Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
So normally you would not see fixed wing aircraft on the carrier in home-port, unless they were "craned" aboard??? have you ever seen an aircraft "recovered or embarked" on a carrier in Port, I would assume they wait for a clear "ops" area to embark the aircraft??? brat

You will see no aircraft aboard unless it is down(unable to fly) waiting to be craned off...not even a helo.

By recovered do you mean an arrested landing? If so no. however I have seen an aircfat launched while at anchor.

In FEB. 1981 while aboard the USS America with VS-33 we launched via cat shot an S-3A at anchor in St Thomas US Virgin Islands. We were cheating at a war game. Plus we knew what we were doing.

I've seen aircfat craned aboard several times.. just before a cruise(deployment)
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Rebuilding that carrier unofficially took more money , time and effort then building new one ;) Russian shipbuilding industry has largely recovered from Soviet breakup . They could build warships of any size except maybe large US style aircraft carriers and they have proven that in recent years . What remains to be seen is what could Russia afford and what are their plans for future of the navy .
Sorry, thunder, I do not buy into this. Where have they shown that they can build, for example a 40,000 or 50,000 ton surface warship in recent years? They haven't.

Heck, they have not even built a decent sized surface destroyer of 8,000 tons in recent years. They have finally started producing decent submarines again,...but at a very slow rate.

As to the Vikramaditya, you are right, it did take them longer to rebuild the older one than it should have taken to build a new one, and that tells you the state of their surface warship capability.

If they even thought they could have built a new one faster and cheaper for India...then they would have. But they didn't. The obvious reason they did not do so is because they were not able to. The Gorshkov was there...so they made the attempt with it...and it almost failed as it was.

If the Russians themselves felt they could build a new one for themselves cheaper and faster, then they would do so. But they haven't. You can most easily tell what a nation or people is capable of by what they actually do. As it is the Russians have not built a large surface warship in excess of 20,000 tons or more in over 25 years.
 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Sorry, thunder, I do not buy into this. Where have they shown that they can build, for example a 40,000 or 50,000 ton surface warship in recent years? They haven't.

Heck, they have not even built a decent sized surface destroyer of 8,000 tons in recent years. They have finally started producing decent submarines again,...but at a very slow rate.

As to the Vikramaditya, you are right, it did take them longer to rebuild the older one than it should have taken to build a new one, and that tells you the state of their surface warship capability.

If they even thought they could have built a new one faster and cheaper for India...then they would have. But they didn't. The obvious reason they did not do so is because they were not able to. The Gorshkov was there...so they made the attempt with it...and it almost failed as it was.

If the Russians themselves felt they could build a new one for themselves cheaper and faster, then they would do so. But they haven't. You can most easily tell what a nation or people is capable of by what they actually do. As it is the Russians have not built a large surface warship in excess of 20,000 tons or more in over 25 years.

The Russians would not have bought the Mistrals if they can build something similar themselves. They may have the head knowledge to do it but the infrastructure and capability is not there and would probably end up costing them more to build something big like that than just to buy it from someone else since they have to start everything from the ground up.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The Russians would not have bought the Mistrals if they can build something similar themselves. They may have the head knowledge to do it but the infrastructure and capability is not there and would probably end up costing them more to build something big like that than just to buy it from someone else since they have to start everything from the ground up.

Yet there is always possibilities, the third and fourth are supposed to be built in St. Petersburg. if they can pull it off then that could be a game changer. In order to do it though the Russians need a new Ship building facility
 
Last edited:

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Yet there is always possibilities, the third and fourth are supposed to be built in St. Petersburg. if they can pull it off then that could be a game changer. In order to do it though the Russians need a new Ship building facility

True however they would have had the blueprints and all the R & D that goes with it which is usually the hardest part.. all they need to do is cut and weld steel and put things together. But even with all that being said the fact that if they can actually build the Mistral on their own yard means like you said they have had invested into the the tooling and equipment in their yards to build mil spec ships.

I assume the Mistral is mil spec right? because a lot of Naval ships today are not built to those standards albeit lossely defined by each country.

here's a wiki entry of naval stadards and it's actually pretty accurate.

Survivability denotes the ability of a ship and its on-board systems to remain functional and continue designated mission in a man-made hostile environment.[3] The naval vessels are designed to operate in a man-made hostile environment, and therefore the survivability is a vital feature required from them. The naval vessel’s survivability is a complicated subject affecting the whole life cycle of the vessel, and should be considered from the initial design phase of every war ship.[4]

The classical definition of naval survivability includes three main aspects, which are susceptibility, vulnerability, and recoverability, although recoverability is often subsumed within vulnerability.[5]

Susceptibility consists of all the factors that expose the ship to the weapons effects in a combat environment. These factors in general are the operating conditions, the threat and the features of the ship itself. The operating conditions, such as sea state, weather and atmospheric conditions, vary considerably and their influence is difficult to address (hence they are often not accounted for in survivability assessment). The threat is dependent on the weapons directed against the ship and weapon’s performance, such as the range. The features of the ship in this sense include platform signatures (radar, infrared, acoustic, magnetic), the defensive systems on board such as surface to air missiles, EW and decoys, and also the tactics employed by the platform in countering the attack (aspects such as speed, manoeuvrability, chosen aspect presented to the threat).[4]

Vulnerability refers to the ability of the vessel to withstand the short term effects of the threat weapon. Vulnerability is an attribute typical to the vessel and therefore heavily affected by the vessel’s basic characteristics such as size, subdivision, armouring and other hardening features, and also the design of the ship's systems, in particular the location of equipment, degrees of redundancy and separation and the presence within a system of single point failures.

Recoverability refers to vessel’s ability to restore and maintain its functionality after sustaining damage. Thus recoverability is dependent on the actions aimed to neutralize the effects of the damage. These actions include fire fighting, limiting the extent of flooding and dewatering. Besides the equipment, the crew also has a vital role in recoverability.[6]
 

Verum

Junior Member
I guess the Ruski should be start digging a big hole for the giant dry docks, needed for the large ships.

Speaking of which, I'm curious, does Russia have many shipyards big enough to build and maintain large aircraft carriers? AFAIK, Gorshkov/Vikramaditya was refitted in Sevmash. Could Sevmash actually build an aircraft carrier from scratch? Apart from Sevmash, are there any other shipyards with similar capabilities? So far all the aircraft carriers of the Soviet Union were built in the Nikolayev shipyard in Ukraine, and Sevmash is only doing refitting on an carrier.
 
Last edited:

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I found this comment about the Mistral class accommodations on wiki very interesting;

Accommodations

The space gained by the use of the azimuth thrusters allowed for the construction of accommodation areas where no pipes or machinery are visible. Located in the forward section of the ship, crew cabins aboard Mistral-class ships are comparable in comfort levels to passenger cabins aboard Chantiers de l'Atlantique-constructed cruise ships.

The fifteen officers each have an individual cabin. Senior non-commissioned officers share two-man cabins, while junior crew and embarked troops use four- or six-person cabins. Conditions in these accommodation areas are said to be better than in most barracks of the French Foreign Legion, and when United States Navy vice-admiral Mark Fitzgerald inspected one of the Mistral-class ships in May 2007, it was claimed that he would have used the same accommodation area to host a crew three times the size of Mistral’s complement.

I assume the Mistral is mil spec right? because a lot of Naval ships today are not built to those standards albeit loosely defined by each country.

I once read that the Mistral class was not built to military standards. I can't find that statement now.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Come on ya limeys, launch that thing already!


qe-full.jpg

 

djkeos

New Member
Registered Member
OMG...another PS! They even took the crane!!:D

Look at the picture taken on January 13, 2014 on Flickr.com:

11930506396_1b1a6a1491_h - kopie.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The same guy walks in the lower right corner near the containers!!
 
Last edited:

thunderchief

Senior Member
Sorry, thunder, I do not buy into this. Where have they shown that they can build, for example a 40,000 or 50,000 ton surface warship in recent years? They haven't.

Gorshkov was useless scrap of rusting steel when they started to work on it . Everything had to be changed , even some parts of the hull . Process was like restoring old car - it took longer then to build new one of the same type .

Heck, they have not even built a decent sized surface destroyer of 8,000 tons in recent years. They have finally started producing decent submarines again,...but at a very slow rate.

Not entirely true , Admiral Chabanenko , Udaloy-II class destroyer was launched in 1994 and commissioned in 1999.

As it is the Russians have not built a large surface warship in excess of 20,000 tons or more in over 25 years.

Surface warships over 20 000 tons are basically carriers . Very few of those have been built anywhere in the world in last 25 years . On the other hand , there are dozens of civilian ships (mostly tankers ) built in Russia after collapse of Soviet Union with displacement over 20 000 tons like this :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top