Aircraft Carriers

Love the Russian carrier specs. I always wondered what she was going to look like. If she wasnt so big I would be tempted to think the Russians might be finishing the old hull. After all they had a rep for throwing nothing away unless they had to, but thats too big to hide from spy satalites surely.

Also like the Hawkeye-skis

An Admiral Elmo Zummwalt was CinC-N in the 1970s and championed the SCS concept. But when he retired it was shelved by the CVN faction who were terrified they would lose funding for more Nimitz carriers. Kind of like how the SSN lobby killed the SSK in US and UK service.

The DD-X is now known as the Zummwalt Class. Zummwalt had a very distinguished and sad career. His son served in Swift Boats in Vietnam, and his father was one of the men responsible at the time for the order that saw Agent Orange sprayed on the rivers. His son contracted a cancer that eventually killed him early and it was linked with the chemicals used.
There is a very fine book about father and son, and how they eventually reconcilled.

OT

Upholders. I have been defending them since the RN mothballed them but I may have been wrong. Recently joined an ex RAN er website and most of the submarine boys who served on RAN Oberons and Collins boats said when they looked for an O boat replacement the UK thought they had a dead cert order from us. But RAN team said they were an O boat dressed up in a new skin. Hence our Collins order. Some of the old salts suspect it is why we had such problems getting O boats parts even when the UK was mothballing thiers. PO'd the suppliers.

USN controlled by the SSN lobby since Adm.Rickover days. last diesel boats phased out in USN in late 1970s early 1980s. Some ex German 1960s U-Boats were used for some trials and training work on lease.

RN was a diesel and nuke operator until early 1990s. Originally Upholder was supposed to run 19 then 9 boats. While first was building Governmet budget cuts forced RN to chose and it was obvious. Nukes won. Nuke lobby took control in RN. The political fallout of not building Upholders (out of work shipyard workers) meant the 4 subs funded completed and breifly commissioned then mothballed (last commissioned 1993 first mothballed 1994 last 1995). after the RNs official announcements. May also account for arguments that the ships were poorly completed. The yard workers knew they were never going to stay in service.Poor morale.Poor Quality.

The U-Boat story for hire was true. About three years ago one of the RN SSN developed a fault in its coolant system which although not lifethreatening (??) disabled the boat. Inspections found that all current SSN had the same potential fault requiring yard work. The German Navy hired the RN a U-Boat to help with ASW training.

What does this have to do with carriers.

Some of the Navy and Submarine websites have carried this, and on the website of the Australian Submariners Association, the paper of a lecturing professor has been published and recently updated.

Collins class boats have pierced screens and "sunk" CVNs in three exs including RIMPAC off Hawaii. Boat judged got away twice. Sunk once. That occassion took pieces out of three escorts and a Los Angeles.

A Collins class sub is regularly tasked with assisting the USN with research at a range off Alaska. Electric Boat Company a prime USN contractor for SSNs has business ties with ASC Australian Submarine Corp in South Australia

Canada, Brazil and Chile (Oberons) have all scored exercise kills in the late 1990s. The Russians have also on several occassions tried to send a message they are not ineffective by popping up off the stern of US CVNs inside the screens, and sending copies of of the shoot exercise to thier opos in the USN.

A USN Los Angeles commander wanted to publish a paper in "Proceedings" based on how they put several "torpedos" into a CVN on an ex, but the report was classified by the Pentagon and surpressed.

Another put six theoretical torpedos into a USN CV and was congratulated by the exercise commander for reducing the carriers effectiveness by two percent!

In conclusion the lecturing professor concluded that the CVN groups were vunerable, but not because any flaws in the ships, rather than the culture.....current USN Officers were "technical" experts and not "tactical. That the present thinking in the wider USN was that they move thier ships to a given point on the water globally and launch fighters and missiles. That whatever money was invested in the job, thier focus was not worrying about the ASW threat.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by COOL HAND

You live over there, shouldn't you be able that question better than any of us?

they have
trafalger for boomers
and swifture for sub killers.

The Vangard class are our boomers not the trafalger class(SSN)
We also have the ASTUTE class in build at Barrow (ever they ever get their act into gear).

www.royalnavy.mod.uk

I know the guys designing the bew british carriers and they still have a number of design variations of different sizes 40,000dwt to 70,000dwt as the mod cant decide what it wants/can afford. The carriers are however designed so catapaults (electomagnetic ones too), arrester gear and angled landing strip can be fitted if the requirement ever becomes needed. It has been suggested this may be sooner rather than later due to problems with the F35c (VTOL) being too heavy etc. They even looked at a naval version of the eurofighter if the F35c project falls through.

God Forbid..shock horror..Rafales...after all Thales of France was a co tender

EM launchers? cool.
any info on them?

Russia has 3 different aircraft carriers.

1143 "Krechyet class"



This aircraft carrier is best know as Admiral Gorshkov that was sold to India. This carreir is a 38,000 ton carrier unloaded and 45,000 tom loaded.

-Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
-Builder: Chernomorsky [Nikolayev South]
-Displacement (tons): 36,000 tons standard
38,000 tons standard [Gorshkov]
43,000-43,500 tons full load
45,000-45,500 tons full load [Gorshkov]
-Speed (kts): 32 knots
-Dimensions (m): 249.5-257.0 meters long waterline
273.0-274.0 meters long overall
32.6-32.7 meters waterline beam
53.0 meters flight deck width
9.5 meters draft standard
12.0 meters draft mean full load
-Propulsion: 8 turbopressurized boilers
4 steam turbines; 200,000 shp
4 shafts
-Crew: 1,200-1,600 (including air group)
-Armament:
-Missiles: KIEV, MINSK 2 SA-N-3 Goblet twin launchers [72]
2 SA-N-4 Gecko twin launchers [40]
8 SS-N-12 Sandbox tubes [16]

NOVOROSSIYSK 2 SA-N-3 Goblet twin launchers [72]
12 SA-N-9 8-cell vertical launchers [96]
8 SS-N-12 Sandbox tubes [16]

GORSHKOV 24 SA-N-9 8-cell vertical launchers [192]
12 SS-N-12 Sandbox [24]



-Guns: KIEV, MINSK, and NOVOROSSIYSK
4 76.2-mm/59-cal AA (2 twin)
8 30-mm/65-cal AK-630 close-in (8 multi-barrel)

GORSHKOV
2 100-mm/70-cal DP (2 single)
8 30-mm/65-cal AK-630 close-in (8 multi-barrel)


-Torpedoes: 10 21-in (533-mm) torpedo tubes
-Aircraft: 12 or 13 Yak-38 Forger VSTOL
14 to 17 Ka-25 Hormone or Ka-27/29 Helix

The carrier is now sold to India and is being refitted with alot of new stuff. Also the carrier itself will look very different. Another thing is that the new carrier will carry Mig-29s now.

Rest of the article.



1143.5 "Kreml class"



This carrier most of you know as the Admiral Kuznetov. It is the carrier that Russia has right now and the carrier Ukraine sold to China for display. That carrier was named Varyag. This carrier is 43,000 tons unloaded and 67,000 tons loaded.

-Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
-Builder: Nikolayev South
-Displacement (tons): 43,000 tons light
53,000-55,000 tons standard
66,600-67,500 tons full load
-Speed (kts): 32 knots
-Dimensions (m): 302.3-306.45 meters long overall
270.0-281.0 meters long at waterline
35.4-38.0 meters beam
72.0-73.0 meters width overall
9.14-11.0 meters draft
-Propulsion: 2 x 50'000 hp gas. turbines; 8 boilers; 4 fixed pitch props., turbogenerators 9 x 1500 kW, diesel gen. 6 x 1500 kW; range: 3'850 n.m/32 kts; endurance: 45 days
-Crew: 1960 + 626 air group + 40 flag
3857 rooms
-Armament:
-Airwing: 16 x Yak-141
12 aircraft SU-27k or MIG-29k
4 /Helicopter KA-27LD32
18/KA-27PLO
2/KA-27S
-Missiles: 12 Granit (SS-N-19)
SA Klinok ADAM system (24 launchers, 192 vertical launch missiles; rate of fire: 1 missile per 3 sec)
SA Kashtan ADGM system (256 AD missiles, 48'000 cartiges; range: 0.5- 1.5 km)

-Guns: 8 x 6 AK-630 gattl. AA
(6x30 mm; 6'000 rds/m/mount, 24000 cartiges)
-Electronics: Combat Information Center
Aviation Combat Information Center
communications suite including satellite communications
MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D Air/Surface Search
2 MR-320M Topaz/Strut Pair 2D Air/Surface Search
3 Palm Frond Navigation
4 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SA-N-9 Fire Control
8 3P37/Hot Flash SA-N-11 Fire Control
Fly Trap B Aircraft Control
Zvezda-2 search and attack sonar [medium and low frequency bands]
MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted Sonars

-Other: UDAV-1 ASW RL (60 rockets; R: 3'000 m)

This carrier was refitting in 2004 and has again entered Russian Naval Service.

Rest of the article



1143.7 "Orel class"

external image

This aircraft carrier is best known as the Orel Ul'yanovsk class. It was started but then scraped as the person that started it died and the next person have a different veiw of the Naval power. If this carrier would be built it would be a a rival to the Nimitz class carrier.

-Designer: Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau
-Builder: Nikolayev South
-Length 1065 feet overall
995 feet waterline
-Flight Deck Width 248.5 feet
-Beam 130.6 feet
-Draft 35.4 feet
-Displacement 79,758 tons Full Load
60,000 tons Standard
Propulsion PWR nuclear reactors
4 turbines 240,000 shp
-Endurance
-Max Speed 30+ knots
-Crew 2,300 Navy
1,500 Naval Air
-Armament 6 x 30mm/65 AK 630
24 VLS ADAM launchers w/192 RZ-130 Kinzhal/Klinok/SA-N-9 Gauntlet missiles
8 CADS-N-1/Kortik each with 1 twin 30mm Gatlingcombined w/ 256 3M-88/SA-N-11 Grison
12 cell VLS installed under the upper deckw/12 P-500 Granit/SS-N-19 Shipwreck missiles
2 RPK-5/Udav-1 Liven integrated ASW

-Countermeasures Sozbezie-BR suite
Wine Glass intercept
Bell Push intercept
Flat Track
Bell Nip
Cross Loop D/F

-Radar Air/Surface Search
MR-710 Fregat-MA/Top Plate 3D
2 MR-320M Topaz/Strut Pair 2D
Navigation
3 Palm Frond Fire Control

4 MR-360 Podkat/Cross Sword SA-N-9 control
8 3P37/Hot Flash SA-N-11 control
Aircraft Control
Fly Trap B

-Sonar Zvezda-2 suite
MGK-345 Bronza/Ox Yoke hull mounted

-Aircraft 70 aircraft total
27 Su-27K Flankers
10 Su-25 Frogfoots
Yak-44 radar picket aircraft
15-20 helicopters

It is said that this carrier will be Russias new carreir. it is said that the carrier will soon start the production and will enter service in about 2010-2015. Also it will be very much upgraded and I as read in one report it is said it will carry the new Migs.

Rest of the article






I posted only some sources. if someone needs some more I can pull them up.

Out,
Russian






[edit on 22-10-2004 by Russian]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Russian]




Reduced large image.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by ProudAmerican]

You guys arent serious about this are you .???
It is known in the trade craft that the Russians have not been able to make a catapult system work. Unless they have recieved lots of help with this system from outside Russia this new carrier is going to have huge problems. It looks good on paper but remember ..you have to be able to both build it and then maintain it . A catapult system is very complex and uses alot of steam to make it work.
Most navys ..obviously use the jump ramp to "keep it simple stupid" kiss. This is a cheaper alternative to the catapult. However ..I am not sure that you can launch the heavy bomb or fuel loads from a jump ramp that you can from a catapult.....especially heavily loaded refueling tankers..a necessity when operating large numbers of aircraft far from the ship. If you cannot launch heavily weighted refueling tankers this limits the effectiveness of your air wing. Keep this in mind. Alot of times the planes take off light on fuel...and heavy on ordinance and tank up immediately after take off so as to get off the deck fully loaded.
Also someone had it correct ..in a previous posting on this board..when they indicated that carriers are extreamly vulnurable to submarines of all types. Remember...you do not have to sink a carrier...only incapicate it ..so that it cannot launch or recover.
In many exercises ...American submarines have entered the protective screen undetected..and taken pictures of the moving carriers ...from underneath them.....stem to stern..and presented them at the debriefiings to show that it is as they have claimed. This is not n ew information so it is not surprising that it has been done by a diesel boat.
Two modern conventional torpedos is all it takes ..properly placed to disable a modern nuclear aircraft carrier. In otherwords make it useless.
Most of the sailors in the fleets dont have a clue about this .they have accepted the propaganda of being protected...wholesale.
Carriers ..like submarines are very expensive weapons systems..even conventional carriers. This is why many n ations only have limited numbers of carriers...once again costs. Orangetom

india is building its first indegenous aircraft carrier, which will be inducted in 2011 and will be india's 4th aircraft carrier.

other 3 : INS virkant, INS viraat, INS vikramadithya(admiral gorshkov)

check out this link.

india is building its first indegenous aircraft carrier, which will be inducted in 2011 and will be india's 4th aircraft carrier.

other 3 : INS virkant, INS viraat, INS vikramadithya(admiral gorshkov).

india also just upgraded its sea harrier fleet, nad has placed an order for mig-29 K shipborne fighters. the F-18e/f super hornet is also on offer. the indegenous LCA navy fighter is in construction

check out this link. www.bharat-rakshak.com...

Hmm,

Ok I will state this now, I will not pretent to known a vast amount of knowledge in reguards to the modern naval battlefield, my knowledge merely comes from a close friend of mine based with the steel pipe lot and then information I have picked up in my duties.

In general, in my opinion I think that Aircraft carriers have become nothing more than a huge mobile threat to third world nations, I know that you are thinking that I am nuts for making such an odd comment, but if you think about it for a moment.

Since 1945 aircraft carriers have been launched in nothing more than mobile aircraft bases, korea, vietnam, Geneda, Gulf 1 and 2, they are more than effective when used to attack enemies that lack a number of key features:

1. Elint
2. SSNs/SSKs
3. ASMs

If you look at their records, they have not really been "threatened" by their oppenent in any real terms, either through the use of their lacking airforce of in the cases of vietnam the employment of some field arty to try and hit the carriers retrieving their F-4s and A-6s.

During all these campaigns, I have yet to have heard of an effective assault by an oppositing force, offering any effective means to attack or even destroy these modern carriers. I dare say that you may have noticed that I didn't list the falklands, I did this as the current RN carriers aren't in a true sense a conventual carrier and another factor being that the Argentinian forces were far from being a third world counrty and their use of their A-4 forces with the exocet missiles where amazing, i felt that this section of carrier warface should be excluded from the list, although it should be noted that the fact that the RN depended far to much on its surface fleet for radar coverage compaired to current carrier battle fleets and Royal Naval Task forces.

In recent times, the only real threats to colation forces since the cold war have shifted from anti submarine warfare to defending the fleet from terror style attacks, similar to the USS Cole, to defending the fleet from attacks with the modern range of anti surface missiles, exocet being one of the ones which have been more than proven to be quite effective. During the first Iraqi war, the threats to the coliation fleet carriers where from shore based batteries of arty or shore based soviet missiles systems, patrol craft with anti ship missiles and lastly to a lesser degree the Iraqi airforce, as we all know the Iraq AF was blown to hell through the use of UK attack aircraft and american, not to mention quite a few other nations, after this the threat to the fleet was reduced and to my knownledge wasn't challenged for the rest of that conflict, then with the second one, the threat was even less.

In my opinion, the current cultural mind set within the US carrier force to me, seems a throw back of the cultural mindset of the RAF before WW2, "The Bomber will always get through" I feel that this mindset has been repeated, I suppose with due cause, due to the lack of a truely effective oppenent since the end of the Cold War and its interesting to note that at that time the USN Carrier fleet gave themselves a 50/50 chance of sirviving a full out conflict with the soviet bear.

In a modern naval battle with a enemy that has an effective Elint system inplace and with that an effect means to projecting an offensive weapon system at the target, I feel that the USN and any other flat top nation will recieve loses. Like it has been said before, the current USN Officer Corps seem to know a hell of a lot about their carriers but not how to effectively employ them in action against an effect enemy force.

With these systems you can effectively force the carrier battle fleet to react to the enemys actions, Carrier Battle Groups aren't quite that easy to hide from the big eye in the sky. You don't even have to effectively HIT the carrier or its escorts, to merely get it move or react to reduce its effective ability to wage war.

A ground pounders view of Modern Naval Combat employment of Carrier Battle Groups.

- Phil

When the U.S. is attacking 3rd world countries we should use the LHA-1 Tarawa class and the LHD-1 Wasp class they are not considered aircraft carries in the U.S. because they are too small but they can carry 6 jets + 12 helicopters and hold 3.000 troops. displacement is about 45.000 Tones speed 20+ knots.

LHD-1 Wasp

LHD-1 Wasp


LHA-Tarawa

LHA-1 Tarawa

Originally posted by WestPoint23
When the U.S. is attacking 3rd world countries we should use the LHA-1 Tarawa class and the LHD-1 Wasp class they are not considered aircraft carries in the U.S. because they are too small but they can carry 6 jets + 12 helicopters and hold 3.000 troops. displacement is about 45.000 Tones speed 20+ knots.

LHD-1 Wasp

LHD-1 Wasp


LHA-Tarawa

LHA-1 Tarawa

The Tarawa is being replaced by the
LHX but they were pretty good vessels.

Originally posted by Russian


1143.5 "Kreml class"



[edit on 22-10-2004 by Russian]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by Russian]

Looks like a ski jump at the end of the deck , that was one of the designs for the CVNX.

The wasp and Tarawa should really have ski ramps - then the harriers would be able to carry a bigger load.

Stealth - do you think the Indian Navy will buy the ex-Royal Navy Sea Harrier FRS-2`s when they are retired?

The US Navy is not intrested in ski ramp type jump jets on the CVNX carrier design. The US Navy is not particularly intrested in jump jets period until they can increase the payload capability to something useful for the navy.
The jump get features use up so much internal space and design on the Harrier jump jets that fuel capacity and payload suffer. Even with inflight refueling capabilities the navy finds this airplane lacking for thier usage. I do not know the status of the new versions of the VTOl planes under design and testing except to know that they are having problems that are in the process of being ironed out. VTOL aircraft are ideal for Marines and outfits whos doctrine is to operate very close to ground troops for close in air support but not for long range operations as was done in Afganistan.
The design for the CVNX is to incorporate some kind of magnetic catapult. This will be a totally new system and will require totally new support equipment to generate electricity for it as I am sure the electricity drain will be huge. However..recovery times between shots should be very quick..though that doesn't seem to be a problem with the current steam catapults.
Once again..though standoff weapons like harpoon, tomahawk..or other cruise weapons are a great danger to surface fleets of any type it is a submarine which is the greatest most immediate threat to aircraft carriers..any carrier. The stealth features of submarine doctrine make it possible to get in very close to carrier fleets ...undetected. This is enough to pucker the backside of any fleet commander. Also modern torpedos are extreamly potent. Even modern diesel boats can get in close to a carrier fleet and if ordered to do so...can disable a carrier. Under orders ...the fact that you will survive such a attack on a fleet and a carrier ..will not even enter the issue...sub skippers know this. They are not ignorant.
Submarines travel with the carrier fleets...and if we have to go up against a more formidable enemy the number of submarines accompanying the fleet and going well ahead of it will be increased. This is just common sense. American spends lots of moneys to keep abreast of what other navys have in their arsenels and also command and control doctrine used by them...tactics and such. No doubt that we closely monitor their war games for tell tale signs of how their fleets will work.
It is not the larger Navys that worry us so much at present ..it is the dumb stuff ..by small nations ..that we are stuipid enough to overlook..ie the USS Cole. Talk about dumber than dumb..and we had all the warning signs ahead of us. We should have known better .it is obvious that someone was asleep at the wheel. Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Also modern torpedos are extreamly potent. Even modern diesel boats can get in close to a carrier fleet and if ordered to do so...can disable a carrier. Under orders ...the fact that you will survive such a attack on a fleet and a carrier ..will not even enter the issue...sub skippers know this. They are not ignorant.
Submarines travel with the carrier fleets...and if we have to go up against a more formidable enemy the number of submarines accompanying the fleet and going well ahead of it will be increased.

I don't understand why has no one developed some kind of antitorpedo defence. I mean small short range torpedoes or underwater projectiles fired from the ship designed to destroy incoming torpedoes. Something like underwater Sea Ram. It would be not too difficult to achieve, I think (at least teoretically)..

modern torpedos like air to air rockets ..are difficult from which to escape. For one thing..to fire a torpedo with most systems means that you risk giving away your position ..not smart. Most anti torpedo systems are in the arena of escape and evasion and countermeasures. Even helecopter or airplane dropped torpedos ..once locked on .are difficult from which to escape. Heavy maneuvering also risks giving away ones position. STealth is still the number one safeguard and it is being employed in new ways with new technology. Orangetom

Westy,
You do realize that you labeled a picture of the Saipan as the Tarawa, right?

Just pointing that out in the interests of accuracy.

Originally posted by blue cell
The Tarawa is being replaced by the
LHX but they were pretty good vessels.

Actually. the LHA's are being replaced by the LHA(R)'s.

The LHX is a previously used name of the program. It is now referred to officially as the LHA(R).

Yeah I've been thinking about the anti-torpedo thing too, why there's so little effort by countries to research anti-torpedo systems.
Looks like Britain took the initiative recently
www.mod.uk...

Edit: here's a system that's somewhat similar to the anti-torpedo torpedo mentioned earlier
www.airshow.ru...
Already used on the Kuznetsov?

[edit on 9-4-2005 by Taishyou]

There are actually several anti torpedo system employed by the USN, such as the UDAV-1, RPK-8 and the MEDVEDKA Missile System which is both an anti submarine and anti torpedo system, designed for small ships.

The UDAV-1 system is designed to use different types of rockets for highly efficient multi-layer defense of surface ships against torpedoes. The system is also capable of engaging submarines and frogmen.

Info and specifications are on the link

The RPK-8 Antisubmarine Rocket System is designed to engage submarines, torpedoes and frogmen.
It comprises the RBU-6000 Rocket Launcher, antisubmarine rockets, fire control system, and storage, transportation and loading facilities.
The rocket with underwater projectile is fitted with a HE directional warhead. The projectile is separated from the rocket as soon as the latter enters the water.

Info and specifications are on the link

The MEDVEDKA Missile System is intended to engage hostile submarines and can be installed at surface ships. It has no analogies in terms of potential installation on small ships. The system can be used in shallow water.

Info and specifications are on the www.rusarm.ru..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">link




And the labels are meant to represent the class not the name of the ship.
I should have been more clear, my bad.

[edit on 9-4-2005 by WestPoint23]