It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia Eyes New Aircraft Carriers Next Decade

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Russia which is down to one aircraft carrier is looking to launch at least 2 new carriers in the 2016-17 time frame. Little detail is avalible and as always is subject to funding etc. My question is this: Carriers are really for projecting power beyond ones shores. Russia's military is really a defensive one at best now so why bother with building a ship type in which they have little experience in to begin with? How much power can you project with just one or two?




Russia will develop and build new aircraft carriers in the next decade, according to Russian Navy Commander-in-Chief Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov. Preliminary design discussions will begin later this year, he indicated. Full-scale development would be possible after 2010 under a new government weapon procurement plan. The existing arrangement does not cover aircraft carriers. Kuroyedov says the vessels would accommodate new-generation aircraft, and he projects entry into service in 2016-17. The Russian navy will receive at least two carriers, one each for the Northern and Pacific Fleets, he says. The country now has only one remaining aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov.
Russian Carriers




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
it is probably part of a plan by the Russian Navy to get back its blue water capability and downsize their fleet. Well that's my best guess anyway.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:44 AM
link   
with a coastline the size of russia's I can see the use of carriers...

... like mobile airbases



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   


with a coastline the size of russia's I can see the use of aircraft carriers

Russia's coastline is practically impenetrable to large surface ships (due to so much of it being north of the arctic circle) russia's northern fleet is icebound for a large part of the year (global warming not with standing)
their pacific fleet has part of the same problem though not as long. Besides
like what was said before carriers are really offensive weapons.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   
russian wants to project her power agian

i can see russia slowly retaking her lost satille states



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Russia won't take those satellites back, besides wouldn't that be considered an act of war?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
the un would turn its head and do nothing plus it would be done under the falsity of the war on terror, its been rumored that putin thinks losing them was the biggest mistake.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
you do realise a good proportion of those "satalite states" are now members of both the EU and NATO... or have special agreements with them.

Russia knows fine well the satalite states are gone from a territorial point of view... however moscow may try to influence on a political and economic level.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
nice i guess that we'll be having some new Aircraft Carriers in 11-12 years



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
2 things;
A - India has contracted Russia to build it a Kutzenov class carrier (or 2). This is likely going to be used to rebuild Russia's carrier building capability. Then its only a matter of a few billion US which won't be a problem if Russia's economic recovery continues.

Russia is more then capable of launching an offensive force. Its airborne units are second to none and are better equipped to boot. They could gain air supremacy over any country and airlift 400 main battle tanks a day if they needed. Its doctrine for carriers is different. They are for use as fleet defence. As they are the worlds major threat when it comes to air launched anti ship missiles they don't need to maintain many carriers or naval air wings. However 1 is spreading themselves thin (obviously). My bet is the forward swept wing PAK-FA variant will be launched from a modernized Kutzenov class to defend Naval assets operating near Russia's shore-line. The beauty of this being response times. Launch Naval fighters from an air-base in an emergency situation and you have to hope they get there in time. Launch them from the middle of the fleet in danger and you've got little to worry about.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   
still dont see what good an aircraft carier will do russia. It'll be sold to the highest bidder almost as fast as the ak's

more seriously does rusia even have that many carier based fighters. could someone name some

I think its just the su-33



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I believe they use quite a few navalized MiG-29's for carrier forces, but also including the SU-33.

We'll see if such a plan stays on schedule....projects like aircraft carriers can get very costly very quickly



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
2 carriers without much else isn't much "power projection" with the US with all of it's Carrier Battle Groups. The Russian fleet will stay a coastal navy. Really doesn't make sense considering the financial needs for upgrades in the Russian Military Forces. That money could be better spent elsewhere in their military.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Pavil, I was just explaining how Russia's doctrine for development of carriers is simply fleet defence. In fact both China and Russia follow that principle. Carriers are operated as individual defensive ships with aircraft designed to be best at Air to Air combat on them.

I also explained that since Russia is the best nation at knocking out carriers and other naval vessels with aircraft this explains why Russia and China have never focused so hard in this area. Why build a huge fleet of carriers to knock out incoming enemies when normally you only need to have some land based naval aircraft hanging around just off the coastline.

As for Naval capable aircraft I think its a good idea to point out that Russia has more then 3 VTOL capable light carriers (the Kutzenov being a medium carrier). The Russians also are the only country in the world with a Mach 1 capable VTOL aircraft.

Their naval aircraft include:
Su-27K (Su-33) Flanker
Mig-29K Fulcrum
Yak-41 Freestyle

Which makes their Naval forces the best equipped in the world in the air. Also the PAK-FA contract stipulated the creation of a Naval aircraft as well. Therefore the liklihood of a PAK-FA with forward swept wings is pretty big. Those wings increase performance at low speeds, increase maneouvreability overall and reduce stall speed, all of which help when taking off a carrier. Also of the blueprints released so far and even a photo of 2 PAK-FA prototypes in construction have shown both forward and rear swept wing designs.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
its more of showing there not as poor as we think they are.. i have no idea where they would get the funding for these, guess the russian people will have to suffer more for there milatary.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:25 AM
link   
The money could be better used in the professionalisation of their armed forces and giving resouces for training and spare parts.There is not point in building new aircraft carriers as they would be lucky to find enough serviceable ships to form a battle group.Not to mention trained pilots with adequate flight time to deal with the high pressure's of carrier air operations.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Actually Russia isn't that poor. Their are more billionaires in Moscow then there is in New York when measured in US$ and the cost of living is also higher there. With many millions living there I don't think the Russian people are living poorly. The difference is that the cost of living outside Moscow is very low and so are incomes. This doesn't make for a country that is not capable of surviving but it makes for a country that doesn't seem to have a big economy when measured in US$.

bmdefiant; Russian pilots may not get as many hours in the air as they did in the 1980's but they get more then they got in the 1990's. Not only that but when they sign up they sign up for life. That means that if they were to get called into war they would've have been training for that day for a much higher average of years then US pilots. You can argue all you want that US pilots are better trained but the average amount of years spent training Russian pilots is at least triple that for their US Navy counterparts. Besides they have the best carrier aircraft in the world.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
ok lets check this out you think that the SINGLE rusty pos russian carrier could match a US carrier groop??? the country that is useing there uber high tech subs as hotels!!! what are you thinking russia is just the pathetic crumbed wreck of USSR that did have a bit of a tech edge agianst us. but come on where will they get the funding for this project its absurd.
and in comabat one of our old carriers ex. enterprise a us battle groop would obitarate any ANY other battle groop. so lets talk experence umm ya the US pilots have it the ruskys dont end of story.

no match no way



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Senor Freebie
Actually Russia isn't that poor. Their are more billionaires in Moscow then there is in New York when measured in US$ and the cost of living is also higher there. With many millions living there I don't think the Russian people are living poorly. The difference is that the cost of living outside Moscow is very low and so are incomes. This doesn't make for a country that is not capable of surviving but it makes for a country that doesn't seem to have a big economy when measured in US$.

bmdefiant; Russian pilots may not get as many hours in the air as they did in the 1980's but they get more then they got in the 1990's. Not only that but when they sign up they sign up for life. That means that if they were to get called into war they would've have been training for that day for a much higher average of years then US pilots. You can argue all you want that US pilots are better trained but the average amount of years spent training Russian pilots is at least triple that for their US Navy counterparts. Besides they have the best carrier aircraft in the world.


Allow me to explain the real world to you. Russia is dying. Alcoholism is rampant, AIDs cases are exploding and life expectancy and birth rates are in decline. Russia will be a far, far different place (along with lots of Europe) in 50 years. The last thing Russia should be doing is building aircraft carriers.

The only people having children in Russia are the ones who kneel on a rug and pray five times a day. And if their recent behavior is any guide; they want the rest of Russia dead.



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
If Russia is dying then why is their economy returning and growing at a higher rate then the USA? Why does Moscow have more Billionaires then New York and why are former US defence customers turning to Russian companies to supply them (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil).

Russia suffered a catastrophic failure in its political and economic systems but that was over 15 years ago. To put that into perspective China was ex-communicated from the world 15 years ago. Or even better India was regarded an economic basket case. Now it has the second highest economic growth in the world.

As for Europe, yes they will be a very different place in years to come. NATO will no longer allow the USA such complete control of the EU and member nations who are realistically economic competitors rather then allies (Germany, France). Their progressive governments will help them move forward and stay ahead economically and industrially while the USA continues to focus so heavily on maintaining its empire. Eastern Europe will be a weird mix of CIA puppet governments, recovered democratic socialist nations and pro Moscow governments. The latter 2 will be deciding their own fate for the first time in probably more then 60 years.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join