Before I get screamed down as a “Russia hating ignoramus” let’s look at the reality:

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it appears you truly are exactly what you described yourself as.
You were schooled on your BS, but instead of being glad to be corrected, you twisted and squirmed with more BS.
I’m sure everybody has been reading through your strange posts and noted your behaviour. You actually posted the Kuznetsov overall width as it’s waterline beam originally.:stupid:
On that note…
I have the correct width of the Baltic slipway, from Baltic themselves, in an official document. I’ve given it to you already.

I agree, mods can we move all aircraft carrier posts to “naval aviation”?

Actually, please don’t…. the last thing that thread needs is any posts from a self described “Russian hating ignoramus” , your words not mine and duly demonstrated, to stink up the thread like you’ve done here by plucking stuff out of your backside and presenting it as fact, even when others have shown up your errors.
No thanks.

I love it when people start stating a post is wrong and then refute said post with incorrect information…. see below.

Your post was wrong. And so is your new one again, which I’ll correct at the end. To recap.

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.

I demonstrated that you simply don’t know this. That Ulyanovsk was to nuclear powered. That the new Lider class is to be nuclear powered. And that you simply are not privy to what is in the pipeline, apart from your assumptions.

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.

You were wrong on this, as was explained to you by both myself and TR1. You mysteriously forgot the two largest Russian yards. One of which has a longer slipway capable of 100 000t, and that Zvezda is in the process of being redeveloped to be even larger. It also had to be explained to you that carriers are not launched at their maximum displacement for very obvious reasons.

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,

No need. See post 2, as explained. Your SSN example is a complete strawman to what we are discussing.

Now for your latest post containing more errors:

The last large warship built at Baltic Shipyard (Pyotr Velikiy) had a beam of 94 feet, the Kutznetsov has twice the beam (edit- this is o.a. beam, the Kutznetsov has a w.l. beam of 35 m so it still could not have been built at Baltiysky Zavod slipway “A” ). There is a reason that it was built at Nikolayev (look at the length and width of the slipway no.0). Baltic shipyard has one slipway long enough, but it cannot built a 100,000 ton displacement ship (several posters keep confusing DWT with displacement) Yes, ships aren’t launched at full load displacement, but a dry dock still has to be able to support the equipped hull weight sans stores, aircraft, fuel, etc, for maintenance. Here are the specs from their website:
The biggest slipway in Russia which is 350 m long allows building ships with deadweight up to 100,000 t.
http://www.bz.ru/en/about/
Currently no slipway in Russia is wider that 35 meters.

You are mixing feet now with meters…no surprise you are getting confused with the Kuznetsovs beam. I will stick to modern measurements like meters.
You must be forgetting the SSV-33 Ural. It had a wider waterline beam than the Kirovs.
You must also have forgotten the recently launched Arktika nuclear icebreaker, with a wider beam again. At just over 34 meters waterline beam, it is very close to the Kuznetsovs beam.
The slipway when Arktika launched had about 3 meters either side still free. When the Russian Mistrals stern was launched, this gap was even larger. A basic eyeball would have shown you this. This also, just by the way, tallies nicely with the official width of 40,5m for the slipway. A slipway width, btw, very close to Rosyths dry dock width of 42m. If you want to see tight, watch HMS Queen Elizabeth when there, which incidentally, has a waterline beam very close in width to the Nimitz class.

Maybe you should contact Baltic Shipyard and tell them that it simply can’t be?
You keep making definitive statements, which turn out to be incorrect.

For what it is worth, I suspect they will probably end up using the new upgraded Zvezda in the Far East, when it is ready. But that is simply my opinion, based on a a few statements where one had to read between the lines a little, and might be incorrect.

Either way, this should be taken to the Russian Naval topic.

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.

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.

You didn’t even bother watching the video did you?

Of course he didn’t.
His profile reveals deep issues, so I’m not sure why you’re wasting your time.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/search.php?searchid=1990605

Today? I really don’t know. I certainly believe that Russia will produce such a jet in the very distant future with greater certainty than Sweden ever will.

I suspect you are right.
Sweden has a wonderful postwar record in fighter design, extremely impressive in fact..
Tunnan, Lansen, Draken, Viggen, Gripen.. pound-for-pound probably the most impressive record of all.

But you do wonder what will follow the Gripen, powerpoint displays notwithstanding.

I realy do not know why again you insist in this discussion? The J-10’s dimensions were officially confirmed since years and noone with really interest and knowlegde questions them. Noone reliable said it has the size of a J-10. So why always provoking and trolling around with false accusations?
I’m still waiting for any of your proofs concerning the claims you accused me. I never said the J-20 is only 18 m long and so many other things too … you are flop-flopping answers, bashing personally instead of argueing …

That’s indeed all you can … simply a troll par excellance.

Deino….don’t take it to heart, especially his personal criticism of you.
Over the years I’ve enjoyed your input, as I’m sure many others have, and you have published some wonderful books on Chinese aviation.

I don’t think Y-20 Bacon is being serious….in fact, even when he was F-18 Hamburger almost 20 years ago on this forum, he was much the same.
I think he provokes to get a discussion going.;)

It doesn’t hurt me – it bores me to death. You’re like some sort of stuck record.

And yet:

Maybe Russia could pay SAAB for its next 6th generation fighter?

It’s in Russia’s interest to go to Stockholm to buy its next gen combat aircraft.

And we’re still on the first page of the thread.