3 CVNs for Russia

[MKSheppard]

Link

Russia to build nuclear-powered 60,000-ton aircraft carrier
19:02 | 27/ 02/ 2009

MOSCOW, February 27 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's new-generation aircraft carrier will be nuclear powered and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons, a United Shipbuilding Corporation executive said on Friday.

Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov, the company's head of defense contracts, said the new carrier was still at the drawing board stage, but its blueprint and basic specifications have already been defined.

He said the carrier will serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular, a fifth-generation fighter that will replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

"It will be a fifth-generation aircraft with classic horizontal take-off and landing capability," the admiral said.

Shlemov said, unlike in the past, the new aircraft carrier would not be armed with cruise missiles, which were not part of its "job description."

He said that at least three such carriers were to be built, for the Northern and Pacific Fleets.

The executive offered no timeline on the project, saying it was not as yet clear which shipyard would get the contract.

The new carrier has an estimated price tag of $4 billion.

So far the Russian Navy only has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov Project 1143.5, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500, and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.

[Kanastrous]

Smaller than a Nimitz class ship.

I wonder what the differences in tonnage will represent. Less aviation stores carried? Fewer aircraft? More automation? Less range and on-station persistence?

[Chris OFarrell]

So we can expect her to be commissioned in what, 20 years?

[Sea Skimmer]

Smaller than a Nimitz class ship.

I wonder what the differences in tonnage will represent. Less aviation stores carried? Fewer aircraft? More automation? Less range and on-station persistence?

A lot fewer aircraft and stores, but a carrier that’s already 60,000 tons suffers a lot less from diminishing returns then the much smaller carriers do. Still you aren’t going to find space for 3,000 tons of munitions or 3 million gallons of jet fuel.

Even though the cruise missiles are thankfully being deleted from consideration, the ship is likely to have a very heavy defensive battery. The weight of it will be considerable, but the real penalty is the deck space and volume in the upper hull it consumes. It’s also pretty certain the Russians will keep using a ski jump, so that takes away from potential deck park.

But we should try to be clearer on what 60,000 tons displacement would really mean. The article quotes 55,000 metric tons for Kuznetsov, but that’s her standard displacement, she’s actually closer to 66,000 tons fully loaded which is about 72,000 short tons. A new nuclear carrier would have a smaller difference between standard and full loaded displacement, so 60,000 metric tons standard may work out to a ship that is actually lighter fully loaded then Kuznetsov. However enormous room of variance exists since standard displacement is hardly a tightly defined concept, and 60,000 tons isn’t the true displacement, just apparently the design aim.

20 years sounds about right to see such a thing in the water. Russia needs replacement for just about every other weapon in its arsenal ahead of this.

[Kitsune]

So we can expect her to be commissioned in what, 20 years?

Just because they are trying to finance it by constantly increasing the price of Gorshkov to India

[montypython]

Basically this seems like an improved Ulyanovsk class carrier design optimized as a pure carrier, if the Russians can get the funding to pull this through it would be a very interesting development. I do wonder though what available shipyard would be sufficiently comparable to Nikolayev to build it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Basically this seems like an improved Ulyanovsk class carrier design optimized as a pure carrier, if the Russians can get the funding to pull this through it would be a very interesting development. I do wonder though what available shipyard would be sufficiently comparable to Nikolayev to build it.

Ulyanovsk was much bigger and approaches an early model of Nimitz. If this design has anything to do with an existing design, which I think is unlikely, Russia has more then enough time to work out a wholly new one, it would be a nuclear powered version of Kuznetsov.

The two options for new carrier construction would be Severodvinsk, which was first established to build battleships and built the Typhoons, or the Baltic Shipyard at St. Petersburg which built the Kirov class among others. The former is by far the most likely. Both yards have facilities which are long enough for a carrier, but they’d have to make some big modifications and add new cranes and other equipment to cope with the great width of a carrier deck. Also they’d just plain be slower to do the work then Nikolayev because the winters are so bad.

[Sidewinder]

Good luck, Adm Shlemov. Considering the whole damn world is suffering from economic crises, you'll be lucky to see available funding for a Russian CVN in your lifetime.

So we can expect her to be commissioned in what, 20 years?

Just because they are trying to finance it by constantly increasing the price of Gorshkov to India

If they keep this up, India might end up contracting American or Western European shipyards for their carriers in the hope they'll actually get the damn things in a reasonable amount of time, for prices closer to the initial bids than the fucking Admiral Gorshkov. They're already buying aircraft from the US (Boeing's P-8I maritime patrol plane).

[Sea Skimmer]

If they keep this up, India might end up contracting American or Western European shipyards for their carriers in the hope they'll actually get the damn things in a reasonable amount of time, for prices closer to the initial bids than the fucking Admiral Gorshkov. They're already buying aircraft from the US (Boeing's P-8I maritime patrol plane).

And why on earth would India do such a thing that when it is already building its own carrier from the keel up? They have firm plans a second unit too, and may go for a third. Gorshkov was only supposed to be a quick interim acquisition. Having a carreir new built abroad would not only be unaffordable, it wouldn't possibly be finished before India had both of its domestic ships in the water.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I think the other issue is that no European or American shipyard would likely sell a large strategic unit to a foreign country. It will be fraught with lots of political minefields. What India will be asking for will be too much for most countries to stomach.

The P-8 deal and the other aircraft deal has run into some trouble though. The Indians are saying they might not honour the export license terms.

[Sea Skimmer]

I can’t see any major political problems with selling India an aircraft carrier. European and American firms are already authorized to try to sell India some very advanced jet fighters and AESA radar system. When the buyer nation already has nuclear weapons and space launch capability and is a democracy political restrictions cease to be a serious factor. Even more so since an conventional powered export carrier wouldn't really have that much cutting edge technology in it. The US would certainly not sell them a nuclear carrier.

Now if India didn’t already have carriers, and if it was say threatening to invade Sri Lanka ever other week, then politics would matter. As it is most of the world would prefer India had a stronger navy since security in the Indian Ocean is such a serious concern right now to any trading power.

[K. A. Pital]

Ulyanovsk was closer to a true Nimitz-like large carrier. This thing... as far as we know, we aren't even certain this displacement is correct. The Nevskoe's designs and models indicate something closer to an Ulyanovsk or De Gaulle than a small carrier like the Kuznetzov. Again, these designs are often subject to change, like the Borei ended up quite different from initial designs, etc.

Anyway, I hope it plays out and we really get 3 CVNs. Even Kuznetzov-like CVNs are a good addition to the fleet, in the place of nothing.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ulyanovsk was closer to a true Nimitz-like large carrier. This thing... as far as we know, we aren't even certain this displacement is correct. The Nevskoe's designs and models indicate something closer to an Ulyanovsk or De Gaulle than a small carrier like the Kuznetzov. Again, these designs are often subject to change, like the Borei ended up quite different from initial designs, etc.

Anyway, I hope it plays out and we really get 3 CVNs. Even Kuznetzov-like CVNs are a good addition to the fleet, in the place of nothing.

Is it true the Borei was made up of carved portions of Akula II submarines?

[Kanastrous]

Stas, what missions do you envision for the new ships? Do you expect that Russia will get into US-Navy-style power projection, or are there different missions predicted for Russian CVNs?

I assume that the design for a ship expected to shake down in 2029 is influenced to some degree by predictions regarding the missions to be undertaken that far in the future.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, what missions do you envision for the new ships?

Giving 200% greater survivability and potency to Russian/Union Navy surface ship groups and SSGN and legacy SSBN groups. Basically, acting like the core of a battlegroup which can take on a possible attacker who uses aviation, and protect the ships from detection by likewise utilizing aerial warfare. In essense, the presence of such ships will not only make all Russian legacy ships more survivable, but it will give the Russian Navy an ability to feel better when confronting the enemy in home waters.

Carrier taskforces can also support Russian operations, or joint S.C.O. operations in regions such as Indonesia, Latin America... m... vinicity of India? Somalia? Et cetera. Such operations are some of the most probable future trouble spots; reaching there without a naval air arm is problematic.

China wants to have carriers as well; it's a regional ally in the SCO and Russia might not be content with allowing China's Navy to play the first tunes of the melody. Likewise, with CVBGs China becomes a more potent adversary. Russia needs to adress that. Preferrably with CVBGs of it's own, of course.

[Axis Kast]

I appreciate that this is raining on your parade, but what do you expect a Russian task force to be able to do in Latin America except show the flag?

Indonesia makes slightly more sense, presuming an operation that doesn't also already involve the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

[K. A. Pital]

I appreciate that this is raining on your parade, but what do you expect a Russian task force to be able to do in Latin America except show the flag?

Depends on what kind of taskforce, and what period we're talking about. We've been looking for a naval base in LA; that base would of course take years to set up, accumulate fuel reserves, train personnel and such, but we're talking about 2020-2030, not now, aren't we?

Indonesia makes slightly more sense, presuming an operation that doesn't also already involve the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

SCO operations against pirates there are a real possibility. The USN might not be involved. The Soviet Navy often had clashes with indonesian pirates on it's own because they disrupted shipping. I'm sure China, Russia and the SCO in general aren't really happy with Indonesian straits and the pirates' newfound bravery.

[Sidewinder]

China wants to have carriers as well; it's a regional ally in the SCO and Russia might not be content with allowing China's Navy to play the first tunes of the melody. Likewise, with CVBGs China becomes a more potent adversary. Russia needs to adress that. Preferrably with CVBGs of it's own, of course.

I'm very curious about Sino-Russian relations in the time you're talking about, i.e., 2030-2040. Do you see the two nations as close allies by then? Allies who don't need enemies, as the US and Russia were during the 1990s ("With friends like these, who needs enemies?" i.e., they're rivals who pretend they're not rivals because open conflict will expose weaknesses that stronger enemies will exploit)? Downright apathetic Sino-Russian relations, like that between India and... say... Iran? Enemies?

[K. A. Pital]

Who knows. Depends on how we balance out. China needs raw materials and our arms designers input. We need China's demand for petrochemicals and possibly can consume high-tech products from them directly. If we still manage to stay roughly on equal footing in relations, we can exist more or less without conflict. If one nation starts falling down... in an economical and technological sense - expect trouble.

Nonetheless we'd like our carriers . It's really a shame when you can't keep your own Kuznetzov going, when China is recomissioning your 1991 Kuznetzov twin. That's downright insulting, because we were behind a lot of China's arms; if China can make a Kuznetzov go and make a new carrier of their own, why can't we? We're not poorer, per capita, than China.

Good for the Varyag though, I hate when good ships go rusting.

[Coyote]

So this wouldn't be the "aircraft carrying cruiser" thing used to skirt the treaty for Turkey, this'd be a full, dedicated carrier. Cool. But it didn't say whether there'd be ski-jump launching or catapults. At the moment, as I understand it, the Kuznetsov is really only useful for air superiority missions, defending whatever task force it is a part of and not much more than that (?).

But even 20 or 30 years from now, how realistic is the funding for this? A lot of Russia's money comes from oil & gas revenues, which may go back up, sure, but they may not if the US and other energy consumers truly do get serious about renewable energy programs. Oil sellers can sell to less-developed nations, but there won't be much to squeeze from them; China will buy oil for awhile but they're also likely to go for clean fuels to limit strategic dependency issues.

And there are a lot of issues in Russia that will need that money well before a CVN program can stake it's claim. Especially if the powers-that-be insist on maintaining a huge nuclear force...

[mr friendly guy]

China has recently signed a contract to buy Russian oil for the next 20 years. It was contingent on Chinese banks lending lots of cash to some Russian firms, but since China has a large foreign reserve it shouldn't be a problem from that end. You are right though when you say China plans to use more renewable energy, as they are planning a big roll out of nuclear reactors.