new aircraft carrier to make russia powerfull

[Tshering22]

Any sources for all this? IN is not getting the Kuznetsov and neither is it interested in them.

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[halfilhal]

And this is why Russia was looking for a BAKRA for their old rust bucket and India being India gleefully agreed. Russians trialed and erred on India's money and now that they have perfected their method, they will make some for themselves.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

And this is why Russia was looking for a BAKRA for their old rust bucket and India being India gleefully agreed. Russians trialed and erred on India's money and now that they have perfected their method, they will make some for themselves.

Ok let me see who gives 16 Mig 29Ks and a nuclear submarine and a Aircraft carrier for $2.3 billion?........










Uh I guess no one does other than the Russians. Remember that the INS CHakra II is also a part of the Gorky deal.

 

[Johnlaw]

Russia never really wanted that many Aircraft carriers. They are too costly to maintain. It is an offensive weapon. Unlike the US they don't want to invade anyone. Money better spent on missile defense etc.

 

[victor07]

Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov stated in June that in the current rearmament program, which is actual till 2020, the construction of a new aircraft carrier is not considered. What is planned: modernization of 5 cruisers including 4 Kirov class, 18 destroyers, building of 6 new class destroyers, also submarines, etc. As for decision to buy Mistrale class ships, the decision is a subject to criticism in Russia. Some people including the military sarcastically suggest to use them as marine amusement complexes

topwar.ru/30445-avianosec-dlya-vmf-rossii-masshtabnaya-model-i-dalneyshie-plany.html
google "Список кораблей Военно-Морского Флота Российской Федерации"

 

[Nishan_101]

Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov stated in June that in the current rearmament program, which is actual till 2020, the construction of a new aircraft carrier is not considered. What is planned: modernization of 5 cruisers including 4 Kirov class, 18 destroyers, building of 6 new class destroyers, also submarines, etc. As for decision to buy Mistrale class ships, the decision is a subject to criticism in Russia. Some people including the military sarcastically suggest to use them as marine amusement complexes

topwar.ru/30445-avianosec-dlya-vmf-rossii-masshtabnaya-model-i-dalneyshie-plany.html
google "Список кораблей Военно-Морского Флота Российской Федерации"

Russians are talking about it since 2006. Better for them to invest in Destroyers, Frigates and other equipment and sell the current carrier to India which might going to pay good price for that and also for upgrades too.

 

[victor07]

Russians are talking about it since 2006. Better for them to invest in Destroyers, Frigates and other equipment and sell the current carrier to India which might going to pay good price for that and also for upgrades too.

Upgrading Baku to Vikramaditya has not evident profit for Russia in terms of money. The profit is in developing and maintaining up to date level of technology. At least the next in the line for modernization is Admiral Kuznetsov (next year in plan). Both carriers apparently will have the same level of technology, including aircrafts. Su-33 will be replaced with Mig-29K/KUB (24 till 2015). For India the profit is that Vicramaditya is a completely tested and ready for combat use naval system.

 

[victor07]

They will first want to learn from building the French designed Mistral platforms in Russia, then move to new carrier construction.

According to some Russian experts the decision to buy Mistrals has little to do with technical interest. May be someone had an idea to join NATO or to examine that French radar and control system. Mistral is simply not able to work in Russian conditions. The list of improvements which must be done to this ship include strengthening of the flight deck and sides, changing dimensions of hangars and elevator. And at least the ship is can not be used at the temperatures below 7 deg celsium. It seems that France agreed to do appropriate improvements. But even with this the benefit of this ship for Russian navy remains a target of criticism. First deputy head of the Military-Industrial Commission, Ivan Kharchenko stated that such a decision is a direct detriment to Russian navy and shipbuilding industry.
bfm.ru/news/205998?doctype=news#.UQO1kFI3veQ

 

[copasi]

Good plan but when to happen?

 

[Penguin]

According to some Russian experts the decision to buy Mistrals has little to do with technical interest. May be someone had an idea to join NATO or to examine that French radar and control system. Mistral is simply not able to work in Russian conditions. The list of improvements which must be done to this ship include strengthening of the flight deck and sides, changing dimensions of hangars and elevator. And at least the ship is can not be used at the temperatures below 7 deg celsium. It seems that France agreed to do appropriate improvements. But even with this the benefit of this ship for Russian navy remains a target of criticism. First deputy head of the Military-Industrial Commission, Ivan Kharchenko stated that such a decision is a direct detriment to Russian navy and shipbuilding industry.
bfm.ru/news/205998?doctype=news#.UQO1kFI3veQ

"Mistral is simply not able to work in Russian conditions. "
WHy not, what is the problem exactly? Source on that? The link does not addres this issue.

"The list of improvements which must be done to this ship include strengthening of the flight deck and sides, changing dimensions of hangars and elevator."
Are these improvement related to functioning in Russian conditions, or simply desired adaptations/improvements to better accommodate existing Russian equipments? If so, the drawback is not in the design as is but in the attempt to make it work with equipment it wasn't designed for (i.e. if russian helicopters ar too heavy, they should have gotten some european heli's to go with these ships, for example)

"And at least the ship is can not be used at the temperatures below 7 deg celsium."
The only plausible reason here would be the type of fuel being used and that can be fixed. Also, consider Mistral propulsion fit:

Installed power: 3 Wärtsilä diesels-alternators 16 V32 (6.2 MW) + 1 Wärtsilä Vaasa auxiliary diesel-alternator 18V200 (3 MW)
Propulsion: 2 Rolls-Royce Mermaid azimuth thrusters (2 × 7 MW), 2 5-bladed propellers

This type of propulsion (diesels and thrusters) is also used on icebreakers... so, how can that be a problem?

Icebreaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of icebreakers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Magadan (icebreaker) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (russian ship using Wartsila's)
Kapitan Khlebnikov (icebreaker) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (dito using Wärtsilä-Sulzer diesels)

 

[victor07]

"Mistral is simply not able to work in Russian conditions. "
WHy not, what is the problem exactly? Source on that? The link does not addres this issue.

First about engines. Those ones installed on Mistral do not meet Russian technical requirements. Simply Russia has no fuel and lubricants for them. The fact that one company builds engines for different ships does not mean that the engines are the same. The icebreakers are built in Finland in strict accordance with the requirements of the customer. From the other hand Mistral meets French rather than Russian technical requirements.
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2013/02/05/n_2740417.shtml
Your thought that the only plausible reason that Mistral is not functional in some spectrum of temperatures would be the type of fuel is simply not correct. Each ship as a complex technical system is designed according to certain technical requirements including the range of temperatures. If the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin states that Mistral can not be used at the temperatures below 7 deg then most probably he is right. One little example, Russian ships are equipped with special devices for melting ice.
Ð*огозин: "Мистрали" климатически не подходят Ð*оссии - новость из рубрики Ð*кономика и бизнес, актуальная информация, обсуждение новости, д
Finally about helicopters. Russian ones are higher, especially Ka-29. And it does not make sense for Russia to buy helicopters in Europe. Russia occupies 27% of the global helicopter market.

 

[victor07]

That strange link is: newsland.com/news/detail/id/1113522/

 

[Penguin]

First about engines. Those ones installed on Mistral do not meet Russian technical requirements. Simply Russia has no fuel and lubricants for them. The fact that one company builds engines for different ships does not mean that the engines are the same. The icebreakers are built in Finland in strict accordance with the requirements of the customer. From the other hand Mistral meets French rather than Russian technical requirements.
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2013/02/05/n_2740417.shtml
Your thought that the only plausible reason that Mistral is not functional in some spectrum of temperatures would be the type of fuel is simply not correct. Each ship as a complex technical system is designed according to certain technical requirements including the range of temperatures. If the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin states that Mistral can not be used at the temperatures below 7 deg then most probably he is right. One little example, Russian ships are equipped with special devices for melting ice.
Ð*огозин: "Мистрали" климатически не подходят Ð*оссии - новость из рубрики Ð*кономика и бизнес, актуальная информация, обсуждение новости, д
Finally about helicopters. Russian ones are higher, especially Ka-29. And it does not make sense for Russia to buy helicopters in Europe. Russia occupies 27% of the global helicopter market.

Well. assuming you are correct on all this (which I am not totally convinced of), it is not a flaw of the Mistral design but rather an error of Russia's military planners/purchasers: they should have taken that into account when ordering. Plus, they will need to address it for any units built in Russia.

For planned modifications, see Mistral class LHD BPC Amphibious Assault Ship Force Projection Command Vessel Landing Helicopter Dock Bâtiment de Projection et de Commandment DCNS Tonnerre Dixmude Vladivostok Sevastopol French Russian Navy datasheet pictures photos video specificat under Russian navy BPC

Heights

S-92 4.71 m
AS-332/532 4.92-4.97m
UH-60 5.13 m
NH-90 5.2-5.3m
EH-101 5.67m (6.65m w rotors turning, but you don't do that in the hangar)
Super Frelon/Z8 6.66 m (i'm assuming that's with rotors turning)
CH-47 5.7 m

versus

mi-8 5.65 m
mi-14 6.93 m (rotors turning, I assume)
mi-17 4.76 m
mi-38 5.13 m
ka-27 5.45-5.5m
ka-29 5.5 - 5.6m
ka-50/52 4.93 m

Early reports confirm that prediction, affirming that Russia’s Mistral Class ships will carry Ka-27K Helix external link naval helicopters, Ka-29K utility helicopters, and navalized Ka-52K Alligator scout/attack helicopters.

It doesn't make sense either to buy a ship that doesn't fit your own helicopters.... if the national hel's don't fit, the rational solution is buying some foreign helicopters (or else get stuck with a helicopterless LHD)

 

[Bonkers]

Deputy Defense Minister of Russia Yuri Borisov stated in June that in the current rearmament program, which is actual till 2020, the construction of a new aircraft carrier is not considered. What is planned: modernization of 5 cruisers including 4 Kirov class, 18 destroyers, building of 6 new class destroyers, also submarines, etc. As for decision to buy Mistrale class ships, the decision is a subject to criticism in Russia. Some people including the military sarcastically suggest to use them as marine amusement complexes

topwar.ru/30445-avianosec-dlya-vmf-rossii-masshtabnaya-model-i-dalneyshie-plany.html
google "Список кораблей Военно-Морского Флота Российской Федерации"

Any news on 18 destroyers? Any spec and which classes?

 

[victor07]

Well. assuming you are correct on all this (which I am not totally convinced of), it is not a flaw of the Mistral design but rather an error of Russia's military planners/purchasers: they should have taken that into account when ordering. Plus, they will need to address it for any units built in Russia.

It doesn't make sense either to buy a ship that doesn't fit your own helicopters.... if the national hel's don't fit, the rational solution is buying some foreign helicopters (or else get stuck with a helicopterless LHD)

The decision to buy two Mistrals has completely political background.
Êîíòðàêò íà "Ìèñòðàëü" è ãîëîâíóþ áîëü - ÂÏÊ.name
Currently there is no decision about third and fourth ships. Also there are some evidences that in Russia these ships will be further reconstructed, so the data presented at navyrecognition.com may be not correct.
Ðîññèéñêèå ÄÂÊÄ òèïà "Ìèñòðàëü" â îòëè÷èå îò ôðàíöóçñêèõ àíàëîãîâ áóäóò îñíàùåíû óäàðíûì è îáîðîíèòåëüíûì îðóæèåì - ÂÏÊ.name
The decision to buy military helicopters (in most of opinions and Mistral too) for Russia seems to be not rational neither from tactical and technical nor from economic points of view. It is the same as if the US going to buy some fighter aircrafts from abroad.