I may be aging myself, but does anyone else get the Robert H. Heinlein effect after watching these YouTube reports from Syria? Welcome to the new global age of media.

You understood the video.

Ah, so. When asked to defend your crap, you cant and fall back on insults. Everything I posted was accurate. Please, please post your link on Baltic slipway- you can’t cause your lying. I have the dimensions right from them. You couldn’t present any factual information to refute what I said about width of slipway or DWT limit. So sad, the typical Sputnik poster, prone to chest puffing, short on knowledge.

Btw, I am far from a Russia hater. I dislike those who pose fantasy as fact and get caught up in nationalistic b.s. over real information -be they Russian or US. You and JSR can live in your dream world without those nasty little details like the truth bother you. Good for you.

I almost posted the two sites listing baltiysky zavod’s slipway dimensions, but i’ll let you flounder along in your obvious discomfort of being caught lying.

I am still waiting for India to integrate 3000km land attack missile into diesel electric SSK with ripple fire capability and built them at higher quantity per year. but they will built and operate own carrier.

There is a lot wrong here, even though I agree with timeframes. But then, so has the Russian govt, so I’m not sure what your central point is?

1. Ulyanovsk was to be about 80 000t, with dimensions approaching the Nimitz class. It apparently was to use the same reactors currently in service with the Russian Navy on the Kirov class. Also, 4 of the OK-650 reactors used on the nuclear subs would also suffice, depending on the variant, not 6. As a comparison, USS Enterprise used 8 reactors, the Nimitz 2.
We simply aren’t privy to what the plans are, or whether a derived powerplant of any of these will be used. For all we know, it might use a derivitive of the new reactor going into the Arktika nuclear icebreakers. Or rather more likely IMHO, the nuclear reactor planned for the large Lider class cruiser.
I think that it is a given though that it will be nuclear, given Russias long and successful design and use of nuclear power.

2. No. Baltic Shipyard. Slipway A is 350m long, with a capacity for 100 000t. Also, Zvezda in the far east is in the process of being expanded with the aim of constructing vessels up to around 300 000t. That will include a longer slipway than the 350m one at Baltic. Part of this was specifically mentioned as being part of the “military industrial complex”. Another thing is that vessels are simply not launched at full displacement. The INS Vikrant for example was launched at 75% of it’s construction work completed. That would be 75% of its Standard Displacement. The Nimitz for example had a Standard Displacement of 81 000t. It’s Full Displacement, when loaded and victualled to the max is 100 000t. No builder launches a carrier at its Full Displacement, obviously.

3. What has the SSN programme to do with this? Sevmash build nuclear submarines. They modified the Baku into the Vikramaditya, but this doesn’t necessarily mean they will build the Kuznetsov follow on from the ground up. Construction of a dry dock and pier to accomodate a carrier? See point 2 above.

Russia has not officially stated when the replacement of Kuznetsov will occur, beyond some vague references by interested industry or off-hand remarks by politicians or navy men. Kuznetsov was commissioned in 1990. It will undergo a deep refit (mid life) after this deployment, in 2017, that is expected to prolong its life for another 25 years. This puts it in the lifespan of around 40-50 years, comparable to many other carriers. USS Nimitz for example was launched 44 years ago, Midway served for 47 years, Kittyhawk for 48 years, Enterprise 50 years. Nimitz will serve for more than 50 years at current projections.
By that time projected for Kuznetsov, the next Russian carrier will be around to replace it.
In that regard, your 2030 date seems roughly correct, but this tallies with some of the more general recent statements saying that a new carrier will finish its design phase around 2023-25.

the new carrier construction will depend on how kuzentov perform in syria and how much experience gained from its upgrades . The next carrier need to work as hospital ship and cargo vessel as long range T-50 can fly from land bases. The carrier does not need to carry around full load of fighters.

The “Shtorm” not going to get built any time in the near future. It is a table top model. Before I get screamed down as a “Russia hating ignoramus” let’s look at the reality:
1. No suitable nuclear reactor on long lead, or currently being designed for a 100,000 ton carrier (sure you can use multiple reactors designed for the Borei, ext. But that takes up a large amount of volume, massive expense to add 6 OK-650 reactors you would need to power a 100,000 ton carrier to acceptable speeds). No gas turbines of sufficient power to propel the Carrier built in Russia as of yet- In other words, there is no current propulsion capable of powering this thing. And it would take years to prepare one.
2. No yard capable of building a 100,000 ton Carrier. The largest yards with 300 meter dry-docks are Sevmash and Admiralty yard. Both are limited to 70,000 tons DWT (not even 70,000 tons displacement). The largest carrier Russia could construct currently would be around 300 meters >60,000 tons displacement.
3. Current build time for a SSN is around 7 years at Sevmash. Even if Russia started ordering long lead items like the reactors tomorrow, and started construction on a dry dock and pier to accommodate this thing, we would be talking about a commissioning date post 2030.

Just don’t see it.

The capability of carrier does not depend on its weight but capability of its fighter wing and escorts. It need all nuclear escorts above and below the surface for independent operations from land bases. A T-50 has more than likely to twice the combat radius of MIG-29K/F-18/F-35 with usefull load. not to mention high altitude and cruising speed that give decisive edge to missile ranges. 4th and 5th generation Subs are more complex than carrier.

Sorry to hear that.. I’ve been a big fan of the Shuttle, although, I admit that financially it was a real catastrophy.

Back to TAKR (Kuznetsow). There is way too much ado regarding this.. Kuz is sailing from North Sea to Syria, nothing more nothing less.. That the screaming media of each and every country along the way suddenly feel the urge to whine about unprecedented endargerment of their sovereignity (Norway) and sending half of the active fleet to shadow its every movement (UK) is hardly Russia’s fault. And yes, TAKR is not Nimitz, it ain’t 100k class, only 60k class, it ain’t nuclear only conventional (a rather crappy one), it doesn’t carry 70 planes, only ~30, so what, we knew that all along.. if you have 8 billion, buy Gerald Ford.. if you only have 2, then STOBAR is the best you can hope for. A question of money… can’t see what would Russia need a Nimitz for, let alone ten of them..

… and it has its own tug in case something goes wrong, a rather smart thing if you ask me.. :applause: Russians do it differently, sometimes it’s peculiar but it seems to work for them, just get over it and move along..

that $2.3b was export price for India as took long negotiation to come to agreement on price . that 4 year work was completed in 8 years. with experience the same work can be done under $500m at current exchange rate for Kuzentov at half time. I am sure export price of Gerald Ford can easily be above $20b.

Here are some posts in this thread you must have missed:

Let me guess, everyone is a troll but you. :rolleyes:

what happens in 1990s with this carrier has no bearing on specific task this carrier is being deployed currently. I will not be surprised if cross deck landing with Egyptian Mistral happens (or they may resell the Mistral at some point at bargain price?). it is the most usefull deployment. just watch the show.

Certainly a US carrier is more expensive, but then US carriers deploy around the world on a regular basis, without tugs. There really isn’t any comparison between how the USN operates its carriers and the Kuznetsov.

US has global basis so it has less need of repair ships with every deployment. Russia not going to built so many bases it makes country dysfunctional by relying on unreliable allies.

You think the Soviets/Russia designed, tested, and built the Kuznetsov and the Su-33 for less than billions? Why don’t you take a moment to google what India paid for their carrier, and bear in mind that that was a refurbishment job and an update to the Mig-33 taking advantage of the original Soviet work.

India paid $2.4b for carrier and $2b for 45 MIG-29k. but there was steep learning curve of actually operationally building a carrier (it is reported they did not have full drawings and very long cable work) and jets after 30 years gap. that experience is now already in computers. MIG-29K has nothing in common with soviet MIG-29K. its complete glass cockpit with quad dfbw, bigger airframes, enhanced long life engines. this larger airframe is now used in MIG-29KR and MIG-35/MIG-29M. I don’t see next Russian carrier will be any more expensive than SSBN.
the more you post the less technical knowledge you showing.

If you go to the Pak-fa thread, they will tell you the Indian contribution is not that significant for the success of the program

that’s correct. T-50 development will be long completed before it is exported.