Russia developing new aircraft carrier., page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times

Topic started on 15-5-2005 @ 02:20 PM by Seekerof

MOSCOW. May 15:

The Russian Navy is launching a project to develop a new aircraft carrier, the navy's commander Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov told Interfax.

"We are beginning work to develop a new aircraft carrier in 2005. Construction is to begin after 2010," Kuroyedov said.

"We are launching this development project and will involve leading experts to find out which materials and weapons we'll need and how many aircraft carriers should be built," he said.

Kuroyedov earlier told journalists that the navy is planning to put the new carrier into service in the Northern Fleet by 2016-17. Another carrier will be built for the Pacific Fleet, he said. "Deck aviation has a good future. A new multi-purpose aircraft will be created in a few years," Kuroyedov said.

The Russian Navy currently has only one aircraft-carrying cruiser, the Admiral Kuznetsov.

Article to proposed aircraft carrier

Here is a great article to Russia's past Aircraft Carrier programs:
A Brief Look at Russian Aircraft Carrier Development
The State of the Russian Navy

external image
This is the Orel Ul'yanovsk class, an old cancelled aircraft carrier design/proposal, from GlobalSecurity.org. I presented it because it would have been the largest Russian aircraft carrier to be considered and/or built. I'm wondering what the new proposed Russian aircraft carrier will look like and be sized in relation to.
More can be found here:
World Aircraft Carrier Lists: From 1913-2001

Of further interest:
Russian Navy Links

Information on this new proposed Russian Aircraft Carrier are limited and seemingly hard to find more on. If anyonecan provide more, then please do.
Thanks.

seekerof

[edit on 15-5-2005 by Seekerof]

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 05:56 PM by Realist05

Nice link, but just more brave talk from our Russian friends?

I seem to remember that the Kuznetsov was built in two halves, joined together, and proved itself to be unseaworthy during trials.

If this new thing is built I would guess that it would be to sell to the Indians or Chinese; a carrier needs a flotilla of ships for support that the
Russian navy can't staff or keep at sea. It makes little sense.

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 06:13 PM by Seekerof

When I was in service, my unit was stationed on the USS America for 3 days doing operations of Taiwan.

I asked a bridge Lt. Cmdr. why the Russian's had not built an aircraft carrier along the lines and size of the US carriers. His response was that they [the Russians] did not comprehend how to do flightdeck and aircraft storage [hangerdeck] 'tiedowns.'

Here is a picture of one:

Left-hand bottom corner.

This may be some sort of running Navy joke, but may be somewhat true. I understand the Chinese are having the same problems.

seekerof

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 06:20 PM by koji_K

Apparently there was a treaty in place for a long time, not sure if it still is, which prohibited the USSR from operating aircraft carriers. I think this was to do with the straits turkey controls giving access to the black sea. Essentially, Turkey wouldn't allow anything larger than a cruiser to pass through her waters, which were vital for the USSR to support her black sea/mediterranean fleet. So the russians classified their carriers as "heavy cruisers" instead of carriers. They had 3 in operation at one time, the Kiev class:

www.fas.org...

I wonder if they'll call this new one a heavy cruiser as well, or if they'll scrap that policy and go whole hog on a new carrier-based form of fleet?

-koji K.

[edit on 15-5-2005 by koji_K]

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 06:41 PM by namehere

uh the black sea isnt what i'd call a very good place for a carrier, really its obsurd to think of doing that when their airforce can easily cover the area mentioned by you.

[edit on 15-5-2005 by namehere]

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 06:53 PM by koji_K

Originally posted by namehere
uh the black sea isnt what i'd call a very good place for a carrier, really its obsurd to think of doing that when their airforce can easily cover the area mentioned by you.

[edit on 15-5-2005 by namehere]

well, there's this little body of water called the mediterranean, which i hear has some strategic value...

-koji K.

reply posted on 15-5-2005 @ 07:02 PM by Realist05

A quick question for someone with carrier experience:

I was told that during th e 60's there were certain circumstances in port where in order to postition the ship, aircraft were tied down on deck, pointed port or starboard, and thier engines run up to turn the ship!

True or a tall story?