Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by LETHALFORCE, Feb 28, 2009.

  1. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090227/120342249.html

    Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier

    MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's new-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons, a United Shipbuilding Corporation executive said on Friday.

    Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov, the company's head of defense contracts, said the new carrier was still at the drawing board stage, but its blueprint and basic specifications have already been defined.

    He said the carrier will serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular, a fifth-generation fighter that will replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

    "It will be a fifth-generation aircraft with classic horizontal take-off and landing capability," the admiral said.

    Shlemov said, unlike in the past, the new aircraft carrier would not be armed with cruise missiles, which were not part of its "job description."

    He said that at least three such carriers were to be built, for the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

    The executive offered no timeline on the project, saying it was not as yet clear which shipyard would get the contract.

    The new carrier has an estimated price tag of $4 billion.

    So far the Russian Navy only has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov Project 1143.5, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500, and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.
     
  2.  
  3. rock45

    rock45 Founding Member/ RIP our friend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Funding

    Can't really see Russia having the money or the staying power to keep focus on this but time will tell.

    Subs are needed for protection as well surface ships it's a big task guarding a carrier.
     
  4. pyromaniac

    pyromaniac Founding Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2009
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    Report: Russian navy to get at least 3 carriers

    True that...meanwhile, it looks like the Russian ambition outstrips their means


    MOSCOW - A Russian news agency is reporting that an admiral said the navy may commission at least three nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

    RIA-Novosti has quoted Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov as saying that engineers have begun work to design a new carrier.

    Shlemov said Friday the prospective carriers will be nuclear-powered and have a displacement of 50,000-60,000 tons, according to the report. His statement appeared to contradict comments by Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov that the navy should focus on smaller ships, no bigger than frigates or corvettes.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29430442/
     
  5. rock45

    rock45 Founding Member/ RIP our friend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    The means

    Hi pyromaniac
    So somebody writes the date on a paper and the design work has begun. I look at the way their butchering India carrier and just can't see this happening.

    I wish I had the link but I remember reading where India offered to send workers because they didn't like the workmanship and the rate of progress. Sadly in Russia the lack of new construction projects has hurt the construction industry big time and the skilled dock workers just aren't there.

    I really hope India is heavily involved in the building and construction process now and is monitoring the work. I hope India doesn't have to spend another two or three years ripping it apart in India and fixing it correctly then fighting with Russia over what was wrong.
     
  6. shiv

    shiv Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    5
    i think you are wrong there rock45-true we are in a recession now and fuel is at 35/barrel but you have to see that russia has vast reserves of it and has earned nearly 450 billion dollars of it and will continue to do so and with its reducing population funding is not a big problem there--->i think they also have about 75 billionaires which is a sign of the countries rapidly increasing economic condition....
     
  7. rock45

    rock45 Founding Member/ RIP our friend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Russia's oil wealth

    Hi shiv
    I might be wrong I am no expert that's for sure. It depends on where Russia's government uses that oil money and if those 75 billionaires let it trickle down.

    When you only build a very small amount of new ships over ten plus year period you lose your skilled worker base. Workers have families to feed and they move on and the older workers who were a part of the cold war building boom are long since retired. In the ten or fifteen year period you had to be lucky to get onto a project and keep steady work.

    In opinion Russians can build and design fine ships, aircraft, weapons, etc, but it's been the governments lack of steady support over the years that hampered them. For example if Russia aviation industry mainly the companies that carry out R&D testing had that steady funding Russia would be flying stealth aircraft.

    Russia is making some good headway and to me the next five years are important.

    On the flip side India has less money to spend then Russia or the US and must chose carefully where to spend it. I think the process of buying this old retired carrier should have been researched better by India before taking on this venture period. I would have study the shipyards capabilities better because just about anybody can see it's not going very well. Would India have to offer to send workers to England, France , of the United States, for such a project? Trying to be a little open minded I guess maybe but unlikely that part of their economy hasn't really open up again.
     
  8. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    rock Russians did a bait and switch, they gave us a very low unrealistic initial price then kept raising it as the deal progresssed ;by then we were to far into the deal to drop it.
     
  9. rock45

    rock45 Founding Member/ RIP our friend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Bait & switch

    Hi LF
    I always thought it was tied into the low prices for the 16/18 Mig-29K's, sort of a package deal.

    Taking on a carrier Wings and everything that goes along with it is a huge task. People I know you understand see the USN do it (carrier operations) and think its doable but it's taken many years to get that good. To not actually have the ship to do training on or the aircraft makes it much more difficult. Sadly accidents rates will be high until personnel from top to bottom are trained.

    I hope India doesn't have to rip it part and those pilots that took the USN training get to fly before too much time has past.

    It would nice if -India got the Rafale M or E/F Hornet in the future both are very capable carrier types.
     
  10. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,551
    Likes Received:
    6,556
    Rafaele is my first choice, the people trained my forget everything by the time gorshokov arrives only to be retrained again, the price of the package MIGs was also raised.
     
  11. rock45

    rock45 Founding Member/ RIP our friend

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    152
    Likes Received:
    2
    Carriers

    I like the Rafale too I think its a fine aircraft good payload and range for an aircraft of it's size. Heard MICA missile are expensive but don't know that for a fact. I did read once that the Greece pilots getting back seat rides wished it had more power/thrust, the Mirage 2000 could have used a little more as well. What I thought was interesting was no mention of the radar either good or bad some say it's a 'radar" away from getting sales.

    For me it needs to mark its own targets that's step one platforms today must do more then one thing.

    Step 2 - I think engines, better engines mean better performance nothing wrong with having a little extra under the hood.

    Step 3 - Maybe radar but getting the final version into F3 standards and working with a better weapons selection might be more important then seeing a target at 130 miles or 110.

    Most compare the ARRAMS vs AA-12, I wonder how the MICA compared with the AA-12/11? I read once were the IR MICA was considered very deadly but I'm average in missiles.
     

Share This Page