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.

As I stated, the Ulyanovsk was to be powered by four KN-3 reactors. Those have not been built since the mid-80’s. Do you really believe that Russia could or would resurrect a reactor design that hasn’t been built in 30 years? The Lider class has been pushed back to 2019 at the earliest. Yes, there is speculation that the Lider will share reactors with the future carrier. As neither exist right now, nor are these plans concrete, saying it will be so is very different from it happening.

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.

Zvezda is not, and from reports, may not be completed for quite some time. Not to mention it is transitioning to a largely commercial yard to build LNG, and tankers. I repeat as of now there are no drydocks, no slipways in Russia with a width capable of building a Carrier. That may change at some point in the future, but we are talking reality, not plans.

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

Really, which current project would you like to discuss the build time for? Gorshkov class perhaps? It takes time to regenerate shipbuilding capacity. This is not a knock on Russia, it is the reality of a roughly 15 year pause in building large naval ships.

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.

Are you incapable of converting feet to meters? It is easy, multiply by .305. I will repost what I said:

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” )

The Kirov class has a w.l. beam of 28.5m (94 feet), the Kutzetsov has a w.l. beam of 35m (115 feet). Do you get it now? Btw, the SSV-33 used a modified Kirov hull with a waterline beam of 29.9 meters. So? It would easily fit on the Baltic shipyards slipway. Arktika has a w.l. beam of 34 meters, so it could obviously fit. I won’t even comment on the “eyeball measurement” of 3 meters space.

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.

Really? Maybe you should. I used the information from the yard. Baltic shipyards slipway “A” is 350m long with an official width of 35 meters (it is actually a bit closer to 36 meters). You contact them, I have the correct information. None of this is to suggest Russia won’t or can’t build a Carrier. Obviously, if the requirement is still there by the time new yard is ready and new reactors are complete, and shipbuilding expertise is regained, Russia possesses the technological ability.

Btw, the answer for the difference between what is referred to a light displacement (the weight of the ship structure, hull) and deadweight is a ratio of roughly 3/5ths. So Baltic is capable of building a ship with a light displacement of roughly 40,000 tons (give or take a few thousand).

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

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

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?

I love it when people start stating a post is wrong and then refute said post with incorrect information…. see below. My point was simple, the Shtorm is a model. By the time the groundwork is laid, the plans may be very different, or priorities may have changed.

. 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.

Let’s start with this. The KN-3 of the Kirov class produced 300 MWt of power each. They were not powerful enough to drive the ship to 32 knots (and provide electricity) without steam boilers on a 24,000 ton ship. The Uyanovsk would likely have had four KN-3. That reactor has not been produced since probably the mid-1980’s (the reactor for the Pyotr Velikiy was likely finished long before the ship). That is likely not an option.
4 OK-650 would not suffice. they produce 190 MWt apiece. The reactors of the Arktika (RITM-200) produce 170 MWt of power so they are not suitable either. The A4W reactors of the Nimitz produce 550 MWt each (1100 MWt total thermal power). I would assume that a carrier approaching 100,000 tons would need a similar level of power for propulsion and electrical power generation. The Enterprise did use 8 reactors, for that reason she was extremely expensive to operate/construct (let alone refuel), one reason why the America and JFK reverted to conventional power until larger reactors were developed. (Late edit- not that Russia isn’t capable of producing such a reactor, it is, and as you say they have a long history of producing naval reactors. But one with sufficient power is not going just materialize, estimated time of development/testing would take 5 years minimum. A1B development was around 15 years.)

. 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.

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.

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.

A lot, Sevmash is one of the more modern yards. The construction of a nuclear carrier would be more complex than building an SSBN, or SSN. A seven year construction cycle for a roughly 8,000 ton SSN, how long do you think a carrier would take considering current build times for warships?

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.

Which is fine, but as I stated. The infrastructure still needs to be completed, and long lead items like the reactors would have to be ordered far in advance of a 2023-25 start of construction date. Since there are no firm plans as of yet, an actual date for a new carrier is hypothetical.

you need to separate dreams from reality.
the reality is the pak-fa bay is too shallow and limited. it will carry air to air missiles unless russia makes new small diameter bombs
google su-47 bay

Reality is that probably no one outside of Sukhoi employees and select officials have seen the inside of the weapons bay, so your obviously talking out your A**. A lot will depend on depth, configuration, ejector rack arrangement and method.

Well, the Russian navy seems to disagree with you on this count – they have “plans” to build their own Gerald Ford 100,000 tonner in the future:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E

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.

OK, so it’s actually $13bil.. wow.. :angel:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/uss-gerald-r-ford-aircraft-carrier-delay/

First of class…always cost escalation. About a 30% cost overrun as of now. Second of class projected at 11.5 billion. Eventual cost of each unit of Ford class will very much depend on build rate (they’ve already extended to a five year build cycle) + government furnished equipment costs (about 40% of the cost growth-EMAILS, Dual band radar, etc.). I personally doubt if Ford class will make it beyond CVN-81, some CVN-80 long lead items already on order.

Ok, now that a more reasoning approach seem to have returned there I’ll post my 2 cents.
Let’s make a distinction between what is the single ship, now more than 25 years old and having suffered from the USSR downfall and the class in itself.
Because you know I am not seen same problem in the recently refurbished Liaoning, that has kept the same propulsion system, so maybe it’s just the result of aging and/or the fact of being the first one of the class.
Kutnetsov was the first ever carrier to utilize STOBAR and in this it was certainly a success, given that also India and China have adopted it, albeit in a unconventional way.
.

Liaoning has suffered from engine issues (including a minor steam explosion on trials). China does not release much information, but reports suggest the engines are not entirely reliable. While officially, the hulk was supplied without engines, there are numerous reports that the former Vayag did have boilers and turbines in place. Supporting this premise is the difficulty of installing boilers and turbines without having to cut a hole in the ship to install machinery.