thomastmcc Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 this is interesting looks like the new royal navy queen elizabeth class .. thomas http://www.janes.com/article/51452/russia-developing-shtorm-supercarrier?utm_campaign=%5bPMP%5d_PC5308_J360%2015.05.2015_KV_Deployment&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Probably be in service with a functioning airwing before the QE2 class too! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting that it has FOUR takeoff runs onto TWO ski ramps - although Janes mentions that two of them are EMALS. They don't look like catapults to me - just holdback/acceleration like on Kuznetsov. Note also the PAK FA / T-50's with folded wings and what looks like a Yak-44 AWACS. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomastmcc Posted May 18, 2015 Author Share Posted May 18, 2015 i noticed the awacs ken wasnt sure which aircraft it was.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The odds of such a vessel being built by Russia are about one in a hundred thousand. Russia has built only one surface vessel larger than a corvette since the collapse of the Soviet Union - the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, which itself took 9 years from laying down to commissioning and is still on sea trials 5 years after launch. The skills needed to build a ship like this have long since fallen away in Russia and it would require enormous cost and effort to bring them back. But I can see them selling the design to China! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngstROM Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting, but Gypsy AngstROM's crystal ball (tenner from QVC) shows three possible outcomes: 1. Not a chance. 2. One built; gets turned into floating spa/hotel after a couple of months sitting at Murmansk. 3. We need to find those Habakkuk drawings -NOW! Newsweek had fun with it, though: http://www.newsweek.com/why-does-putin-need-aircraft-supercarrier-324784 ...fwoo, gonna cost! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 I seriously doubt they have the know-how to build a thing like this (and more, to put some adequate aircrafts on deck). Why did they need to buy french Mistral-Class-Ships, after all? And an aircraft carrier needs even more expertise. EMALS, and skyjump? To me, it looks like someone sneaked a what-it-model to the exhibition. Alex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) The odds of such a vessel being built by Russia are about one in a hundred thousand. Russia has built only one surface vessel larger than a corvette since the collapse of the Soviet Union - the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, which itself took 9 years from laying down to commissioning and is still on sea trials 5 years after launch. The skills needed to build a ship like this have long since fallen away in Russia and it would require enormous cost and effort to bring them back. But I can see them selling the design to China! Probably right but, a few years ago who would have seen the UK building two carriers. - a country which basically gave up on the building of large vessels & thereby lost the yards & experienced personnel necessary to do so. Also, a country that hadn't even BUILT a proper carrier since WW2 ( the Arc was laid down in 1943). Never say never Edited May 18, 2015 by Graham T 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Hmmmm.... The Admiral Kuznetsov class were built at the Black Sea shipyard at Nikolaev/Mikolaiv ...... which is in the Crimea. Crimea is now in Russian hands............. Maybe that was the ploy all along....??? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 My mistake....... Mikolaiv is on Ukrainian territory - not Crimea. Still.....???? Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Headroom Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The only problem with Russia building an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is that Turkey, who controls the Bospherus, will not allow aircraft carriers to pass through, hence why the Invincible class vessels were technically 'Through Deck Cruisers'. I assume this conceit was to allow a fellow NATO member to use the channel. How would diplomacy work if Turkey were to say, sorry Mr Putin no entry? Would a better solution be to build this in the Russian Far East instead as that is where things are hotting up. China is building carriers and so is Japan. Trevor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Probably right but, a few years ago who would have seen the UK building two carriers. - a country which basically gave up on the building of large vessels & thereby lost the yards & experienced personnel necessary to do so. Also, a country that hadn't even BUILT a proper carrier since WW2 ( the Arc was laid down in 1943). Never say never Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the design of the Queen Elisabeth from a French design office? They surely have knowhow to build and maintain a large aircraft carrier (after all, who's the second country after the US to operate nuclear CATOBAR-aircraft carriers?). For Russia it's a bit more complicated - no new large warships since a long long time, submarines excluded, and little knowhow on naval aviation. Never built aircraft catapults, and now they're talking about EMALS? I agree on never say never, but fore sure the new carrier will not go into service the next 25 years (design, build, commissionning) Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Never built aircraft catapults, Not quite........ When they were designing the Admiral Kuznetsov, the Soviets built a working land-based steam catapult as part of the design process. It was rejected as a system because operating in Arctic waters meant that there was the possibility of it freezing up - rendering the carrier inoperative. That's one of the reasons they went with holdbacks and ski ramp. Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Ah, thanks! Didn't know that! Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flankerman Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The only problem with Russia building an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is that Turkey, who controls the Bospherus, will not allow aircraft carriers to pass through, hence why the Invincible class vessels were technically 'Through Deck Cruisers'. I assume this conceit was to allow a fellow NATO member to use the channel. How would diplomacy work if Turkey were to say, sorry Mr Putin no entry? Would a better solution be to build this in the Russian Far East instead as that is where things are hotting up. China is building carriers and so is Japan. Trevor The Admiral Kuznetsov was built on the Black Sea - at Nikolaev in the Ukraine. She was designated as a 'Heavy Aircraft-Carrying Cruiser' - in order to circumvent the Montreaux Treaty - and has sailed in and out of the Black Sea on a few occasions. As the west has not shown the balls to stand up to Putin over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, I don't think it would stop the Russians using the Dardanelles if push came to shove.... All purely speculation though..and lets hope it never comes to such a pi**ing contest. Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Probably right but, a few years ago who would have seen the UK building two carriers. - a country which basically gave up on the building of large vessels & thereby lost the yards & experienced personnel necessary to do so. Also, a country that hadn't even BUILT a proper carrier since WW2 ( the Arc was laid down in 1943). Never say neverWe are right at the edge of loosing the ability in the UK to build larger vessels. There are I think only a couple of dry docks now able to work these ships and the knowledge base has been severely depleted. Barrow now concentrates on Nuclear subs basically leaving Govan as the last surface warship yard. Both now owned by the same company. The skill base is not something you can just go out and hire. A sad reflection of our once proud shipbuilding history. Julien (part of that proud history once) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pin Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 There are a lot of paper projects cruising here and there. The fate of many - get money, spend money, abandon. I think technically Russians are capable of building such a ship, practically I expect 50% of money to be stolen that would make it way too expensive. Practically-practically it is not a showstopper. Practically-practically-practically - we all remember what happened to Buran - it was built, flown and forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham T Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the design of the Queen Elisabeth from a French design office? They surely have knowhow to build and maintain a large aircraft carrier (after all, who's the second country after the US to operate nuclear CATOBAR-aircraft carriers?). For Russia it's a bit more complicated - no new large warships since a long long time, submarines excluded, and little knowhow on naval aviation. Never built aircraft catapults, and now they're talking about EMALS? I agree on never say never, but fore sure the new carrier will not go into service the next 25 years (design, build, commissionning) Alex Not 100% sure about the origin of the basic design but France was involved at an early stage when they identified a need for a second carrier but were unwilling to order another similar to CdeG due to many problems experienced with that vessel! The UK's similar requirement was an obvious choice for cooperation. However, rising costs & the UK's refusal to accept a nuclear powerplant scuppered cooperation after not very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Which I think is still a shame and a missed opportunity for both - three similar carriers operated by two countries (and one in reserve/overhaul), CATOBAR and Rafale M / F-35C or navalised Typhoon would cut the cost for both countries in the long term. After all, the systems are getting much closer than they were some 10 years ago (Meteor and Aster, just to name two). CdG was design to fit in an existing dry dock, causing some additional problems. Alex 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlamgat9 Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The only problem with Russia building an aircraft carrier in the Black Sea is that Turkey, who controls the Bospherus, will not allow aircraft carriers to pass through, hence why the Invincible class vessels were technically 'Through Deck Cruisers'. I assume this conceit was to allow a fellow NATO member to use the channel. How would diplomacy work if Turkey were to say, sorry Mr Putin no entry? Would a better solution be to build this in the Russian Far East instead as that is where things are hotting up. China is building carriers and so is Japan. Trevor I dont think operations in the Black Sea had much to do with the Invincible being a Through Deck Cruiser! The reason is instead that the words'aircraft carrier' were politically toxic as the Ark was to be the last of the UK's cruisers and the Treasury would not have funded anything carrying that title. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) I don't doubt that Russia would have the technical capabilities to complete a new aircraft carrier, at least for the "naval part". However I would have serious doubts on the capability from Russia to complete a succesful aircraft carrier in a decent timescale ! it's a type of ship that would first of all require a lot of money, money that I'm not sure can today be spared for such a project. Many technical aspects would also involve technologies that the Russians rarely if ever used before and that would need to be approached from a blank sheet. More money and more time needed to get things right. There's then the matter of what to do with an aircraft carrier: a carrier requires a battle group to operate, would the Russians use the existing ships for this task ? Would they build new ones ? When ? Regarding passage through the Dardanelles, it does not matter what the West likes or not, it's all down to Turkey. If they don't want a ship passing from there, it's not going to pass. They are not easy waters to pass through without Turkey's consent... Edited May 19, 2015 by Giorgio N Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Neu- Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 What I don't get is the second ramp at the end of the landing path... what happens if you have a bolter with a bit too much speed? Its an obvious thing to hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetblast Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 I wonder which will happen first - operational carrier of flying new build Tu-160....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hacker Posted May 20, 2015 Share Posted May 20, 2015 Regardless never underestimate one's rivals. We underestimated the Japanese and now the Chinese. If they are comtemplating building this thing makes you wonder who they are more concerned with. The Americans (doubt it ) or more likely the Chinese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now