Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
ar RIGHT NOW 27 Incredible Photos Of Life On A US Navy Submarine 19 Terms Only Sailors Will Understand 37 Awesome Photos Of Life On A US Navy Carrier 17 Brilliant Insights From Legendary Marine General James Mattis 11 Things You Probably Didn’t Know About ‘Saving Private Ryan’ The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week 7 Key Military Life Hacks That Matter In Civilian Life The 13 Funniest Military Memes Of The Week 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand 18 Terms Only Soldiers Will Understand
Russia Trying To Develop An Aircraft Carrier That Can Hold 100 Planes
JEREMY BENDER, BUSINESS INSIDER FEBRUARY 17, 2015
Russia’s government-owned Krylov State Research Center is on its way towards developing Russia’s latest aircraft carrier, according to Russian media.
The aircraft carrier is in a very rudimentary stage of its development. It’s still under conceptual testing in Krylov’s laboratory.
But if the tests prove successful and the carrier’s design is deemed plausible, the research center will follow through with a 1:1 scale metal mock-up of the carrier (China may have just constructed its own mock-up of a new carrier).
According to Russia’s TV Vezda, the carrier would be able to stow 100 aircraft onboard. The body of the carrier is also being designed to minimize drag by 20 percent compared to past Russian carriers. If built, the vessel would be Russia’s first carrier to debut since the Admiral Kuznetsov, which launched in 1985. The Kuznetsov is Russia’s only functioning carrier.
TV Vezda also stated that the ship would feature catapults on the ship’s top to launch aircraft during storms. However, this claim is countered by the fact that the carrier’s models feature a ski-ramp style aircraft in the front aircraft takeoff like older Soviet models, which did not have catapults.
The Russian carrier, if constructed, would be slightly larger than the US’s current Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, which can carry around 90 aircraft.
Hahahahahahah. The hilarious part about that is, the Mistral class ships mentioned in the article? They were originally supposed to be built in Russian yards, to improve their skill and tech, they (the Mistral class vessels) were so past their capability that the French had to do the whole job. It's well known the Russians can't maintain their current fleet, with most of their large combatants being either wildly out of date, flawed from inception or rotting by the pier. So with all that in mind they're going to make a super-carrier? AND it's going to be STOBAR? Holy feth! That's either pure stupidity, pure propaganda or both. It doesn't matter how many aircraft you can haul when you limit yourself with a STOBAR design, you have to launch slow, and you're either light on fuel or light on payload. Neither works well for a combat aircraft. Especially if you need to add immediate airborne refueling to launching a sortie. Maybe the designers just made a mistake on the model, but there's not even a vaguely good reason for a ski jump when you have a cat.
So in short, Russia has announced plans to build a ship it lacks the capacity to build, maintain or pay for utilizing a design that was out of date during the Cold War.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
A old Soviet hulk they finished that's design is entirely outdated and 2-3 decades old.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
I think the same thing when I hear about this new fancy tank they want to build honestly. It sounds awesome sure, but how is Russian funding it? Then I read they can't even reach a deal on production with the designer and the plan they want calls for 2000 units by 2020. The flip?
What is everyone so worried about XD There's no way in hell they will ever build that many tanks in 5 years. It took them 20 years just to build 2000 T90s!
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
That picture, I remember having a toy like that!
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
I call bs on this. Russia's fleet may have been modernised and is no longer be rusting away, but it is still very small. Russia has never been a naval power, it does not the capability of building such ships. Of course that could change in the near future, but aircraft carriers just do not fit in the Russian combat doctrine. There has even been talk of scrapping or selling the Kuznetsov because it costs a lot without adding much. Better to use the money to build more nuclear submarines.
I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
Iron_Captain wrote: I call bs on this. Russia's fleet may have been modernised and is no longer be rusting away, but it is still very small. Russia has never been a naval power, it does not the capability of building such ships. Of course that could change in the near future, but aircraft carriers just do not fit in the Russian combat doctrine. There has even been talk of scrapping or selling the Kuznetsov because it costs a lot without adding much. Better to use the money to build more nuclear submarines.
Modernized meaning it's been brought up to cold war standards with most of her major surface combatants unable to sortie.
I beg of you sarge let me lead the charge when the battle lines are drawn
Lemme at least leave a good hoof beat they'll remember loud and long
A old Soviet hulk they finished that's design is entirely outdated and 2-3 decades old.
China's carrier is not intended to face real combat operations.
Its only purpose is as a training platform.
Agreed, building carriers is not as difficult as it is made out to be. It requires certain infrastructure and expertise and both Russia and China are gaining in both.
I would not laugh off either nations military technology.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm going to guess it will be called something like "Putin's Wang"... Huge, full of seamen and slightly bent at the tip, while generally being impotent in the big wet.
I think I just pissed myself a little.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 05:34:59
I really forward to Mr Putin trying to pay for this, turning up at the shipyards one morning with his credit card. “Transaction rejected? Well there must be some kind of mistake. I’m certain there’s enough balance left, must be a problem with the card. Lyudmila, do you have your card on you, something is wrong with mine.”
Incidentally, did anyone see the news a few weeks ago that Apple was now valued at more than the entire Russian stock exchange. Yeah. A shortage of supercarriers is not the problem, Mr Putin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 05:48:20
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
Russias carrier groups are no more or less vulnerable than those of the US to attack from a major power. The shift against sea power is direct power politics happened when satelite data became freely available. The sea is just an open surface with nowhere to hide. The only real exceptions to this rule are the submarine service.
Carriers are there not to threaten other world powers but to threaten mook states with tiny obsolete air forces.
Incidentally, did anyone see the news a few weeks ago that Apple was now valued at more than the entire Russian stock exchange. Yeah. A shortage of supercarriers is not the problem, Mr Putin.
Who cares.
The Soviet Union didnt need an economy, they have a crapton of nukes and a space program.
"Mr Putin, we dont like your economy and want to foreclose."
"Niet"
"But you are in debt!!"
"Niet, we have nukes."
"OK... you have nukes.......We will send you another letter showing our diapproval, pay soon Vlad."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 05:54:53
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Lets assume they can actually make this thing [insert snorting noise here], who cares? That would bring their number of working carriers to a staggering... two. Two carriers that they would hardly be able to defend if push were to come to shove. Not that we (NATO) would ever fight a naval battle against Russia. Or that the Russians will be able to build the damn thing any time soon, what with their vast cash reserves and booming economy.
This is just Putty trying to wave his dick about and prove he's still a big man. Only problem is that it's purple and made of silicone.
Russias carrier groups are no more or less vulnerable than those of the US to attack from a major power. The shift against sea power is direct power politics happened when satelite data became freely available. The sea is just an open surface with nowhere to hide. The only real exceptions to this rule are the submarine service.
Carriers are there not to threaten other world powers but to threaten mook states with tiny obsolete air forces.
And? Never said ours were, though I would wager our defenses are better (for however much that's worth).
Sea power is important, but it involves serveral factors.
1. Local shore patrol.
2. Mobile tactical missile platforms
3. Mobile strategic weapopn platforms
4. Submersible/stealth units.
5. Shore based tactical missile platforms
6. Logistical support
Some assets are mixtures of several components
So a carrier fleet normally comprises all six, those the fourth section will belong to the attacvhed submarine asset and the group has no stealth capability of itself. That being said against a mook state carrier fleets are very stealthy.
in most cases of carrier group based power projection the target country never gets to know where the carrier group is.
Now the Soviets lacked that capability due to their outlook. It was an oversight for most of the timeline of the Soviet Union and one that would have been addressed by the mid 90's had the Soviert Union persisted.
However soviets did have all the right technologies.
The offensive fleet was almost entirely submarine based.
Backed up by the awesome strength of Soviet Naval Aviation. Killing opposed carrier groups would not be a provblem, either the submarine force was sufficient or the long range naval bombers were sufficient bioth could achieve target saturation and by having two methods to achieve the kill there was an element of future proofing. The Soviet carrier groups, and they did have them, were mostly surface cover for their boomer fleets and served valid purpose in that regard.
Instead of carrier fleets the Soviet union would engage in power projection with manifestos and assault rifles. By and large it worked and carrier fleets were an insufficient counter.
Post Soviet Union US carrier fleets have been let off the leash somewhat and as a rsult the Russians and Chiones want to join and play the same game. Russia sticks to its core competencies but also wants a carrier fleet fgor power projection.
China is just playing with the technology. Chines power projection works by a sequential annexation of international waters, and it looks like they will get what they want.
Chines carriers don't need to be effective, they only need to be there, Chinas reach is based on shore based aviation range and local water geography.
Besides Chinas tech is deliberately understated, they dont push their new toys, they withhold them, and prefer to appear weaker than they actually are. If anyone things China is backward they are still looking at the nation through 70's goggles.
We don't even have the specs for the current generation of Chinese technology, and with security that good I think its backed with good quality too. I think they are much better and wheedling info out of the west than the other way around.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If they get the French to build it, they should make sure they get a receipt this time.
France is a natural partner for Russia for historical reasons, still cannot be trusted though. Buy your technology from France, and you buy the 'what next?' as you don't expect to ever get a completed job.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 06:31:01
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
The Soviet Union didnt need an economy, they have a crapton of nukes and a space program.
Being a suckhole that might just implode, so you better let us off from our international obligations and give us stuff… the North Korea strategy.
I’m pretty sure when the oligarch put Putin in power, it wasn't in the hope he’d remake the country to be more like North Korea.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/02/20 06:59:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Seriously, guys? You actually believe in this crap?!
All this multi-billion military projects are just another way to steal taxpayers' money.
Who in their right mind will fight a total war nowdays with such kind of navy when you have nukes? Why would you ever build ONE carrier when for the last 70 years your navy relied premiraly on submarines (which you still apparently build in decent numbers, if our TV can at least partially be trusted)? Not only that, but for such a ship you will need to build some docking infrastructure - a lot of aditional money. And then, will it be useful? What was the purpose (other than showing how Over-The-Top and Badass they are) of the US sending their carriers to Persian Gulf when they have miitary bases in Turkey?
I honestly believe this is the same case as SDI, F-22, PAK FAT-50 and other extremely shiny toys with questionable dakka-per-dollar - a way for military corporation to make another tonn of money.
The sad thing is that the majority of people will probably support this crap given all that Ucranian BS
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/02/20 07:48:48
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig."
But North Korea is so cool. Have you seen the state mandated hair cut? Sure they're starving, but with hair like that the corpses must look pretty good. That's a country that has its priorities right
Including: 5. Shore based tactical missile platforms?
Relaying.
The Soviet carrier fleets were very heavily tied in with shore based naval aviation, to the extent the support should be considered organic.
If the Kirov wanted support from wings of Backfires it didnt have to go to another department or service to get them, they were already directly allocated.
Western fleets less so, it has to go through the Pentagon etc. While in modern times that decision can be made quickly enough this is only because carrier operations are conducted at a fairly leisurely pace as they are there as a bully squad. Soviet carrier groups were for protecting the boomer fleet from other major powers and so at a pinch needed to be able to work fluidly.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
TseGuevara wrote: Who in their right mind will fight a total war nowdays with such kind of navy when you have nukes?
Because there's a hell of a lot of situations where strength in conventional arms solves your problems in a way that nuclear threat just doesn't work. I'll just let Yes, Prime Minister explain it;
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
I think I just pissed myself a little.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It is a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig." 
