Posted on 02/11/2015 5:27:03 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
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% 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.
However, any indication of Russian plans should be taken with skepticism. The carrier is still in a conceptual phase and only a scaled mockup has been built so far. Any plans for Russia's construction of the carrier could also be seriously hampered as Moscow is expected to enter a recession due to current economic sanctions and the falling value of the Russian ruble. It might not have the money for this ambitious of a military project, especially with so many other needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
What you are saying is we need a brand new way of maintaining air superiority at sea with out using air craft carriers. OK, what is it?
Gadzooks, Dave-- The level of your history ignorance... 
surpasses a 10-plus on the Richter scale.
All you have to do is Google "Japanese Super Battleship" and "Yamamoto" to get all the info you need--
But no, you have to show your complete lack of knowledge for all to see.
No wonder The Obamanation and company gets re-elected with such intelligence... 
being demonstrated on a Conservative Website.
Are they going to build it out of Pykrete?
No need to get snarky about it. Geez.
It should help restore the empire and return the slave nations to their rightful owners.
Enjoyed your analytical posts nathanbedford. Thanks.
It would be foolish to waste Enterprise on submarine patrol instead of deploying her throughout the Pacific war. In other words the platform should fit the mission.
Rather than assume that we are going to be fight Vietnam or the Gulf wars let us consider the future of asymmetrical warfare. If we are fighting China we are in serious trouble and undoubtedly the war will be waged on China's terms and on China's timetable. They are unlikely to take on 13 Nimitz class carriers with today's weapons systems. But they are developing missiles, satellites and computer warfare to a point that will eventually render 100 aircraft irrelevant.
If we are fighting a near Stone Age culture such as Afghanistan we can get away with a jeep carrier. My relative who survived the war on Enterprise was fond of the story, really a parable, which he applied to the the Korean War but which could be applied to virtually every American war since then. He asked rhetorically who would you say won the following exchange? A multibillion dollar aircraft carrier launches a multimillion dollar aircraft flown by a million-dollar trained pilot to fire a highly expensive missile at an oxcart carrying ammunition to the enemy. The driver of the oxcart hides in a ditch and emerges to eat his blown up ox over a fire made out of the wrecked oxcart.
Who won?
The point is that expense always has to be considered because modern warfare is not just a clash of weapons but the clash of economies and cultures and propaganda and computers. If all your money goes into aircraft carriers (and please do not dispute that with $18 trillion national debt we are short of money) we will lose the war in space or wherever it happens to be fought 50 years from now.
Incidentally, the nuclear powered Enterprise was just returned after 50 years of service. What will be the future of warfare when USS Ronald Reagan is retired?
Maybe.
My point is either go big or don't go at all. Sea power is expensive, we want to keep fighting our wars in their backyards then pay up or suffer the consequences. China, Russia all of them are totally envious of our aircraft carries. We trash talk them and but they get it, we don't.
So, McGruff, let us do as you seem to wish-- Award everyone a trophy and to hell with knowing what is history and what is bull hockey.
Yamato or Yamamato - been a while
As suggested above should "seagull drones" each w about 1kg of HE be an effective swarm weapon then an "airborne" Aircraft Carrier that can deploy 500 of those could be considered the next iteration of the "floating" Aircraft Carrier.
It is not all that difficult to project a little as to what will be the next weapon system that will impart a major change in tactics. Maybe it is.
Good! That means we can sink 100 planes at a time.
Not only are the Chinese competing and winning on the economic front, they are producing the engineers and scientists as well as the industrial capacity on a high technological level to craft weapons for wars in the future. Given the nature of the American democracy, it may well prove unnecessary to fire a single shot to defeat us, it may be entirely sufficient to raise the level of intimidation to the point where our morale and our culture collapses. This is not a question of defending Guam or the sea lanes of Admiral Mahon, this is a function of intimidation brought about by satellites and computer technology.
I have no idea how the next war will be fought war against whom but I am convinced that the best way to lose it is to prepare for the last war. Increasingly, as carriers become more vulnerable and more expensive they will become liabilities rather than strategic power players. I do not claim to know the timetable or the direction other than by these generalities.
We are at a stage of paralyzed will, corrupt politics, and a frighteningly hapless strategic vision. If we had 26 instead of 13 aircraft carriers today would we have the will to use any of them? If we had the will, would we have the strategic vision?
The Free Traitors GAVE the economic power to the Chinese - “they didn’t build that”. Without Nixon and Kissinger giving us gloBULLism the Chinese would still be rice farming idiots. It really isn’t a war on the USA it is a war on the USA’s middle class. The GloBULList don’t care about petty politics and look at patriotism as simple jingoism.
So would you feel better if the Chinese and Russians had a combined total of 20 + Nimitz sized AC carriers and we had none?
Now they are mostly just big ole' Submarine Targets.
Smaller. More agile. Railgun equipped. Laser equipped. THAT is the future.
Because I hate salt water. THE NAVY MUST PERISH.
Seriously: Yes. In about 15 years, that is. When we field autonomous drone swarms capable of taking out absolutely any land- or sea-based unit.
Sharks with laser beam helmets can replace Aircraft carriers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.