Russia claims it's in the early stages of developing an aircraft carrier that can hold 100 planes

Business Insider ^ | 10 February 2015 | Jeremy Bender

[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.

[central_va]

So how long does it take for a drone to fly all the way across the Pacific. Or are these sub launched drones?

[nathanbedford]

I quite agree, these people look at a globe and do not see national boundaries they see markets, avenues of commerce, airports, media centers.

Extreme examples include George Soros but even the Bush family, although to a much lesser degree, see the world in international terms moving toward a supranational government.

So Barack Obama sees no threat to the United States because he does not see the United States as an entity except as it presents an obstacle to the onrush of socialism and one world socialist utopia. The Chinese, at least, are nationalists because they are also racists but that is another story.

So in the context of our discussion, the internal morale of the United States over the course of decades is a far more important factor for our national security than the number of aircraft carriers sailing in harms way.

[Lazamataz]

So how long does it take for a drone to fly all the way across the Pacific. Or are these sub launched drones?

Probably, a very short period of time.

[Lazamataz]

Brother, we are Free Republic friends, so I say this gently: I think you are stuck on fighting the last war.

Let's fight the next one, instead. :)

[Lazamataz]

So in the context of our discussion, the internal morale of the United States over the course of decades is a far more important factor for our national security than the number of aircraft carriers sailing in harms way.

Wow. Dude. That was brilliant. You are one of FR's great thinkers. Thank you.

[central_va]

So in the context of our discussion, the internal morale of the United States over the course of decades is a far more important factor for our national security than the number of aircraft carriers sailing in harms way.

I agree with you about morale, but I want our flat tops available. IMO I think they are well worth it.

[central_va]

The next war will be Civil War II. A bloody land war for one region to escape this forsaken union.

[SgtHooper]

No, but I also think they are slow-moving targets against a sophisticated enemy in wartime. That being said, carriers also enable the wielding of enormous power over areas in non-wartimes, and are necessary. During wartime, however, I think a few consecutive waves of cruise missiles (say, 5 waves of 5 missiles each, in 1-2 minute waves) could sink any carrier. This does not even consider torpedoes and other threats that would be used in wartime. The same applies to the stealth bomber.