View Full Version : Russian Navy project 23000E carrier.
163627
16th May 2015, 22:19
I've just been reading Janes on-line giving details of the Russian Krylovsky State Research Centre's new aircraft carrier project; looking at the model and it's capability I'm even more inclined to fear that UK plc has made a grave error in building the new carriers to take the F-35B or nothing!
dat581
17th May 2015, 02:05
The Russians don't know how to use the carrier they have let alone a new one. Not much to worry about.
Sevarg
17th May 2015, 07:39
Don't worry dat, UK PLC will see the error of her ways and then spend a few.. more billion fitting the cats they should have fitted in the first place. No doubt then find they have no money for the aircraft. It seems always thus.:ugh::ugh::ugh:
AreOut
17th May 2015, 10:34
"The Russians don't know how to use the carrier "
they need it only for bragging anyway, Russia itself is one big aircraft carrier
glad rag
17th May 2015, 11:20
The Russians don't know how to use the carrier they have and they have let alone a new one. Not much to worry about.
You cannot be serious.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpH-R_52Cd9CLnYT2D6GF2dkb-qtqbWNApFUBAShoKaQWTLOf7
Heathrow Harry
17th May 2015, 11:35
Calm down dear
it's a model produced ahead of a state sponsored defence show
no funds committed, no idea of who could build it, how long it would take or how much it would cost
it MAY happen but my bet is that it would be a 20 year project...............
Hawk98
17th May 2015, 11:49
It's just a shame for them that the only shipyard supposedly large enough (where their current carrier was built) that they had access to, is now in Ukraine... Well I can't see that happening anytime soon...
rh200
17th May 2015, 12:21
is now in Ukraine... Well I can't see that happening anytime soon...
I will correct that for you
is now in Ukraine... which we will be rectifying sometime soon... :E
Dan Winterland
17th May 2015, 12:44
It's a big target.
Bigbux
17th May 2015, 19:54
Is that the new Soviet fixed-wing carrier we studied years back in ISS? (I like it Comrade, I like it!)
subsonicsubic
18th May 2015, 04:34
I love the project name:
Project 23000E or Shtorm
Sure they mean S**TSTORM.
:}
Hmmmm.
The Russians' ship building industry is in such bad shape that they had to go to France to get an amphibious assault ship built. The proposed carrier is significantly larger and would be FAR more complex than the Mistral class LHDs. It's likely that pigs will fly before the Russians (re)generate the capability to build a ship of this size and complexity. And then there's the matter of a true carrier capable aircraft to put on whatever ship they build. The Su-27K/Su-33 had enlarged folding wings and tail and a tail hook, but did not have a launch bar on the nose gear. It must take off using only its own power. The MiG-29K has the same limitation.
And the released design of the carrier is self contradictory. It has a ski jump at the bow and the waist, but claims to have catapults. Catapults and ski jumps are (generally) mutually exclusive. This looks like vapor ware to me.
Hawk98
19th May 2015, 15:12
Judging by the picture up on Jane's, the ski jumps (albeit a model) appear to have far less of an incline than that of the QE Class so having a catapult wouldn't seem that ridiculous (correct me if wrong by all means), on the deck also appear to be presumably navalised T50s, which could be built for CATOBAR ops presumably?
Judging by the picture up on Jane's, the ski jumps (albeit a model) appear to have far less of an incline than that of the QE Class so having a catapult wouldn't seem that ridiculousRidiculous? Maybe. Maybe not. I just don't see how anyone can design a catapult with a curved stroke. How can that be done?
And more importantly, WHY would one do that? Once you've committed to installing a catapult on your ship and building an aircraft capable of being catapulted, why bother with a ski jump at all? It adds nothing.
...appear to be presumably navalised T50s, which could be built for CATOBAR ops presumably? Navalizing a land plane for carrier ops is not easy and has seldom resulted in a good outcome. Navalizing the F-86 Sabre resulted in the FJ-2 and -3 Fury, but they had lots of issues. The later FJ-4 looked the same but was structurally a complete redesign with a completely different wing. Going from the Hawk to the Goshawk is probably the only real success story and that required EXTENSIVE redesign. And that was for a basic trainer aircraft. Doing that with a high performance super sonic stealth design is certain to be much more difficult. The F-35A and F-35C for example are considerably different aircraft with completely different wings. "Tweaks" just don't work. And assuming the Russians go with conventional steam catapults vs the new high tech electromagnetic catapults being installed on the Ford Class carriers, modifying a jet engine for steam ingestion is no minor undertaking.