Posted on 06/03/2015 9:52:41 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Russia’s defense and industrial sector is developing a promising aircraft carrier for the Navy worth up to $5.6 billion, which has no analogs in the world, Northern Fleet Commander, Admiral Vladimir Korolyov said on Monday.
The new aircraft carrier will enable the Russian Navy to operate more effectively, the admiral said, referring to the developments by the Krylov Research State Center in St. Petersburg but gave no estimates for the new ship.
The center’s developments are known under the codename Project 23000E Storm.
"Considering that the Northern Fleet forces perform a great variety of missions in the distant Oceanic zone, the presence of an aircraft carrier in the fleet in the future will help address these tasks more effectively," the admiral said.
Currently, the Admiral Kuznetsov heavy aircraft carrier bears the main load for the practical drills of deck-based aircraft, the commander said.
‘In a perspective, however, we should have a full-fledged aircraft carrier complex in our fleet surpassing world analogs by its characteristics. This is required by new challenges and threats emerging in the world," the admiral said.
"If we speak about what kind of an aircraft carrier the fleet needs, this should be a ship corresponding to the requirements of tomorrow rather than of today," the Northern Fleet commander said.
Nevskoye Design Bureau Head Sergei Vlasov told Tass news agency the promising aircraft carrier might cost from $1.8 billion to $5.63 billion at the current ruble/dollar exchange rate.
Its development will take about ten years. However, there are no technical specifications for a ship of this class so far, Vlasov said.
Nevertheless, aircraft carriers have been included in Russia’s shipbuilding program until 2050.
The Nevskoye Design Bureau, which is Russia’s sole aircraft carrier designer, is carrying out preparatory works on this project.
Russians haven’t had good results with aircraft carriers IIRC. The few they’ve built are either floating rattletraps or wind up getting scrapped before they are even launched.
They’ve done much better with “unsinkable aircraft carriers” such as Cuba.
And aren’t behemoth carriers nothing more than bigger targets these days? Maybe the “Jeep carriers” of World War Two should be brought back. More ships, smaller targets, but carrying swarms of aircraft.
Dust off the plans for the GI Joe SHARC.
Nice to see Russian defense firms are also fluent in bullshitski.
Depends on if they go with the sports package, heated seats and sunroof.
$5.6 billion?
That’s an awfully expensive target for one of our fast attack subs.
There are no SSNs, of any navy, that can catch a US Aircraft Carrier.
Can they get curb feelers?
Naval PakFas with folding wings on the model?
Bull. Russia’s never innovated anything except new and better torture techniques.
Joe Stalin had some great plans and models of Battleships—that were never built. Smaller Drone carriers would be a good idea, Once we get the rail guns perfected—Monitors might make a comeback—or even fast battleships. The Russians toyed with half-airplane/half ships a while back—maybe that’s what is needed. We need to think 21st Century, not WW II.
The Soviet “Ekranoplan” was a half ship half aircraft meant to land an invasion force super quick. It was one of N.S. Khrushchev’s harebrained schemes that was quickly defunded when he was deposed.
We’ll need to think of something that’s 21st Century, or at least see what the Chinese are experimenting with, as they seriously intend to become a global seapower.
Then there’s always the world’s muzzie problem. No carriers needed to fight that, just some civilizational will to survive.
This article?
The carrier can’t travel any faster than its escorts though can it?
All escorts in the CVBG can go as fast as the carrier. The problem is the auxiliaries that refuel and resupply the escorts. They are noisy and slow.
So essentially, a carrier is strategically useless against a navy with decent subs. Its like submariners say, there are only two types of ship, submarines and targets. Still useful for pounding third-rate nations who step out of line though. Still, it would probably be better to invest in larger numbers of smaller, cheaper carriers, preferably with drones rather than manned aircraft and a really, really good sized and quality submarine force. The former can do the aforementioned pounding of third-rate nations, the latter can give you a decent shot of being able to maybe stop all your capital ships being sunk within the first week.
Carriers will become obsolete when the concept of air superiority becomes obsolete. Bubbleheads (submariners) are very myopic. they are clueless to amphibious warfare, surface warfare and air warfare. They mistakenly judge what it would be like in wartime by peacetime exercises. Like I said the other missions of the navy amphibious warfare and air warfare mean nothing to them. That is why very few seem to break the upper echelons of the Navy command because they are to one tracked.
No doubt those missions are essential, but its a moot point when you can’t protect your surface ships for long enough to carry them out. If you can’t protect your carriers and other surface ships, power projection and expeditionary warfare capabilities would surely be neutralized by the simple expedient of making it too dangerous to take your surface fleet into the open seas.
So you think you know more than the Admiral Staff of the US Navy? Do you not think they know the short comings of a CVBG? Do you think they rush head long into a situation where hostile subs are present.? Have you studied Naval warfare? Where? How long were you in the US Navy? What rank did you obtain?
I haven’t, but I have heard from other people who were, who say that people who have dedicated their careers to a particular specialist branch cannot bring themselves to admit that it has been rendered redundant or obsolete like horse mounted cavalry. Many of the high ranking navy brass in World War II who had grown up in the era when dreadnoughts ruled the waves became myopic and it coloured their judgment about how effective they were in the modern age compared to the aircraft carriers in their day.
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.