Potential new Russian Carriers - a change in strategy?

[Kapitan]

That is true the requirements of russia are far diffrent than the ones of the UK and britian, the kiev is an aircraft carrying cruiser as the moskva class were helicopter cruisers the requiremt of the kievs were to keep the SSBNs safe from air threats and also provide cover for a battle group.

the big down fall with the kuznetsov class is that they dont have catapults which means the aircraft have to burn fuel heavily to take off which means it decreases this air time.

Also the kievs were fully capible of handeling Mig 29's and SU27's provided they were not fully loaded.

The biggest mistake they ever did make was cancelling the ulyonsk class carriers they would have been comparable to the nimitz class!

[AntEater]

The Kievs still had potential, as is highlighted by the neverending India/Gorshkov story. I suppose the endless delays have more to do with the detiriorating material condition of the Gorshkov than with design flaws. In the end it might have been cheaper and faster for the indians to have ordered a new carrier to a modified Kiev design at a russian shipyard But I suppose the loadout limitations will apply to the indian MiG-29s as well, so that the Vikra...somthing will be a purely defensive vessel. I've always wondered about indians and carriers anyway, as every target in Pakistan is well within range of land based aviation. So I suppose the carrier is just to be regarded as a big boy among international navies. But it surely seems that currently everybody and his dog is getting at least some kind of aircraft carrier, even though it is mostly disguised as something else like "Helicopter destroyer", "joint support ship", "air defense vessel", "new major surface unit" or whatever...

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by CptSimFreak

So Russia will build new carriers for China and India? Hmmm

LOL at that one.

"He said the navy's core would consist of the newest strategic nuclear-powered submarines and six squadrons of aircraft carriers."

I just don't see this given the current state, or likely future state, of Russia's economy. Having said that, who was the guy that said 'Russia is newer as strong, or as weak, as it appears.'

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by AntEater

I suppose you have to see the Kievs not as carriers, but really as what they were called by the Soviets: Cruisers.

I'm doing the calculation that way.

The real limit was the Yak-38.

And that's really the whole point. Ustinov knew that even on the best day, the Yak-36/38 project had about zero chance of delivering a genuine fighter.

A shame the Yak-141 was not developed fully.

Yes. But it doesn't excuse the Kievs. A V/STOL proponent might be able to point to that for a carrier meant to be completed in the early 90s. But the Kievs are 70s carrier, which means the only plane they could seriously hope to have, for 10 years at least after they are commissioned, is the POS Forger.

But a Yak-38 could still shoot down a P-3 or Nimrod and that was all that was really required.

Even that is honestly doubtful at longer distances. Having no real radar to speak of, the Forger would have to be guided by the Kiev's or an escort's radar. IIRC, the thing is too primitive to even have a datalink, so that means the plane has to be guided by voice. In the time that slow, short-ranged plane can reach out that far, the Nimrod would have either extended or dove under the radar horizon. If they armed it with a S-200F, they would actually have a better chance of guiding in a missile to knock down the MPA before it could dive...

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

the big down fall with the kuznetsov class is that they dont have catapults which means the aircraft have to burn fuel heavily to take off which means it decreases this air time.

Not nessarly a downfall. There have been some US Carrier aircraft that could take off cat-less, like the S-2 Tracker. The Kiev's might have made a half way decent Anti-Boomer ship if the Russians had an equivlent to the S-2.

Also if the Russian's invested in a "Buddy Tanking" system or a dedcated tanker verson of the Flanker the extra fuel burned on take off wouldn't have mattered much except on interception missions.

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

...in other words, it is a complete failure as a concept.

Well no it was a failure in execution not concept, remember that this concept was basicly used for the Royal Navy's CVH's minus the ASMs.

[Tchocky]

Hmph. Syria.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...434145,00.html

[geetrue]

One thing your leaving out about Russian aircraft carriers is the weather. The extreme weather patterns of Russian has surely been involved in their past history of shipbuilding.

A submarine can dive, a crusier or a surface ship can be cozy in many places, but an aircraft carrier with it's air wing, in icy dangerous waters, defending the home land all at the same time, did not make sense to the elite groups of men that have had to make these decisions.

Expansion of Russian interest must be in their future ship building plans, to defend Iran in return for cheap oil, could be part of their five year plan.

As an old submarine sailor I can only say thanks for the new targets Russia ... we were getting bored with the same old sounds your ships make.

[swifty]

Video of USSR Carrier.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Expansion of Russian interest must be in their future ship building plans, to defend Iran in return for cheap oil, could be part of their five year plan.

Not sure I see why Russia needs anyone's cheap oil when they're themselves a major supplier thereof :hmm:

[AntEater]

Basically, because Russia is the bad guy, Iran is the bad guy too, so they naturally go together
:rotfl::hmm:

[Jimbuna]

Cool video swifty