.

They have the money, but 18 years ago they also had the ability to fill the seas with carriers and they practically didn't bother. Their priorities will be different when it comes to fleet procurment. I don't expect 6 carriers within a 15 year time frame. That the Chinese don't lend a hand is due to the fact that as far as Chinese carrier development is concerned, they've been getting help from Russia! They have even less experience with such projects and barely have a blue water navy as it is. China's military is largely geared towards its land based conflicts with its neighbors and a cross-straight assault on Taiwan.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:22 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 50):
The French and the British have been building carriers (albeit smaller ones and in smaller numbers) for years. It was the British who pioneered some of the carrier design concepts we see used on our carriers today.

Listen, I'm not trying to take away anything from the RN or even the French Navy. BUT, the fact remains, and is indisputable, that they ARE HAVING horendous problems trying to develop/build/field their FIRST large carriers. And that is with their air wings (e.g. Rafale-Ms) routinelly training on US carriers.

Even with ALL the history, ALL the experience, ALL the knowledge, the RN can't get it done.

One more time, good luck to the Russians in trying to buid 6. If (and it is a big if) they get that far, ship #5 or 6 may actually be worth keeping in service.

Also, large carriers are useless without a mighty carrier battlegroup with 80% of assets devoted to feeding and protecting the carrier. It is a horendously expensive, complex and difficult to achieve proposition.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 6:28 am

I think we are forgetting some things, I am not saying the Russians cant build a carrier they have the scientific knowledge to do so. Using them and using them effectively is another thing all together. The US and British and even the french navies have been training and doing it for years while the Russian's have had carriers before they dont have the experience or command base that the US and the other navies I mentioned above. It takes time and experience to use and supply and keep 6 Carriers at sea for any length of time. The Russians have trouble moving and supply their troops on the ground properly (Chechnya) being a prime example. Yes Russia is rolling in oil money and will be for a while, but without upgrading any of their other infrastructure and with their population declining and quite an alarming rate what are those 6 carrier battle groups going to be doing in 40 years, my guess would be setting and rotting away. Again do the Russian's have the knowledge and money to build them sure, will they be am immediate threat to the US carrier fleet not likely for a while. Does anyone know how many launches just one US Carrier does a day off its decks in battle? and does anyone think that the Russian Navy probably the poorest funded of their armed services since 1991 will be able to do that anytime soon. Sorry what a waste of Russian Money.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:46 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 72):
Listen, I'm not trying to take away anything from the RN or even the French Navy. BUT, the fact remains, and is indisputable, that they ARE HAVING horendous problems trying to develop/build/field their FIRST large carriers. And that is with their air wings (e.g. Rafale-Ms) routinelly training on US carriers.

Their "FIRST"? They had budget problems keeping their "FIRST" large carriers years ago which is why they scrapped them. Yes, the French have less experiene than the RN, that's for sure. But the Royal Navy has had fleet carriers, and first rate ones at that!

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 72):
Even with ALL the history, ALL the experience, ALL the knowledge, the RN can't get it done.

Can't? Says you. I'm not saying they'll have an easy go, but they're more capable than Russia, that's for certain!

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 72):
One more time, good luck to the Russians in trying to buid 6. If (and it is a big if) they get that far, ship #5 or 6 may actually be worth keeping in service.

 checkmark 

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 72):
Also, large carriers are useless without a mighty carrier battlegroup with 80% of assets devoted to feeding and protecting the carrier. It is a horendously expensive, complex and difficult to achieve proposition.

 checkmark 

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:09 pm

A bit premature maybe, to say CVF is having horrendous problems, delays from previous unrealistic timescales yes, for both financial reasons and for design refinements.
We'll see in the next few years.
At the moment, they are preparing to cut metal, they have ordered items such as lifts, all the steel required for both and other equipment.

Obvious challenges, they are going for a crew of 1400, only 300 more as the much smaller Invincibles .
Then again, it's ultra modern and VSTOL.
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Thu Aug 07, 2008 9:30 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 75):
A bit premature maybe, to say CVF is having horrendous problems, delays from previous unrealistic timescales yes, for both financial reasons and for design refinements.

Correct, my friend.
Some people obviously didn't read my earlier comment.  no 

Virtually the whole of the CVF delay has been brought about by setting out the specification on a robust, and robustly understood requirements-driven basis (and yes, that has changed the design - well what a surprise. The vessel will be considerably more fit for purpose as a result . Smile ).
The time has also been taken to consolidate the industrial organisation that will execute the programme, but that was a matter of commerce and politics, not capability.

There are still some political workshare rumblings around, but as far as I'm aware, it's full steam ahead on CVF.....

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 72):
Even with ALL the history, ALL the experience, ALL the knowledge, the RN can't get it done.

Which is sort of interesting, because they are...  Smile

Rgds
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:00 am

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 74):
Their "FIRST"? They had budget problems keeping their "FIRST" large carriers years ago which is why they scrapped them.

So you consider the Invincible class at 22,000lbs (IIRC) and 1/4 the size of a Nimitz class a "LARGE" carrier. I stand by my comments. The RN, with all its expertise and riches, has yet to build their FIRST MODERN LARGE CARRIER.

Quoting Astuteman (Reply 76):
Which is sort of interesting, because they are..

I guess you and I have a different definition of the word "are". The Queen Elizabeth Class carrier final build contract was only signed last month IIRC with STOLV and non-nuclear pwerplants (IMHO severely limiting its capabilities). The first ship will not enter service till 2014 at best. The main airwing aircraft for CVF (F35B) is facing its own set of problems.

So, again, I stand by my comments. If the RN is having that much difficulty fielding a large carrier, the russian navy will have A LOT more problems.

[Edited 2008-08-07 20:18:22]
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:04 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 77):
So you consider the Invincible class at 22,000lbs (IIRC) and 1/4 the size of a Nimitz class a "LARGE" carrier. I stand by my comments. The RN, with all its expertise and riches, has yet to build their FIRST LARGE CARRIER.

You know they had carriers before the current Invincible types right? Actual fleet carriers.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:23 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 78):
You know they had carriers before the current Invincible types right?

I was just about to edit my post to read FIRST LARGE MODERN CARRIER when I saw your post. Yes, I am aware of the WWII era Ark Royal/Eagle 40,000lbs (IIRC) carriers.

I still do not consider them LARGE, nor MODERN. But it is part of the RN experience/expertise that I mention. At least I am hoping that a ship laid down during WWII and comissioned before the Korean war may still provide institutional lessons to a ship that will be laid down 70 years later.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 3:28 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 79):
I was just about to edit my post to read FIRST LARGE MODERN CARRIER when I saw your post. Yes, I am aware of the WWII era Ark Royal/Eagle 40,000lbs (IIRC) carriers.

I still do not consider them LARGE, nor MODERN. But it is part of the RN experience/expertise that I mention. At least I am hoping that a ship laid down during WWII and comissioned before the Korean war may still provide institutional lessons to a ship that will be laid down 70 years later.

Fair enough, but the RN still does have years of experience with modern warships. They have the industrial base, they have the knowledge base (they've done their homework and pushed the envelope in the past before being overtaken by the USN), and as long as the beancounters don't muck it up, they'll have their two ships.

I forgot how the debate of the UK's carrier capability started, especially considering that they've cut metal on their new carriers while these 6 Russian ships are little more than vaporware phantoms.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:24 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 80):
Fair enough, but the RN still does have years of experience with modern warships. They have the industrial base, they have the knowledge base



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 80):
forgot how the debate of the UK's carrier capability started, especially considering that they've cut metal on their new carriers while these 6 Russian ships are little more than vaporware phantoms.

I sstarted it exactly on this point. Even with all the experience and industrial base and history, the RN is yet to field a modern large fleet carrier. They've been trying since WWII to get a program going and are now just at the starting gate. My point was that the Russian navy must be smoking something very radioactive if they think they can snap their fingers and all of a sudden 6 large fleet carriers will be in service on their fleet. It just won't happen. If the RN, after decades of trying, is still not there, the Russian navy will have at least as much trouble and probably a whole lot more.

So good luck to them in trying. Better look at all the problems with the French CDG carrier and the CVF/Queen Elizabeth class RN effort.

I'm glad we are all basically seeing the same challenge. I was, by no means putting the RN down. I was simply pointing out that it is an incredibly hard proposition to field a modern large fleet carrier after decades without doing one, let alone doing it for the first time.

Bringing it back to aerospace to illustrate the point. Having done it in the past, if the US/Nasa decided tomorrow "We need to send another 3-man mission to the moon to pick up a rock we forgot there".... how much and how long would it take and what is the likelihood that the program would survive the many political cycles needed to accomplish it without being killed???? See that is the reality of big programs.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12974
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:42 am

While I don't believe that the Russians have the ability to build 5-6 large carriers at the moment I do think they will be able to operate them, Admiral K is 65,000 tons, it's a big ship, same size as a CVF, they do deploy her every so often, I'm certain that the experience they have operating her will be valid if they build new ones.

Aker Yards have just sold a 70% shareholding in Nikolaev to FLC West. FLC West is owned by the Russian Government. Ah you say what has this got to do with Russia building 5-6 large carriers, Nikolaev was the yard where Admiral K and Varyag were built and it was where the Ulyanovsk was started. This might make the conspiracy theorists happy.
 
olle
Posts: 2273
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:38 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 8:54 am

So what will they use the new fleet for?

Is it to control the sea north of Russia?
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13899
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:06 am

One problem I see for the Russians is that all the carriers have to be based either in Murmansk or in Vladivostok. The approaches to the Baltic Sea between the Danish islands and Sweden are too narrow and shallow to let them operate there and they can't use their Black Sea bases due to a treaty disallowing passage through the Bosporus by aircraft carriers.
So all aIl aircraft carrier will be based in places which are affected by polar ice drift.

Jan
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12974
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:00 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 84):
they can't use their Black Sea bases due to a treaty disallowing passage through the Bosporus by aircraft carriers.

Yes they can, if they call it a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser, that is what the Admiral K is defined as, this works fine. I can't see why it will be a problem for any other carrier so long as they arm it as such.
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 5:06 pm

I really do not see any correlation between the CDG and CVF.
The former was the first French surface nuke powered ship, they had some restrictions on displacement due to political issues on which yard to build it in.
It was also over 30 years since they had constructed a carrier of any kind.

This is the crucial point, neither the French or UK have an ongoing carrier build programme, so comparisons with the USN are pointless.
If the USN does go for a whole new ship, rather than an evolutionary upgrade to the current carriers, one can only hope they do a better job than with the DG-1000, or the 'cheap' LCS. Or with better quality control than with the early San Antonio ships too.
I'd not point the finger too much elsewhere with this recent record. Frankly the more recent USN/shipbuilding programmes have been pretty scandalous, whoever is to blame.

The Invincibles may not have started out as carriers per se, but they were, even then, a highly innovative ship.
In propulsion for one, then came the gradual change to a more carrier role, with another innovation, the ski jump.

They can carry, if need be, 18 Harriers, considering this is three times the original load of this type, that is an aircraft carrier. The Harriers are aircraft, after all.
Going for an add on, to swat Soviet long range bombers, to the main tasking.
And, lest we forget, proved in combat. Combat where the enemy had a good change of hitting them.

I'd rate this class as one of the most significant since WW2, making possible fast jet carrier ops possible (and for the end user, affordable-in both cost and manpower), at a fraction of the cost usually associated with carriers.
They are not the same as a LPH with some Harriers on board, the Invincible was designed for blue water operations, with the sea-keeping and speed you'd expect.
That this was arrived at through an element of political subterfuge makes them all the more remarkable, ( No Minister, we are not asking for Aircraft Carriers, just ASW Command Cruisers ).
There had been great pressure on the RN to indeed build ships with only a large flight-deck aft, but the RN always had an eye on a developed version of the Harrier.

It is true that aside from the CVA-01 effort, the RN did use, post war, carriers laid down in the late 1940's.
But they were transformed during their lives, the oldest by a long way, HMS Victorious , was the same ship that had launched Swordfish aircraft in WW2. In the 1950's though, it was lengthened, widened, completely re-built in fact. (it ended up that it would have been cheaper and quicker to actually build a new ship), but then able to operate largish, complex, heavy jets like the Buccaneer and Sea Vixen.

This sort of work, did retard carrier development for new builds, (not that it stopped the UK being the innovator in many of the new features of fast jet carriers, as has been mentioned), until the mid 60's, but aside from the technical issues, financial pressures and major changes in defence priorities collided with this project.

The point with CVF is, they have worked very hard indeed not to replicate the CVA-01, it's clear that the lessons have been learned, technically and politically, the CVF's may have been allocated the same names as planned for the first two CVA's, but that is where the similarity ends.

With virtually all major defence projects taking longer these days, (including in the US), it seems unfair to say CVF is in trouble.
It isn't.
At least the complexity and potential pitfalls of such a large vessel have been recognised, before construction too.

[Edited 2008-08-08 10:18:04]

[Edited 2008-08-08 10:21:11]
 
LMP737
Posts: 6042
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:25 pm



Quoting GDB (Reply 86):
If the USN does go for a whole new ship, rather than an evolutionary upgrade to the current carriers, one can only hope they do a better job than with the DG-1000, or the 'cheap' LCS. Or with better quality control than with the early San Antonio ships too.
I'd not point the finger too much elsewhere with this recent record. Frankly the more recent USN/shipbuilding programmes have been pretty scandalous, whoever is to blame.

The blackshoes(surface fleet) could definitely use some pointers from the brown shoes(NAVAIR) on program management.

From what I have read about CVN-78 it seems to be more of an evolutionary step rather than revolutionary with many lessons learned over the years incorporated in the design. The only thing that I wonder about is the new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System. I know it's supposed to be more reliable than the current steam system. However I think we can all point to examples of things that were supposed to be an improvement that ended up being a disaster.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:32 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 81):
I sstarted it exactly on this point. Even with all the experience and industrial base and history, the RN is yet to field a modern large fleet carrier. They've been trying since WWII to get a program going and are now just at the starting gate. My point was that the Russian navy must be smoking something very radioactive if they think they can snap their fingers and all of a sudden 6 large fleet carriers will be in service on their fleet. It just won't happen. If the RN, after decades of trying, is still not there, the Russian navy will have at least as much trouble and probably a whole lot more.

So good luck to them in trying. Better look at all the problems with the French CDG carrier and the CVF/Queen Elizabeth class RN effort.

Ok, fair enough. Though I should point out that CVF is a different animal from the CDG. For one thing I doubt the RN will take the short cut of putting a submarine reactor into a carrier! CVF not being nuclear is also a plus on the complexity side as well.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 81):
I'm glad we are all basically seeing the same challenge. I was, by no means putting the RN down. I was simply pointing out that it is an incredibly hard proposition to field a modern large fleet carrier after decades without doing one, let alone doing it for the first time.

Bringing it back to aerospace to illustrate the point. Having done it in the past, if the US/Nasa decided tomorrow "We need to send another 3-man mission to the moon to pick up a rock we forgot there".... how much and how long would it take and what is the likelihood that the program would survive the many political cycles needed to accomplish it without being killed???? See that is the reality of big programs.

Good point. However GDB has already answered that well. One only has to look at DD(X) or DD-21 or DDG1000 or whatever the hell it is now to see that sometimes recent experience isn't always the sole prereq. for success. Heck we're only now wrapping up DDG-51 afterall. The RN has learned a lot from CVA01 and while CVF could have a hiccup or two, I think they'll be successful.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
baron95
Posts: 1106
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 10:19 am

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:48 am

I'm sorry, but CVF is simply the latest attempt by the RN to have CVA01. Since WWII the RN always wanted and always knew they needed a 60,000lbs-class fleet carrier. So, if it enters service in 2015, The Queen Elizabeth will be over 50 years late.

As to comparing CVF with CDG, it is the same sindrome. Both navies knew that they needed 2 proper fleet carriers to project power. They both did what they needed to do to increase the chances of getting a program moving. CDG compromises included the dispalcement limitations and sub reactor metioned. CVF's lmitations, in my view, are even worse. It will be an oil burner and will be a STOVL platform. Those are two strikes against her (them if they actually build two).

Yes they may save $1B in construction and $10M/year by not having nuclear power. But they'll be forever chained to slow moving, noisy, easy to track, easy to sink tankers. Yes, they'll save $500M by being a STOVL platform. But they'll be forever restricted by the shorter rage and lower payload of the F35B.

Havving waited 60 years for a proper fleet carrier, the RN could have done better.

Back to the topic, the russian navy, the chinese navy and the indian navy are ALL responding to CDG ad CVF. They feel they need to field fleet carriers to be take seriously.

And I say good luck to them in their efforts. They are about to be schooled, just like the french navy and RN have been about the complexities of the undertaking.
Killer Fleet: E190, 737-900ER, 777-300ER
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12974
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:45 am



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
CDG compromises included the dispalcement limitations and sub reactor metioned.

The USS Enterprise uses sub reactors.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
Those are two strikes against her (them if they actually build two).

Two will be built, main propultion, steel and just about everything else has been ordered for two vessels.

It might surprise you but I have been told that the USN has showen a lot of interest in the design, the CVN is a far more advanced ship than a Nimitz or Gerald Ford especially concerning automation and manning levels. It does of course fall behind when it comes to airgroup but if the French build PA2 then we will see what CVF really cn do.
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:36 am

But it is not the same as CVA-01, since that vessel, as well as all the other issues, came along just when changes to defence requirements undermined it, (and in terms of build and long lead parts buying, CVF is now well ahead of where CVA-01 ever got to).

CVF however, is for the post Cold War world.
Without the need, at sea, to maintain a large ASW Frigate force for the NATO ASW role against the USSR, with a smaller sub force and without the need for a 55,000 troops in Germany, (and the same number in the UK to reinforce them-or the force that was RAF Germany).
So CVF answers the needs for today, still controversial though, what with the burden of Iraq and Afghansitan.

Phase one, of making the RN more suited for todays world, has been done, that is, the major upgrade in amphibious warfare efforts, the UK is not the US, we cannot afford to do everything at once.

You should take note of what Astuteman says, since he's had involvement in UK naval programmes.

Some more thoughts on these issues on this thread;
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/94305/
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 3:23 pm



Quoting Baron95 (Reply 81):
They've been trying since WWII to get a program going and are now just at the starting gate

Apologies Baron95, but again, I still don't get this. I've been involved (on-and-off) in the production engineering, and industrialisation, of CVF since 2002, and watched the specification, and the contract evolve to a point where both are actually concurrent, and believe me, that's a massive step!!!
Trust me. Astute is my day job, and will suffer for decades through lack of this....

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 81):
Having done it in the past, if the US/Nasa decided tomorrow "We need to send another 3-man mission to the moon to pick up a rock we forgot there".... how much and how long would it take and what is the likelihood that the program would survive the many political cycles needed to accomplish it without being killed???? See that is the reality of big programs.

And my thanks, I guess, for making my point so eloquently for me.
CVF has been through all this, and survived the politics, and is now in MANUFACTURE....
Even more importantly, it is now properly funded. Some may see the numbers as cost growth. They're not. They're a proper recognition of the task that has been handed down.
Do I mention Astute at this point again?  scratchchin   Smile

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 80):
I forgot how the debate of the UK's carrier capability started, especially considering that they've cut metal on their new carriers

 checkmark 
And much, most possibly, of the long-leads are let and in progress......
The design is actually fairly mature as a result of the specifying process..

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 80):
They have the industrial base, they have the knowledge base

correct, and correct..

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 77):
The Queen Elizabeth Class carrier final build contract was only signed last month IIRC with STOLV and non-nuclear pwerplants (IMHO severely limiting its capabilities).

See your point... Nuclear Powerplants bring their own limitations by the way..
(Full-length shafts aside,  Angry , the prime mover solution for CVF is pretty elegant IMO ..  Smile )

Quoting GDB (Reply 91):
You should take note of what Astuteman says, since he's had involvement in UK naval programmes.

Has, my friend, has..  Wink

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 77):
If the RN is having that much difficulty fielding a large carrier, the russian navy will have A LOT more problems.

Back to your point......
All the above said, it's fair comment.
If we hadn't recently had the (less than ideal) experiences of AO and LPD, both in terms of the acquisition process, and the execution, then CVF, may, indeed have been running down the CVA01 alleyway. It isn't

Ironically, the very thing whose lack caused the symptoms that make you say that CVF is CVA01, but 50 years too late, may be the Russian's greatest advantage.....
Namely, the political will to do the job...  yes 

Rgds
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:19 pm



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 92):
See your point... Nuclear Powerplants bring their own limitations by the way..
(Full-length shafts aside, , the prime mover solution for CVF is pretty elegant IMO .. )

Not a naval guru here, but if I'm to understand it, CVF's mission won't require such long deployments anyway right? Besides, even with nuclear power, fuelers must still tag along with CVN's delivering, sure enough, jet fuel, since folks on my side of things dropped the ball developing those nuclear powered airplanes. Sailors still have to eat, and bombs don't deliver themselves on station either.

That said...full length shafts eh? Why not just chop down the QM2 and giver her a flight deck. That should take care of that. I'm sure the thousands of other nightmarish details created can be handled, your team seems to have quite a handle on it.  Wink

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
I'm sorry, but CVF is simply the latest attempt by the RN to have CVA01. Since WWII the RN always wanted and always knew they needed a 60,000lbs-class fleet carrier. So, if it enters service in 2015, The Queen Elizabeth will be over 50 years late.

I agree it's been along time coming, but defense needs of the Cold War, and the fact that the US already had the massive industrial base for super carriers somewhat changed the RN's needs. ASW became their focus, particularly with a real Soviet sub threat. That threat is rusting now, even with Putin swinging his faux-brass pair around.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
As to comparing CVF with CDG, it is the same sindrome. Both navies knew that they needed 2 proper fleet carriers to project power. They both did what they needed to do to increase the chances of getting a program moving. CDG compromises included the dispalcement limitations and sub reactor metioned. CVF's lmitations, in my view, are even worse. It will be an oil burner and will be a STOVL platform. Those are two strikes against her (them if they actually build two).

We'll know if CVF has worse limitations than CDG if it spends as much or more time in dry dock and even manages to subject its crew to radiation while not even having a reactor. The execution of the two programs can't be compared. The BS displacement limitations for instance are something the QE class doesn't have to face.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 89):
Yes they may save $1B in construction and $10M/year by not having nuclear power. But they'll be forever chained to slow moving, noisy, easy to track, easy to sink tankers. Yes, they'll save $500M by being a STOVL platform. But they'll be forever restricted by the shorter rage and lower payload of the F35B.

Sailors still have to eat, munitions still have to be replenished, and planes don't run on nuclear power as I've said. Our CVNs are still tied down to replenishment ships, but yes, at least they don't need fuel for themselves. I agree that STOVL is not as good as cats and traps, and hence F-35C would do wonders for the RN, but mind you that the F-35B and the CVF is already a huge leap in capability to the older Harrier and Invincibles which the RN has manage to extract an amazing amount from thus far.

For us it would be a step down considering what we have, but for the RN, these two carriers will be a vast improvement. And should they need to have larger Nimitz type ships, they'll have more practical experience for their industrial and knowledge base to boot. We didn't get to the moon by first building Apollo. We started with Mercury. We didn't get to Nimitz by building Nimitiz, we first started with Ranger, Lady Lex, the Enterprise class, Essex, and Forrestal first. You're right, it DOES take experience and organization. The RN has it. They don't need to duplicate Nimitz to prove it. Unlike the Russians, they've been commissioning modern warships for the past 18 years.

What can I say, that we're still debating British carriers seems to suggest at least more faith in than UK than in Russia. No one likes discussing vaporware.  Smile

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 5:29 pm

Better than CVA-01, would have been a proposed large carrier, various designs of which, were around in 1952.
The most favoured one, featured twin islands, one for ship control, the other air control.
Guess what CVF has done, though for today, it's also about reducing RCS too.

So why were these carriers not built in the 1950's?
Simply because the RN were up to thier eyes in carriers then, even after mass post WW2 demobilisation's.
So it was the case of going with the best of what was already available, bearing in mind that naval aircraft were only getting bigger and heavier.
This meant the the two Audacious class, nearest to completion, they became Ark Royal and Eagle .

The wartime HMS Victorious was going through an 8 year, truly massive modernisation.
The light fleet carrier force, those not sold abroad to Canada, India, Australia, Brazil and, oops, Argentina, would have become more problematic operating types like the Sea Vixen and Scimitar, so the final one of that class, now named HMS Hermes , was completed to a larger displacement.

So there was no imputeus in 1952, for a new carrier programme.
Remembering the UK was still under some forms of rationing, had just undergone an economically damaging re-armanment, largely due to the Korean War, was engaged in places like the Suez Canal Zone, the Malayan Jungle, in East Africa, as well the the burden of defence in Europe.
There was also the highly expensive, technically challenging, V-Bombers and nuclear weapons programmes.
 
GDB
Posts: 13761
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:46 pm

An up to date video of CVF;

 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Sat Aug 09, 2008 7:22 pm



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 93):
Why not just chop down the QM2 and giver her a flight deck

You'll never know how close that came to being the solution (from a propulsion viewpoint anyway)  Smile

I recall a conversation back in 2002 with the then Head of Systems Engineering on CVF. Myself and 2 other Naval Architects (all 3 of us now production engineers) essentially specced the vessel out for him in 2 hours - weight, length, beam, draught, lift positions (specific, as in how many m fwd or aft) , power plant, the lot - fag-packet style.

It's heartening to see just how close we were (mind you, one of my mates is Head of Production Engineering on the programme  Wink )

The glaring exception is that we tried to persuade him to adopt QM2's powerplant, including thrusters, hook, line and sinker. No 200m or so of alignment requirements, no between-construction-blocks dependencies etc, an off-the shelf Product Data Model, spec, bill of materials etc.

Guess the systems engineer had to assert his independence somewhere...  Wink
(industrial politics was to blame in the end)

Rgds
 
Boeing4ever
Posts: 4479
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2001 12:06 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 3:40 am



Quoting Astuteman (Reply 96):
Guess the systems engineer had to assert his independence somewhere...
(industrial politics was to blame in the end)

Next time, you should hold the meeting in a pub. Get him tanked enough and you might have gotten away with something bigger than Nimitz.  Wink

Seriously though, fascinating insight into the program. I'm much more confident that the RN can pull it off, even without the adaptation of QM2's unique podded engine design. I'm not even sure what advatage that is to a warship anyway. Again, I'm not too knowledgable on ship building and design.

These ships are being built in large subassemblies like the CVN's right? Any idea on when the major components will start taking shape?

Given the complexity of carrier design, Russia's limited experience with it, and the fact that there are a large number of submarines still rusting away with only one Borei class SSBN boat as of yet completed, one does have to question the credibility of 6 carriers.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 
 
astuteman
Posts: 7146
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:50 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:07 am



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 97):
I'm much more confident that the RN can pull it off, even without the adaptation of QM2's unique podded engine design. I'm not even sure what advatage that is to a warship anyway.

Somewhat parochially (as a production engineer), the biggest advantage is in simplicity of installation.
Shaft alignment is a major activity in the construction of a large vessel, and impacts a lot of other activites. Aligning a big electric cable is way easier...  Wink (especially if you're building in blocks (as we are..) )

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 97):
These ships are being built in large subassemblies like the CVN's right?

Three main blocks (and a number of smaller upper (flight deck) blocks).

"We" (BAE SYSTEMS Submarines) are currently designated to assemble the centre block, and a dedicated construction hall is under construction as we speak. I'm in the process of developing the business case for another large facility, so I have sat in on the facility development meetings.. (there's little chance I will get assigned to CVF, but latterly, the business has become superb at "cross-fertilisation", to ensure best practice is well transmitted)..

Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 97):
Any idea on when the major components will start taking shape?

Late next year I think we'll see Block Assembly commencing..

Rgds
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12974
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

RE: Russia To Build 6 New Aircraft Carriers

Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:54 am

Astuteman do you think building via blocks is as good as building from the keel up, I understand the one of the major problems will be shaft alignment, and problem can occur in alignment of all the blocks. I have also heard PA2 is also comming along nicely and the French are due to sign for her soon, do you think PA2 will be a better ship than CVF which its based on?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sekant, sharles and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos