Russian Navy project 23000E carrier.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 71
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian Navy project 23000E carrier.
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!
Last edited by 163627; 16th May 2015 at 22:39. Reason: Missed word from text
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney
Age: 45
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Russians don't know how to use the carrier they have let alone a new one. Not much to worry about.
Last edited by dat581; 18th May 2015 at 00:52. Reason: iPhone stupidity.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...............
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...............
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Dorset
Age: 25
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i
I will correct that for you
is now in Ukraine... which we will be rectifying sometime soon...
s now in Ukraine... Well I can't see that happening anytime soon...
is now in Ukraine... which we will be rectifying sometime soon...
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Dorset
Age: 25
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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?
