" The requirement for a new class of four aircraft carriers, to begin construction in 2013-14 was announced in mid-2005 . The first of class would enter
service in 2017 but it is not thought to be a funded program." - Janes Fighting Ships 2007-08 Page 637. Only 4 years from keel to completion? The
Russians must have a cloning machine - LOL!!!
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Sink them All |
Jane's Misinformation or Russian Wishful thinking? |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 19 (17-Apr-2008 18:42:39) |
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3683 (18-Apr-2008 03:10:00) |
Lord, there are so many ways that this could be spun:
>> The editors at Jane's have been smoking wacky tobacky >>> Jane's editors have unusually poor gullibility detectors >>>> The Russian MoD is openly delusional. >>>>> Or, least likely, it's true. |
||
|
Razor |
|||
|
Posts: 407 (15-May-2008 10:17:02) |
Janes have reported an official Russian announcement, they make no comment on whether or not the ships will be built, if they are not built it would not be the
first time a country has announced ships and not built them for reaons other than "misinformation"
|
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 220 (15-May-2008 11:51:04) |
It's certainly true that the Russian Navy wants at least four new carriers (last time I heard the report it was for a total of six, but that is the nature
of rumours). A few years ago this could easily have been dismissed as wishful thinking, but with a resurgent Russia under Putin's leadership a program like
this becomes at least a distinct possibility. The timescale is the delusional aspect though. The comletion date could be achieved however if the start date was
advanced considerably, ie if they want the first CV in service by 2017 then they need to start construction by 2010 at the latest.
|
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3537 (15-May-2008 11:54:47) |
Assuming four they may build just one at a time, whats the decomissioning date for Kuznetzov?
|
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 224 (17-May-2008 14:14:24) |
Zen9 wrote: Right now Kuznetzov could still be classed as 'low mileage', and I don't think there is any likelihood of her being withdrawn anytime soon
barring a major upheval. If the Russian Navy's plans for new carriers are approved in whatever form, then she will be of vital importance in maintaining a
skills base both amongst aircrew and ship crew. I don't see her being paid off for at least another twenty years unless the Russian Navy abandons the whole
concept of air power at sea. That in itself will mean they have admitted defeat against the western powers in any theoretical future conflict.
|
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3541 (17-May-2008 16:21:40) |
Series production makes sense, for a host of reasons, so in which case I suspect Kuznetsov will be the fourth ship. Since at the moment it seems the Russians
are not starting their new carriers now, by the time the third has entered service Kuznetsov could be several more decades old, ship -04 would thus be her
replacement. This has a certain logic to it, and allows a long time for decisions on whether to just build a fifth new or design a new class. Likely the answer
is ship -05 would be just a incremental improvement on the new class. That obeys a similar pattern to the US though at a smaller scale.
|
||
|
bager1968 |
|||
|
Posts: 2936 (17-May-2008 21:40:41) |
Kind of like the Kiev/Baku class... 3 to the original design, and the 4th to a slightly modified/improved design.
These were, however batch-built, with each of the later 3 being laid down immediately after the previous one was launched. Kiev: laid down 21 July 1970; launched 26 Dec 1972; commissioned 28 Dec 1975 Minsk: laid down 28 Dec 1972; launched 30 Sep 1975; commissioned 27 Sep 1978 Novorossiisk: laid down 30 Sep 1975; launched 26 Dec 1978; commissioned 14 Aug 1982 Baku: laid down ? Dec 1978; launched 17 Apr 1982; commissioned 11 Dec 1987 I would actually expect #1 & #2 to be the base design, and #3 & #4 to be slight modifications (like the Kitty Hawk class was a slight modification of the Forrestal class, with the island & elevators moved, but few other large changes). They would be based in pairs, with #1 & #2 in the Northern Fleet and #3 & #4 in the Pacific Fleet (or vice-versa, but I doubt they would mix them, for logistics & training reasons). |
||
|
Michael Hoddy |
|||
|
Posts: 189 (18-May-2008 04:08:06) |
...Which raises a question from me: Would these new carriers be power-projection CATOBAR carriers more in the mold of American designs, or more anti-ship
missile-armed "avation cruisers" like Kuznetsov and Kiev?
|
||
|
Zen9 |
|||
|
Posts: 3544 (18-May-2008 11:58:51) |
That rather raises the same issues every other carrier using nation has, namely the debate (argument) between Airforce and Naval Aviation over which is best
suited to the nations needs.
Mark you Russia has tried the missile armed CV type thing and I'm not sure the results are in favour of it. |
||
|
Obi Wan Russell |
|||
|
Posts: 226 (18-May-2008 13:44:49) |
I don't think there will be a return to the bad old days of the Kievs, half cruiser half carrier and inferior to both. The Kuznetzovs were a step in the
right directin, offering a full deck carrier with a much reduced missile battery (which still had the effect of reducing hangar capacity, something the
Russians will have had a couple of decades experience to ponder now) and the cancelled Ulyanovsk would have been yet another transitional step. Basically an
enlarged Kuznetzov in layout (with a third elevator added on the portside aft), she would have had two steam catapults in the angled deck as in US carriers,
and a ski jump forward. The shape of her fore deck shows the ski jump was superstructure rather than integral with the hull as in the previous ships, and
suggests the intention was to possibly replace the ski jump at a later date with two more steam catapults. I believe modifying the Kuznetzovs with a pair of
steam catapults in the waist position would have followed at some point too. The next generation of Russian carriers most likely be enlarged and modified
versions of the Kuznetzov in layout incorporating lessons learned from operational experience with her, so a ski jump foward is very likely. Catapults are a
distinct possibility, though may not appear on the first ships unless land based catapult trials are resumed soon. I have no doubt that in the bowels of the
Lubianka (former KGB HQ) there are complete sets of plans for all the British and American steam catapults ever made (thanks to a long list of spies over the
last fifty years) and steam catapults aren't particularly high tech to begin with. I believe the new ships will at the very least be built with provision
for the fitting of catapults at the very least.
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
