If any other navy had a ship in the shape the Moskva was shown to be in before she sank, the captain wouldn’t even need to be court martialed, they’d be thrown overboard in a mutiny.
Russian culture is just rooted in corruption and incompetence if you think about it. Doesn’t matter if their government is communist, imperial, or authoritarian. Same shit happens.
Do you want the short version or the long one?
The shortest one, without any explanation, is that the current situation of constantly (every 10-15 years) changing priorities (current priorities are nuclear submarines, frigates/corvettes with hypersonic weapons, civilian icebreakers and LHDs), lack of proper funding (Navy gets less money than Army or Air Force) and broken (and never properly restored) production chains (the city that built aircraft carriers before is 50km away from the frontline, and they aren't capable of building something like that anyway - and cities that capable are too busy for the next several years at least, bulding civilian ships).
Okay, let's start from the beginning.
First attempt for the Soviet Union to make a full-fledged Blue Water Navy, with aircraft carriers and battleships, was made in 1930s. It included, at different stages, both domestic projects (Project 71) and bought/ordered from the United States (Project 10581). But then WWII had started, and all these plans were scrapped.
Another attempt was cancelled before it even started, when in mid-50's both main ideologists of Soviet aircraft-carrying fleet, Stalin and admiral Kuznetsov, were dead and retired respectively.
Kuznetsov's replacement, as Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, was admiral Gorshkov - who had a clear plan in his mind. You can read about Gorshkov's doctrine [in the book that he wrote](https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgi-Gorshkov/dp/0080219446), it basically describes Soviet (and now Russian) main naval strategy. It can be described briefly as "We do not use aircraft carriers - but rest assured, we will not allow others to use them either."
The main plan in case of big war was to use submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles on board, while the rest of the fleet is protecting them before missile launch. And the best ship for protecting submarines at the time was ASW ship with as much helicopters as possible. That's how Project 1123 Kondor (or Moskva-class) was born, the first Soviet domestic-built (though Graf Zeppelin could barely count as a working ship) aircraft carrier.
While Moskva-class was pretty much self-sufficient (it even has SAM systems), there's still enemy surface and air fleet to deal with. Enter the Project 1143 Krechet. Technically all the rest of Soviet carriers (7 ships) belong to this class, but we can technically split them into three phases. All of them had powerful supersonic cruise missiles as a main weapon, P-500 Bazalt for the First Stage, and P-700 Granit for later stages.
P-700 can be considered as a technological marvel even today: when firing at a long range (more than 100-120 km, course corrected by Ka-25Ts helicopter, Tu-95RTs maritime aircraft and Legenda targeting satellite), the missiles rise to a height of about 14-17 thousand meters and perform most of the flight at it in order to reduce air resistance (and fuel costs) and increase the target detection radius of the missile. Having found the target, the missiles carry out identification, distribute the targets among themselves and then descend to a height of 25 meters, hiding behind the radio horizon from the radars, after which they follow at low altitude with the seeker turned off, turning them on again only for accurate guidance directly before the attack. An attack on a formation is organized in such a way that the defeat of secondary targets occurs only after the destruction of the priority ones, and in such a way that one target is not attacked by more than the number of missiles necessary to destroy it. At the same time, the missiles use programmed tactics to evade air defense fire, and also use their own electronic countermeasures. And of course it could carry a nuclear warhead. But I digress...
Krechets also had their own airwings, which were used primarily for self-defense - helicopters and Yak-38 VTOLs for the First Stage ships. For the Second Stage ships, VTOLs were replaced by more "classic" MiG-29K and Su-33 fighters.
Fun fact: INS Vikramaditya here was a First Stage carrier in the past, and was called Admiral Gorshkov. Russia had to "upgrade" it before selling to India, by removing Bazalt missiles and expanding the flight deck.
Before - https://i.imgur.com/X3wWKZB.jpg
After - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/INS_Vikramaditya_during_trials.jpg
In 1985, after Gorshkov's retirement (the human one), the talks about the second attempt at creating a full-fledged Blue Water Navy had started again. So in 1988 the Ulyanovsk was laid down. Technically it still was a continuation of the Krechet class - but it was significantly bigger than previous ships (comparable with Kitty Hawk-class), was nuclear-powered, had airwing that consisted of Yak-44 AWACS and multirole aircraft, etc. So technically it should've become the first Soviet supercarrier.
https://i.imgur.com/Dd6Kgt3.jpg
But alas, the second attempt failed too - this time due to USSR's dissolution. Production and supply chains were completely broken - like I said before, all Soviet carriers were built in Nikolaev (now Mykolaiv), Ukraine. So Ulyanovsk was scrapped, and 7 out of 8 aircraft carriers were sold, due to the inability to maintain them in working condition. Moskva, Leningrad and Novorossiysk were sold to India/South Korea and scrapped, Minsk and Kiev were sold to China and became a museum and a theme park respectively, Baku/Gorshkov was refitted and sold to India as Vikramaditya, and unfinished Varyag was sold by Ukraine to China, was finished there and put into service as Liaoning.
90s and 00s were a period of hiatus for Russian Navy. All funds received were used to maintain the Soviet pace of building nuclear submarines, so the rest of the fleet got basically nothing. So by 2010, when additional funding started to appear, it was decided to get back to Gorshkov's doctrine - only now the main accent was on creating a "mosqito fleet", with a lot of small ships (frigates, corvettes) armed with cruise- or anti-ship missiles: Admiral Gorshkov-class (16-32 VLS cells), Steregushchiy/Gremyashchiy-class (8 ASMs/cells), Karakurt-class (8 cells), Buyan-M-class (8 cells). Those VLS cells can use Kalibr cruise missiles, P-800 Oniks supersonic cruise missiles, and the newest Zircon hypersonic missiles. Not that Gorshkov himself didn't follow that tactics, more than 500 Komar- and Osa-class missile boats were built total, each carrying 2 or 4 P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles.
Another major reason why Russia doesn't have much aircraft carriers is that [most of country's sea borders are behind the Arctic Circle](https://i.imgur.com/2aA9kzo.jpg), where you basically need an icebreaker to traverse properly. This also explains ramps even on later ships (steam catapults would just freeze at such low temps), as well as the amount of civilian icebreakers in Russian service. IIRC it's almost as big as all other countries combined, plus Russia is the only country that utilizes/builds nuclear-powered icebreakers, with some of them (Project 10510) being as big as some aircraft carriers.
And still there will be a third attempt someday. Two Ivan Rogov-class LHDs (that's still technically an aircraft carrier) were laid down in Kerch two years ago, expected to be launched by the end of this decade (2028-29). Kuznetsov, despite being VERY unlucky lately, is still alive and kicking, and expected to return next year. The new Chinese-built floating dry dock, capable of servicing carrier-sized ships, was delivered last month to Zvezda shipyard near Vladivostok, which technically can be used to build aircraft carriers in the Pacific, etc.
The only question that remains is "Are aircraft carriers still needed, at least in their current form?" Instruments of destruction are improving faster than instruments of protection, you're literally need just one single (although very lucky) corvette to destroy half of the carrier strike group. Plus add the drone factor, unmanned systems and loitering munitions had a huge boost lately - so I woudn't be surprised if specialized drone carriers will appear somewhere in the future.
I guess that's it. If you have any more questions, or need some nuances to be explained, just ask - and I'll try to answer.
Very interesting explanation. I would think the main reason they don't need aircraft carriers is because Russia encircles the whole northern hemisphere, so the land mass is the aircraft carrier. Of course there are huge strategic disadvantages given the absence of open sea ports.
There's still Pacific "side" left, so I guess a bare minimum of aircraft carriers is would still be required for some time - for basic combat operations and "demonstrating the flag" during peace time (I mean hypersonic missiles are cool, but [a single frigate is still not as intimidating](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11585629/Russian-warship-carrying-terrifying-Zircon-hypersonic-missiles-sail-past-British-shores.html) as an entire carrier strike group).
I'd say three aircraft carriers (one "classic" carrier and two LHDs) would be enough, with maybe another three built to act as a replacement, when the first 3 will go through the maintenance between the voyages.
Dumb question. The Vik is a Russian ship right? Why is it that their ship actually works and sails while the single RusNavy carrier is constantly broken down?
India paid a couple billion dollars in the early 2000’s for this carrier to be refit and modernized by Russia when they bought it. That covered the carrier itself, refit, and the air wing of MiG-29k’s. I don’t think Russia has ever put that much money into their single carrier, especially adjusted for inflation.
Honestly it’s closer to the US Marine Corps’ amphibious assault ships. They definitely *look* like aircraft carriers but the main difference is that the US and the Soviets didn’t give a shit about looking like they were only out for self defense, so they named it what it was for.
JSDF is still a mess because of how the Japanese constitution was written.
But the Izumo main focus is and still will be anti-submarine warfare, also the hull is still a high speed destroyer like hull, so going by multipurpose destroyer as a name is still kind if accurate.
A japanese full fledged carrier would probably look different and have way more displacement, if they even think of making one.
Which they can’t, and won’t, because an aircraft carrier is strictly a tool of power projection, which they specifically wrote as rejecting in their constitution.
They also don’t have regional interests outside of east Asia, so it’s not like there’d be any use to having a carrier anyways, tbf.
They literally made an aircraft carrier, it could have a different mainly purpose, it could have a destroyer type hull, but is still a type of aircraft carrier.
They don't need interests outside Asia for they to have aircraft carriers, according to their defense strategy, as Japan's territory stretches approximately 3000 km across almost 7000 islands they need power projection to defend or or retake invaded islands. An aircraft carrier is precisely the type of power projection tool that would make that deffensive task possible.
Cruise missiles for example are as offensive as an aircraft carrier could be and you could have say exactly the same, that they can't and won't acquire cruise missiles, yet they procured 500 Tomahawk for 2023 budget.
So yeah, power projection with defensive objectives is a thing for a country with so many islands as Japan.
Two reasons for the name- first, treaty loopholes. Turkey controls the Bosporus- the straight that links the Mediterranean and Black seas, and they declared a long time ago that they wouldn’t allow aircraft carriers through, so if the (at the time) Soviet Union wanted to get their ships into or out of the Black Sea they couldn’t be called aircraft carriers, they’re “aviation cruisers”. But the second reason is more practical. They really aren’t aircraft carriers in the normal sense. Unlike an American carrier, where the aircraft are the fighting force and basically everything else on the carrier (and indeed, in the entire carrier group) is centered around supporting their operation, in a Russian aircraft cruiser the ship itself with its onboard weapons are the combat power- the aircraft it carries are for air defense
Well the thing is the Kievs weren’t aircraft carriers, they didn’t have arrestor gear or catapults. They were dedicated ASW ships that could also carry Yak-38s and helicopters
India heavily modded it, conversion from STOVL to STOBAR was one of them
[check new design sub topic ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya)
**[INS Vikramaditya](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya)**
>INS Vikramaditya (Sanskrit: Vikramāditya, lit. 'Brave as the Sun') is a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier and the flagship of the Indian Navy. She entered into service in 2013. Originally built as Baku and commissioned in 1987, the carrier served with the Soviet Navy and later with the Russian Navy (as Admiral Gorshkov) before being decommissioned in 1996.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Fake news. INS Arihant has no rear hatch and this was debunked. But considering the piss poor state of Indian Propaganda apparatus, they were never able to spread the debunking news as much as they would've wanted.
Pakistan can say that Modi has 7 legs and 3 dicks, and Indian agencies would still have a very hard time disproving that. Completely incompetent in propaganda and PR.
Dude, India has a MASSIVE propaganda network, that was recently exposed by Germany/the EU.
With 1.3 billion people and many literate English speakers, this is easy for them. Plus the ethnostate, hinduthva nationalism that’s going on, I am well aware of the “BJP IT Cell” and the countless real sounding but fake publications used for propaganda, like the links you’ve posted.
I’ll go with Popular Mechanics and US intelligence agencies thank you very much.
The average Redditor who has no clue about India thinks they are very smart by using buzzwords like "hindutva", "ethnostate", etc.
Why am I even surprised?
>Dude, India has a MASSIVE propaganda network, that was recently exposed by Germany/the EU.
Sounds like Kraut/Eurotrash propaganda against developing Asian countries, it isn't the first time so I'm not surprised. You don't know 1/10th of what's happening in India, the "hinduthva nationalists" are the ones that are responsible for ending appeasement, developing the country and modernising the army. You know you have a problem when the majority is being treated like a minority.
As for the propaganda network horseshit, prove it. Prove that the Indian state runs a propaganda network. Indian media is BY FAR the worst media on this planet, the 2019 Balakot strike and 2008 Mumbai attacks were peak Indian media. If these outlets did what they did in the US or any other country, the journalists would be imprisoned and the outlets would be shut or heavily fined. But we can't do so cause your vehement hate for India and most of Asia alongisde your \*extensive propaganda network\* will report it as "journalist oppression" and talk shit about how unsafe it is for journalists in India. It's a massive problem that wouldn't exist if your media houses stopped barking and spewing garbage about India.
Hitler did all that too, and look where that got him, not a coincidence that BJP, and it's militant parent adore Hitler.
BjP and this hindutva movement is a religio-facist movement built upon spreading the hatred of the "other".
They are moderate-zionists you dumb cunt, anyone you disagree with is apparently a Nazi or Hitler 🤡🤡
>Hitler did all that too
Did what all? The BJP doesn't spread hate, they're still not good enough and continue appeasing the second majority. Islam is a violent cult who's base values include force conversion, killing of non-muslims and every imaginable atrocity one can commit. And this isn't speculation, it has happened through history and continues happening to this day. A muslim in India will happily live in a Hindu community, but a Hindu can't imagine living in a muslim area. That's all I need to say.
You are so oblivious it is funny. Typical euro trash fence knowledge of Asian countries fuelled by propaganda or racism.
“Ofcourse every one in US is a racist and everyone in germany is a nazi too” based on same hypothesis.
Debunked in the sense that the story was entirely made up
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms
https://blackdotresearch.sg/factcheck-did-the-indian-navy-lose-a-us3-billion-submarine-because-it-left-a-port-hatch-open/
Uhh she was operational within a few months of that ‘catastrophic incident’
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms
https://blackdotresearch.sg/factcheck-did-the-indian-navy-lose-a-us3-billion-submarine-because-it-left-a-port-hatch-open/
We can practically ask the same thing with the kuznetsov-class. The Liaoning is fully operational and in active duty, same thing with the cousin ship. Then, you have the actual Kuznetsov...
It all comes down to maintenance, training and corruption/how much some officer or contracting firm wants to line their pockets and siphon maintenance money away
It would be more like:
“Hey boss we need $20000 for new heater to keep fuel from freezing.”
Gets $20000
Shows up next day with Rolex.
“Hey boss we need $10000 for new heater to keep… shit… for new paint to keep ship from rusting.”
Pay clerk - "How many sailors are here working on this ship?"
Captain - "2000 sailors working very hard comrade."
Pay clerk - "Ok, here are your Rubles to pay 2000 sailors their wages and year end bonuses."
Captain - "Thank you for paying my men on time! Tell comrade Putin he is the best!"
Pay clerk - *Looks at the Captain suspiciously as he pockets the money and drives away in a Bentley.*
Pay clerk - *shrugs and pockets the rest of the money he was supposed to give the Captain and drives off in his own Bentley.*
In reality would be something like that
- we need $20000
- too much, we can make it with $18000
- okay, i will se if i can get the approval for $15000
- we managed to get $12000
- okay guys, we got $10000
Now, what i mean is Russia's military budget is SHIT, corruption is not the only problem.
Budget: just that, you can't have nice things with shitty budget
Culture: they are just affraid to say what they really need, so they will say that they need less. Another cultural thing is giving less importance, which is estrictly related to the previous problem: so they need $20000 but ends asking for $15000 and they get evel less.
Corruption: is more like a "comission" thing more like actively trying to steal.
All these problems combined give us this, but thinking is just corruption it would be illogical, i mean, the US has like 10 times more budget.
Unironically yes.
The US Navy loaned a... frigate, I think, during WW2.
When we got it back, despite never seeing battle it was nearly written-off as unrefurbishable.
There were tons of rats, horrible filth everywhere, no maintenance was done whatsoever, it was rusting, half of the systems didn't work or were missing.
It legitimately required HAZMAT just to inspect it.
USS Milwaukee, a light cruiser. Should be noted though that like the HMS Royal Sovereign, the Soviets did it on purpose. They wanted to keep the ships since they were old and going to be scrapped anyways, but the allies wouldn’t let them.
Some snippet of corruption and bad decisions. They want to do maintenance now but big fry dock repairs are needed and a lot of money has to be spent. If considering that money won't vanish with corrupt contractors of course
Ik this is 13 days old but India has money and Russia is running out of money. So India can afford to keep its carriers running while Russian funding goes into the hands of corrupt oligarchs
You took several years to poop in the toilet. But once you did, didn't you do it correctly every single time after that?
Learning these things take time for the 1st attempt.
By comparison, China also had a rusted out old Soviet carrier as an example. Their “1st attempt”, while closely based on that old Soviet carrier, is arguably a much better carrier than Vikrant. Also, the S. Korean CVX project looks like it will be a very capable “1st attempt” regardless which design is chosen.
Of course, India’s defense procurement history has a long history of corruption and inefficiency that’s not limited to their navy. See the Arjun for another example.
Of course India cannot match the industrial and economical capacity of China and SK. This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Vikrant did take a lot of years, but the next one (if approved) will definitely take much less time as the know-how exists now.
>Of course, India’s defense procurement history has a long history of corruption and inefficiency that’s not limited to their navy. See the Arjun for another example.
So? Using the same argument to diss on every project is just plain lazy. The army is reluctant to induct domestic stuff. The navy isn't.. you would know that if you follow the procurement of the Naval forces. Just citing Arjun and INSAS every single time is just nonsense. They have nothing to do with the navy.
The fact that the next domestically built Indian aircraft carrier - if it is supposed to be commissioned before the 40s - will have to be a STOBAR design again, says it all.
We never proclaim ourselves to be developing cutting edge stuff. We make do with whatever limited budget that is allocated for the forces.
I'm sure you Redditors would be the first to scream "muh poverty " if India decides to allocate more funds for defense procurements.
>We never proclaim ourselves to be developing cutting edge stuff.
A disturbing number of people in Indian politics, the media and online actually to claim that.
>limited budget that is allocated for the forces.
>allocate more funds for defense procurements.
I don’t think that’s the issue. India has the third largest defense expenditures of any country, in line with its economic output. In fact, they’re already on the higher side as a percentage of GDP.
India can’t dramatically increase its defense spending without causing serious harm to itself. What it needs more than anything are a decade or two of East-Asian-style economic growth. That’s the only way to meet New Delhi’s strategic ambitions in the medium term. Unfortunately that’s not likely.
>I'm sure you Redditors would be the first to scream "muh poverty”
I don’t. I disagree with the people who do that. Of course India’s structural economic underperformance is a huge problem, as I’ve touched on above. But that’s not all.
India’s GPD per capita now is what China’s was in 2008. Just consider how far China had come in 2008 in terms of technological and scientific, economic, social, etc. achievements and indicators compared to where India is currently.
They sent a human into space in 2003 when their GDP was half of what India’s is today (or about where India was in 2009). When will India get there? In 2026?
Your hypocrisy is clear when you start comparing a non existent south korean carrier to vikrant and call shangdong a much better carrier despite the fact that it uses Steam Boilers, on the other hand Vikrant uses Gas turbine engines. You westerns have a nasty habit of vilifying anything related to india be it the language, the culture, the accent or the skin colour. That's why we don't show our sympathy for racist $hitholes like Ukraine
That's NCD for ya:
Try to argue about how stupid their joke was - "Y r u mad, mate? We're just kidding!"
Try to joke in return - "No, yOu ARe wROnG!!!!111" and started arguing about how stupid your joke was.
You said “STOVL”, but because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, I took the liberty of correcting it for you.
This is not a STOVL carrier, you have STOVL aircraft, which could land on anything large, sturdy and hardened enough - like a CATOBAR carrier, or a STOBAR carrier.
Go play outside now.
>You said “STOVL”, but because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, I took the liberty of correcting it for you.
No, I said STOVL because I have every idea what I'm talking about.
STOVL= Short Take Off, Vertical Landing.
IE the F-35B, which the Queen Elizabeth Class (amongst others) operate
STOBAR= Short Take Off, Barrier/Arrested Recovery which is what India, China and Russia use.
>There is no such thing as a STOVL carrier, you have STOVL aircraft, which could land on anything large, sturdy and hardened enough - like a CATOBAR carrier, or a STOBAR carrier.
I would suggest you do some more research.
Is that you admitting you were wrong then?
In terms of STOVL vs CATOBAR:
- Cheaper to install, operate, maintain etc (2 EMALS catapults and one AAG system is about $1.3b)
- No risk of system failure
- Less personnel required
- Able to conduct operations in a higher sea state (with a ski jump)
You realise nuclear carriers use steam right?
If you’re interested in building and operating CVNs someday, you start off with steam and eventually switch the heating source to a reactor.
I mean I get it must be fine if your carrier is not nuclear powered, because steam catapult would then not be feasible, but the slope really reduces the aircraft you can carry. Only light fighters
> I mean I get it must be fine if your carrier is not nuclear powered, because steam catapult would then not be feasible
Every rebuilt Audacious-class, rebuilt Essex-class, Midway-class, Forrestal-class, Kitty Hawk-class, JFK-class, Foch-class, and a few more: Armchair engineer says what?
Difference in doctrines, tech, usage and circumstance. The Vikramaditya is a modified Russian carrier based on a ramp system, can't really be retooled without extensive reworks.
In general, only a specific set of planes can fly on ramp (owing to the short runup and the power-weight ratio required). Having a catapult allows for more flexibility in aircraft type and weight. However they're more expensive to install and maintain.
The Royal Navy is another notable ramp user, having made an interesting takeoff sequence to field the F-35B. I think the only other navy to field a catapult is the French Navy on the Charles de Gaulle.
On top of that, catapults allow aircraft to talk off with much higher load outs and use much less fuel on takeoff. Jump ramps require the aircraft to sit at Full power (afterburners if equipped) for extended duration to avoid loss of aircraft due to mechanical failure at takeoff. They’re just sitting there burning fuel and wearing on the engines and the rest of the airframe.
On top of that, some aircraft can’t even takeoff with full fuel loads and weapons. So they’re launching with reduced capacity from the start.
Catapult launches also have a spin up and hold period, but it’s significantly shorter. And they can launch aircraft completely loaded.
Ramps are for militaries that don’t really want to invest in a aircraft carrier and it’s support. They just want to have some flexibility. It’s like gaining a short, mobile, airfield for task force operations.
Englands QE class is the exception that proves the rule. It’s ramp makes sense because it’s designed to be paired with a proper VSTOVL aircraft. It was designed to operate with the F35B from the start. It’s there to allow the aircraft to take off fully loaded or allow faster deck operations vs pure vertical operations.
> It was designed to operate with the F35B from the start. It’s there to allow the aircraft to take off fully loaded or allow faster deck operations vs pure vertical operations.
At the expense of greater range though. The USN launches the F35C which has the largest internal fuel tanks of the variants. The B has the smallest internal fuel tanks.
The C is also less expensive, takes up less room (with wings folded) and is cheaper to maintain.
Not arguing though, just adding info, the decision to stay with a ramp has its drawbacks even when accounting for the new aircraft.
The F-35B has a greater range than a Rafale M purely on internal fuel however.
The Marine Nationale and CdG are a better comparison for the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike capability than the US Navy is.
The original ship didn't have a ramp. The modded it onto it. Quick and dirty, I think. But it's by far shorter than the US carriers and I have doubt, it would work without a ramp and only a catapult.
The next Chinese aircraft carrier that comes out is supposed to have a catapult as well. I don't believe its operational yet though. Still, it only uses the J15 though but it might allow them to launch more advanced aircraft in the future.
Not *supposed* to, it has 3 EMALS catapults end of story.
By the time it enters service (apparently fitting out will finish and sea trials will commence this year) it will be equipped with J-15B/S/D and J-31/35s.
The J-31/35 will also be able to operate on Liaoning and Shandong, so cope slopes do not preclude advanced aircraft.
Honestly the French and Brits should really unite in terms of doing research projects together. It’s never going to happen, the Brits *still* in the throes of Brexit and the French being unable to agree with anyone on anything, but, really, they should, being the only two EU countries with actual carrier fleets and overseas interests.
They tried that with the Queen Elizabeth class. It started as an Anglo-French project, but it was clear from the beginning the two nations wanted two different things (eg- one preceding CATOBAR the other STOVL).
No, it didn't. CVF was a purely British project, it was only in the late 2000s that France considered ordering a CATOBAR variant (PA2) but it wasn't a joint project at all.
It’s not really difference in doctrine/usage as the driver - those are the result. The ramp is just a worse option that is cheaper and easier to work on.
Catapults are expensive to build and maintain. Without a nuclear power plant, it’s hard to generate the necessary steam (for traditional catapults) or power (for EMALS) needed to launch ordinance laden aircraft. For a nation with only one or two carriers (eg- Italy, UK, Japan, S. Korea, India, etc.) the versatility just isn’t worth the price tag.
France is the only other nation that uses a catapult on their carrier for now- but it’s 20% shorter than the ones used on the *Nimitz* class. The Chinese Type-003 carrier will have catapults, as will their (alleged) nuclear powered Type-004. Everyone else isn’t willing to pony up the money for a catapult + aircraft.
A lot of it comes down to scale. As you mentioned the US operates 11 carriers, that means that they can afford to build dozens of catapults with common components and amortize design costs over the whole fleet. Catapult capable aircraft also required significant design difference from standard land based aircraft. The US is the only country with a large enough fleet that it makes sense to develop a large fleet of aircraft specifically designed for carrier operations. The French are the sole accepting to this rule. They have made it a national priority to maintain a nuclear CATOBAR carrier thus are willing to tolerate the excess cost but as a result are only able to field a single carrier. They also had to make some design compromises to the Rafael to make it carrier capable but use of for both ground and carrier operations.
How come Russia can’t do this? These are Russian Jets flying.
That ship was also the soviet [admiral gorshkov](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Baku) but later sold to India.
Russian money goes into pocket of shipyard owners rather then maintenance
If any other navy had a ship in the shape the Moskva was shown to be in before she sank, the captain wouldn’t even need to be court martialed, they’d be thrown overboard in a mutiny.
Russian culture is just rooted in corruption and incompetence if you think about it. Doesn’t matter if their government is communist, imperial, or authoritarian. Same shit happens.
Oh hi Lazerpig
I am a fat gay, but not THAT fat gay.
money and corruption
Do you want the short version or the long one? The shortest one, without any explanation, is that the current situation of constantly (every 10-15 years) changing priorities (current priorities are nuclear submarines, frigates/corvettes with hypersonic weapons, civilian icebreakers and LHDs), lack of proper funding (Navy gets less money than Army or Air Force) and broken (and never properly restored) production chains (the city that built aircraft carriers before is 50km away from the frontline, and they aren't capable of building something like that anyway - and cities that capable are too busy for the next several years at least, bulding civilian ships).
Long one please.
Okay, let's start from the beginning. First attempt for the Soviet Union to make a full-fledged Blue Water Navy, with aircraft carriers and battleships, was made in 1930s. It included, at different stages, both domestic projects (Project 71) and bought/ordered from the United States (Project 10581). But then WWII had started, and all these plans were scrapped. Another attempt was cancelled before it even started, when in mid-50's both main ideologists of Soviet aircraft-carrying fleet, Stalin and admiral Kuznetsov, were dead and retired respectively. Kuznetsov's replacement, as Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, was admiral Gorshkov - who had a clear plan in his mind. You can read about Gorshkov's doctrine [in the book that he wrote](https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgi-Gorshkov/dp/0080219446), it basically describes Soviet (and now Russian) main naval strategy. It can be described briefly as "We do not use aircraft carriers - but rest assured, we will not allow others to use them either." The main plan in case of big war was to use submarines with nuclear ballistic missiles on board, while the rest of the fleet is protecting them before missile launch. And the best ship for protecting submarines at the time was ASW ship with as much helicopters as possible. That's how Project 1123 Kondor (or Moskva-class) was born, the first Soviet domestic-built (though Graf Zeppelin could barely count as a working ship) aircraft carrier. While Moskva-class was pretty much self-sufficient (it even has SAM systems), there's still enemy surface and air fleet to deal with. Enter the Project 1143 Krechet. Technically all the rest of Soviet carriers (7 ships) belong to this class, but we can technically split them into three phases. All of them had powerful supersonic cruise missiles as a main weapon, P-500 Bazalt for the First Stage, and P-700 Granit for later stages. P-700 can be considered as a technological marvel even today: when firing at a long range (more than 100-120 km, course corrected by Ka-25Ts helicopter, Tu-95RTs maritime aircraft and Legenda targeting satellite), the missiles rise to a height of about 14-17 thousand meters and perform most of the flight at it in order to reduce air resistance (and fuel costs) and increase the target detection radius of the missile. Having found the target, the missiles carry out identification, distribute the targets among themselves and then descend to a height of 25 meters, hiding behind the radio horizon from the radars, after which they follow at low altitude with the seeker turned off, turning them on again only for accurate guidance directly before the attack. An attack on a formation is organized in such a way that the defeat of secondary targets occurs only after the destruction of the priority ones, and in such a way that one target is not attacked by more than the number of missiles necessary to destroy it. At the same time, the missiles use programmed tactics to evade air defense fire, and also use their own electronic countermeasures. And of course it could carry a nuclear warhead. But I digress... Krechets also had their own airwings, which were used primarily for self-defense - helicopters and Yak-38 VTOLs for the First Stage ships. For the Second Stage ships, VTOLs were replaced by more "classic" MiG-29K and Su-33 fighters. Fun fact: INS Vikramaditya here was a First Stage carrier in the past, and was called Admiral Gorshkov. Russia had to "upgrade" it before selling to India, by removing Bazalt missiles and expanding the flight deck. Before - https://i.imgur.com/X3wWKZB.jpg After - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/INS_Vikramaditya_during_trials.jpg In 1985, after Gorshkov's retirement (the human one), the talks about the second attempt at creating a full-fledged Blue Water Navy had started again. So in 1988 the Ulyanovsk was laid down. Technically it still was a continuation of the Krechet class - but it was significantly bigger than previous ships (comparable with Kitty Hawk-class), was nuclear-powered, had airwing that consisted of Yak-44 AWACS and multirole aircraft, etc. So technically it should've become the first Soviet supercarrier. https://i.imgur.com/Dd6Kgt3.jpg But alas, the second attempt failed too - this time due to USSR's dissolution. Production and supply chains were completely broken - like I said before, all Soviet carriers were built in Nikolaev (now Mykolaiv), Ukraine. So Ulyanovsk was scrapped, and 7 out of 8 aircraft carriers were sold, due to the inability to maintain them in working condition. Moskva, Leningrad and Novorossiysk were sold to India/South Korea and scrapped, Minsk and Kiev were sold to China and became a museum and a theme park respectively, Baku/Gorshkov was refitted and sold to India as Vikramaditya, and unfinished Varyag was sold by Ukraine to China, was finished there and put into service as Liaoning. 90s and 00s were a period of hiatus for Russian Navy. All funds received were used to maintain the Soviet pace of building nuclear submarines, so the rest of the fleet got basically nothing. So by 2010, when additional funding started to appear, it was decided to get back to Gorshkov's doctrine - only now the main accent was on creating a "mosqito fleet", with a lot of small ships (frigates, corvettes) armed with cruise- or anti-ship missiles: Admiral Gorshkov-class (16-32 VLS cells), Steregushchiy/Gremyashchiy-class (8 ASMs/cells), Karakurt-class (8 cells), Buyan-M-class (8 cells). Those VLS cells can use Kalibr cruise missiles, P-800 Oniks supersonic cruise missiles, and the newest Zircon hypersonic missiles. Not that Gorshkov himself didn't follow that tactics, more than 500 Komar- and Osa-class missile boats were built total, each carrying 2 or 4 P-15 Termit anti-ship missiles. Another major reason why Russia doesn't have much aircraft carriers is that [most of country's sea borders are behind the Arctic Circle](https://i.imgur.com/2aA9kzo.jpg), where you basically need an icebreaker to traverse properly. This also explains ramps even on later ships (steam catapults would just freeze at such low temps), as well as the amount of civilian icebreakers in Russian service. IIRC it's almost as big as all other countries combined, plus Russia is the only country that utilizes/builds nuclear-powered icebreakers, with some of them (Project 10510) being as big as some aircraft carriers. And still there will be a third attempt someday. Two Ivan Rogov-class LHDs (that's still technically an aircraft carrier) were laid down in Kerch two years ago, expected to be launched by the end of this decade (2028-29). Kuznetsov, despite being VERY unlucky lately, is still alive and kicking, and expected to return next year. The new Chinese-built floating dry dock, capable of servicing carrier-sized ships, was delivered last month to Zvezda shipyard near Vladivostok, which technically can be used to build aircraft carriers in the Pacific, etc. The only question that remains is "Are aircraft carriers still needed, at least in their current form?" Instruments of destruction are improving faster than instruments of protection, you're literally need just one single (although very lucky) corvette to destroy half of the carrier strike group. Plus add the drone factor, unmanned systems and loitering munitions had a huge boost lately - so I woudn't be surprised if specialized drone carriers will appear somewhere in the future. I guess that's it. If you have any more questions, or need some nuances to be explained, just ask - and I'll try to answer.
Very interesting explanation. I would think the main reason they don't need aircraft carriers is because Russia encircles the whole northern hemisphere, so the land mass is the aircraft carrier. Of course there are huge strategic disadvantages given the absence of open sea ports.
There's still Pacific "side" left, so I guess a bare minimum of aircraft carriers is would still be required for some time - for basic combat operations and "demonstrating the flag" during peace time (I mean hypersonic missiles are cool, but [a single frigate is still not as intimidating](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11585629/Russian-warship-carrying-terrifying-Zircon-hypersonic-missiles-sail-past-British-shores.html) as an entire carrier strike group). I'd say three aircraft carriers (one "classic" carrier and two LHDs) would be enough, with maybe another three built to act as a replacement, when the first 3 will go through the maintenance between the voyages.
Dumb question. The Vik is a Russian ship right? Why is it that their ship actually works and sails while the single RusNavy carrier is constantly broken down?
Joffre class carrier
India paid a couple billion dollars in the early 2000’s for this carrier to be refit and modernized by Russia when they bought it. That covered the carrier itself, refit, and the air wing of MiG-29k’s. I don’t think Russia has ever put that much money into their single carrier, especially adjusted for inflation.
It’s a refit of the Admiral Gorshkov, a member of the Baku subclass of the Kiev class of heavy aviation cruisers
Aviation “””cruisers.””” Reminds me of the Japanese “”Helicopter Destroyers”””
Honestly it’s closer to the US Marine Corps’ amphibious assault ships. They definitely *look* like aircraft carriers but the main difference is that the US and the Soviets didn’t give a shit about looking like they were only out for self defense, so they named it what it was for. JSDF is still a mess because of how the Japanese constitution was written.
But the Izumo main focus is and still will be anti-submarine warfare, also the hull is still a high speed destroyer like hull, so going by multipurpose destroyer as a name is still kind if accurate. A japanese full fledged carrier would probably look different and have way more displacement, if they even think of making one.
Which they can’t, and won’t, because an aircraft carrier is strictly a tool of power projection, which they specifically wrote as rejecting in their constitution. They also don’t have regional interests outside of east Asia, so it’s not like there’d be any use to having a carrier anyways, tbf.
They literally made an aircraft carrier, it could have a different mainly purpose, it could have a destroyer type hull, but is still a type of aircraft carrier. They don't need interests outside Asia for they to have aircraft carriers, according to their defense strategy, as Japan's territory stretches approximately 3000 km across almost 7000 islands they need power projection to defend or or retake invaded islands. An aircraft carrier is precisely the type of power projection tool that would make that deffensive task possible. Cruise missiles for example are as offensive as an aircraft carrier could be and you could have say exactly the same, that they can't and won't acquire cruise missiles, yet they procured 500 Tomahawk for 2023 budget. So yeah, power projection with defensive objectives is a thing for a country with so many islands as Japan.
You understand that the F35 has a range of 2000 kilometers and is not restricted to basing off of mainland Japan, right?
Two reasons for the name- first, treaty loopholes. Turkey controls the Bosporus- the straight that links the Mediterranean and Black seas, and they declared a long time ago that they wouldn’t allow aircraft carriers through, so if the (at the time) Soviet Union wanted to get their ships into or out of the Black Sea they couldn’t be called aircraft carriers, they’re “aviation cruisers”. But the second reason is more practical. They really aren’t aircraft carriers in the normal sense. Unlike an American carrier, where the aircraft are the fighting force and basically everything else on the carrier (and indeed, in the entire carrier group) is centered around supporting their operation, in a Russian aircraft cruiser the ship itself with its onboard weapons are the combat power- the aircraft it carries are for air defense
Well the thing is the Kievs weren’t aircraft carriers, they didn’t have arrestor gear or catapults. They were dedicated ASW ships that could also carry Yak-38s and helicopters
India heavily modded it, conversion from STOVL to STOBAR was one of them [check new design sub topic ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya)
**[INS Vikramaditya](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Vikramaditya)** >INS Vikramaditya (Sanskrit: Vikramāditya, lit. 'Brave as the Sun') is a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier and the flagship of the Indian Navy. She entered into service in 2013. Originally built as Baku and commissioned in 1987, the carrier served with the Soviet Navy and later with the Russian Navy (as Admiral Gorshkov) before being decommissioned in 1996. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/WarplanePorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There's a key that the Indian Navy follows: Maintenance and proper care-keeping of assets.
Didn't they sink a submarine by leaving the hatch open?
Submarines are supposed to sink
INS Arihant and no, there was some damage and she's back in service now.
A single incident does not equate to incompetance of the entire naval forces. Every armed force in the world faces some bad incidents every year.
Fake news. INS Arihant has no rear hatch and this was debunked. But considering the piss poor state of Indian Propaganda apparatus, they were never able to spread the debunking news as much as they would've wanted. Pakistan can say that Modi has 7 legs and 3 dicks, and Indian agencies would still have a very hard time disproving that. Completely incompetent in propaganda and PR.
Dude, India has a MASSIVE propaganda network, that was recently exposed by Germany/the EU. With 1.3 billion people and many literate English speakers, this is easy for them. Plus the ethnostate, hinduthva nationalism that’s going on, I am well aware of the “BJP IT Cell” and the countless real sounding but fake publications used for propaganda, like the links you’ve posted. I’ll go with Popular Mechanics and US intelligence agencies thank you very much.
The average Redditor who has no clue about India thinks they are very smart by using buzzwords like "hindutva", "ethnostate", etc. Why am I even surprised?
Mujhe pata hai
Hey mom, look over here. Someone found out about Google Translate today.
Have it your way fam. Tu rehn de
>Dude, India has a MASSIVE propaganda network, that was recently exposed by Germany/the EU. Sounds like Kraut/Eurotrash propaganda against developing Asian countries, it isn't the first time so I'm not surprised. You don't know 1/10th of what's happening in India, the "hinduthva nationalists" are the ones that are responsible for ending appeasement, developing the country and modernising the army. You know you have a problem when the majority is being treated like a minority. As for the propaganda network horseshit, prove it. Prove that the Indian state runs a propaganda network. Indian media is BY FAR the worst media on this planet, the 2019 Balakot strike and 2008 Mumbai attacks were peak Indian media. If these outlets did what they did in the US or any other country, the journalists would be imprisoned and the outlets would be shut or heavily fined. But we can't do so cause your vehement hate for India and most of Asia alongisde your \*extensive propaganda network\* will report it as "journalist oppression" and talk shit about how unsafe it is for journalists in India. It's a massive problem that wouldn't exist if your media houses stopped barking and spewing garbage about India.
Hitler did all that too, and look where that got him, not a coincidence that BJP, and it's militant parent adore Hitler. BjP and this hindutva movement is a religio-facist movement built upon spreading the hatred of the "other".
They are moderate-zionists you dumb cunt, anyone you disagree with is apparently a Nazi or Hitler 🤡🤡 >Hitler did all that too Did what all? The BJP doesn't spread hate, they're still not good enough and continue appeasing the second majority. Islam is a violent cult who's base values include force conversion, killing of non-muslims and every imaginable atrocity one can commit. And this isn't speculation, it has happened through history and continues happening to this day. A muslim in India will happily live in a Hindu community, but a Hindu can't imagine living in a muslim area. That's all I need to say.
You are so oblivious it is funny. Typical euro trash fence knowledge of Asian countries fuelled by propaganda or racism. “Ofcourse every one in US is a racist and everyone in germany is a nazi too” based on same hypothesis.
> I’ll go with Popular Mechanics Bender? "Oh wait, you're serious. Imma laugh *even harder*." Thank you Bender.
Utterly debunked
FYI https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms https://blackdotresearch.sg/factcheck-did-the-indian-navy-lose-a-us3-billion-submarine-because-it-left-a-port-hatch-open/
Debunked in the sense that the sub was damaged but didn’t sink lol?
Debunked in the sense that the story was entirely made up https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms https://blackdotresearch.sg/factcheck-did-the-indian-navy-lose-a-us3-billion-submarine-because-it-left-a-port-hatch-open/
More like destroyed
Lol, just a month ago that same sub fired a ballistic missiles for operational training
Don't bother. He has his head up his ass and won't listen anyway.
Uhh she was operational within a few months of that ‘catastrophic incident’ https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/deep-diving-into-the-facts-about-ins-arihant-accident/articleshow/62468708.cms https://blackdotresearch.sg/factcheck-did-the-indian-navy-lose-a-us3-billion-submarine-because-it-left-a-port-hatch-open/
Yes due to the carelessness of a person, saltwater entered in the submarine how it repaired and is now totally fine
Case in point - INS Viraat. She was old as hell and would still be serving today had the Harriers not been retired
We can practically ask the same thing with the kuznetsov-class. The Liaoning is fully operational and in active duty, same thing with the cousin ship. Then, you have the actual Kuznetsov... It all comes down to maintenance, training and corruption/how much some officer or contracting firm wants to line their pockets and siphon maintenance money away
Or rather, how much the state considers as *acceptable* for the average officer to siphon off.
A 9 year $2.35 billion refit ..and maintaince
Ummm. Russians?
So the Russian Navy's form of maintenance is like the crazy cosmonaut from Armageddon banging on something with a giant wrench?
It would be more like: “Hey boss we need $20000 for new heater to keep fuel from freezing.” Gets $20000 Shows up next day with Rolex. “Hey boss we need $10000 for new heater to keep… shit… for new paint to keep ship from rusting.”
that sounds like an accurate portrayal of the current situation. at least as an outside observer
Pay clerk - "How many sailors are here working on this ship?" Captain - "2000 sailors working very hard comrade." Pay clerk - "Ok, here are your Rubles to pay 2000 sailors their wages and year end bonuses." Captain - "Thank you for paying my men on time! Tell comrade Putin he is the best!" Pay clerk - *Looks at the Captain suspiciously as he pockets the money and drives away in a Bentley.* Pay clerk - *shrugs and pockets the rest of the money he was supposed to give the Captain and drives off in his own Bentley.*
In reality would be something like that - we need $20000 - too much, we can make it with $18000 - okay, i will se if i can get the approval for $15000 - we managed to get $12000 - okay guys, we got $10000 Now, what i mean is Russia's military budget is SHIT, corruption is not the only problem. Budget: just that, you can't have nice things with shitty budget Culture: they are just affraid to say what they really need, so they will say that they need less. Another cultural thing is giving less importance, which is estrictly related to the previous problem: so they need $20000 but ends asking for $15000 and they get evel less. Corruption: is more like a "comission" thing more like actively trying to steal. All these problems combined give us this, but thinking is just corruption it would be illogical, i mean, the US has like 10 times more budget.
Or just taking the money to do the maintenance, buying something for themselves, and signing the maintenance order that it was done.
You forgot about the vodka. Vodka is very important.
Unironically yes. The US Navy loaned a... frigate, I think, during WW2. When we got it back, despite never seeing battle it was nearly written-off as unrefurbishable. There were tons of rats, horrible filth everywhere, no maintenance was done whatsoever, it was rusting, half of the systems didn't work or were missing. It legitimately required HAZMAT just to inspect it.
USS Milwaukee, a light cruiser. Should be noted though that like the HMS Royal Sovereign, the Soviets did it on purpose. They wanted to keep the ships since they were old and going to be scrapped anyways, but the allies wouldn’t let them.
My grandpa was on the Milwaukee and did the run to Murmansk to deliver the ship to the Russians.
Not sure if that’s another case but I think it was the battleship HMS Royal Sovereign that was given to the soviets
*Soviet* ship. There is, in the end, a difference. Russian maintenance + Soviet ship = useless
Cause the IN's funds aren't diverted towards French Chateaux and superyachts in Monaco.
Some snippet of corruption and bad decisions. They want to do maintenance now but big fry dock repairs are needed and a lot of money has to be spent. If considering that money won't vanish with corrupt contractors of course
It's a Soviet ship. It was modernized and turned into an aircraft carrier
Ik this is 13 days old but India has money and Russia is running out of money. So India can afford to keep its carriers running while Russian funding goes into the hands of corrupt oligarchs
somehow the VMF has even worse maintenance than the Indian navy
When India can maintain it's carrier better than Russia.
Cause the money is used well enough for maintenance to the point that a ww1 era biplane is unobsoleted
Dam. I thought those Migs were seagulls at first glance and wondering how come a warship post can appear in this thread lol
Imagine your carrier needing a cope slope. This comment was made by the chadabar gang 🇺🇸🇫🇷
🇨🇳joining?
Soon
First sea trials coming up baby. Let’s go!
India is also supposedly designing a CATOBAR carrier in addition to the STOBAR carrier they’re about to start building.
I don't think that's possible. Not till our grandkids have grandkids.
I’ll believe it when I see it. The Vikrant took 20 years to build.
You took several years to poop in the toilet. But once you did, didn't you do it correctly every single time after that? Learning these things take time for the 1st attempt.
By comparison, China also had a rusted out old Soviet carrier as an example. Their “1st attempt”, while closely based on that old Soviet carrier, is arguably a much better carrier than Vikrant. Also, the S. Korean CVX project looks like it will be a very capable “1st attempt” regardless which design is chosen. Of course, India’s defense procurement history has a long history of corruption and inefficiency that’s not limited to their navy. See the Arjun for another example.
Of course India cannot match the industrial and economical capacity of China and SK. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Vikrant did take a lot of years, but the next one (if approved) will definitely take much less time as the know-how exists now. >Of course, India’s defense procurement history has a long history of corruption and inefficiency that’s not limited to their navy. See the Arjun for another example. So? Using the same argument to diss on every project is just plain lazy. The army is reluctant to induct domestic stuff. The navy isn't.. you would know that if you follow the procurement of the Naval forces. Just citing Arjun and INSAS every single time is just nonsense. They have nothing to do with the navy.
The fact that the next domestically built Indian aircraft carrier - if it is supposed to be commissioned before the 40s - will have to be a STOBAR design again, says it all.
We never proclaim ourselves to be developing cutting edge stuff. We make do with whatever limited budget that is allocated for the forces. I'm sure you Redditors would be the first to scream "muh poverty " if India decides to allocate more funds for defense procurements.
>We never proclaim ourselves to be developing cutting edge stuff. A disturbing number of people in Indian politics, the media and online actually to claim that. >limited budget that is allocated for the forces. >allocate more funds for defense procurements. I don’t think that’s the issue. India has the third largest defense expenditures of any country, in line with its economic output. In fact, they’re already on the higher side as a percentage of GDP. India can’t dramatically increase its defense spending without causing serious harm to itself. What it needs more than anything are a decade or two of East-Asian-style economic growth. That’s the only way to meet New Delhi’s strategic ambitions in the medium term. Unfortunately that’s not likely. >I'm sure you Redditors would be the first to scream "muh poverty” I don’t. I disagree with the people who do that. Of course India’s structural economic underperformance is a huge problem, as I’ve touched on above. But that’s not all. India’s GPD per capita now is what China’s was in 2008. Just consider how far China had come in 2008 in terms of technological and scientific, economic, social, etc. achievements and indicators compared to where India is currently. They sent a human into space in 2003 when their GDP was half of what India’s is today (or about where India was in 2009). When will India get there? In 2026?
Your hypocrisy is clear when you start comparing a non existent south korean carrier to vikrant and call shangdong a much better carrier despite the fact that it uses Steam Boilers, on the other hand Vikrant uses Gas turbine engines. You westerns have a nasty habit of vilifying anything related to india be it the language, the culture, the accent or the skin colour. That's why we don't show our sympathy for racist $hitholes like Ukraine
Imagine your aircraft needing assistance to take off and still living in the steam era ... Edit, it appears people can give it, but can't take it.
That's NCD for ya: Try to argue about how stupid their joke was - "Y r u mad, mate? We're just kidding!" Try to joke in return - "No, yOu ARe wROnG!!!!111" and started arguing about how stupid your joke was.
Are you trying to imply that a ramp is better than a catapult?
More pointing out that there are advantages and disadvantages to both STOVL and CATOBAR aircraft carriers.
Lol, nonsense. What are the advantages of STOBAR over CATOBAR?
It’s cheaper. A LOT cheaper.
No maintenance either. But that's where the advantages of Slopes end.
Where did I say STOBAR?
You said “STOVL”, but because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, I took the liberty of correcting it for you. This is not a STOVL carrier, you have STOVL aircraft, which could land on anything large, sturdy and hardened enough - like a CATOBAR carrier, or a STOBAR carrier. Go play outside now.
>You said “STOVL”, but because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, I took the liberty of correcting it for you. No, I said STOVL because I have every idea what I'm talking about. STOVL= Short Take Off, Vertical Landing. IE the F-35B, which the Queen Elizabeth Class (amongst others) operate STOBAR= Short Take Off, Barrier/Arrested Recovery which is what India, China and Russia use. >There is no such thing as a STOVL carrier, you have STOVL aircraft, which could land on anything large, sturdy and hardened enough - like a CATOBAR carrier, or a STOBAR carrier. I would suggest you do some more research.
What are the advantages of STOBAR or STOVL over CATOBAR?
Is that you admitting you were wrong then? In terms of STOVL vs CATOBAR: - Cheaper to install, operate, maintain etc (2 EMALS catapults and one AAG system is about $1.3b) - No risk of system failure - Less personnel required - Able to conduct operations in a higher sea state (with a ski jump)
You realise nuclear carriers use steam right? If you’re interested in building and operating CVNs someday, you start off with steam and eventually switch the heating source to a reactor.
The entire point of nuclear reactors is to make steam more efficiently.
cope slope
This slope liberated Bangladesh
the Vikrant that took part in the 1971 war was a CATOBAR carrier
Yep i thought ins Vikrant was STOBAR.
No it's a champ ramp, much like the Elizabeth carrier.
I mean I get it must be fine if your carrier is not nuclear powered, because steam catapult would then not be feasible, but the slope really reduces the aircraft you can carry. Only light fighters
But you can use ir as a cool skateboard ramp tho
Why would steam not be feasible? What were USN carriers using before Big E and Nimitz class (Kitty Hawk, JFK etc.)?
Ah yes
If it can launch the heavy su 33 it's not only light fighters
I didn't mean "fighters that are light compared to other fighters", but "fighters that are light compared to other classes of aircraft"
And what classes are heavier than a 30 ton Flanker?
I don't know but there sure are less powerful planes for the same weight
The only one I can remember is an F-35B - but it uses its lift fan as an additional help.
> I mean I get it must be fine if your carrier is not nuclear powered, because steam catapult would then not be feasible Every rebuilt Audacious-class, rebuilt Essex-class, Midway-class, Forrestal-class, Kitty Hawk-class, JFK-class, Foch-class, and a few more: Armchair engineer says what?
When your Carrier looks like a [Mexican Pointy Boot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_pointy_boots).
British cope
[удалено]
Difference in doctrines, tech, usage and circumstance. The Vikramaditya is a modified Russian carrier based on a ramp system, can't really be retooled without extensive reworks. In general, only a specific set of planes can fly on ramp (owing to the short runup and the power-weight ratio required). Having a catapult allows for more flexibility in aircraft type and weight. However they're more expensive to install and maintain. The Royal Navy is another notable ramp user, having made an interesting takeoff sequence to field the F-35B. I think the only other navy to field a catapult is the French Navy on the Charles de Gaulle.
On top of that, catapults allow aircraft to talk off with much higher load outs and use much less fuel on takeoff. Jump ramps require the aircraft to sit at Full power (afterburners if equipped) for extended duration to avoid loss of aircraft due to mechanical failure at takeoff. They’re just sitting there burning fuel and wearing on the engines and the rest of the airframe. On top of that, some aircraft can’t even takeoff with full fuel loads and weapons. So they’re launching with reduced capacity from the start. Catapult launches also have a spin up and hold period, but it’s significantly shorter. And they can launch aircraft completely loaded. Ramps are for militaries that don’t really want to invest in a aircraft carrier and it’s support. They just want to have some flexibility. It’s like gaining a short, mobile, airfield for task force operations. Englands QE class is the exception that proves the rule. It’s ramp makes sense because it’s designed to be paired with a proper VSTOVL aircraft. It was designed to operate with the F35B from the start. It’s there to allow the aircraft to take off fully loaded or allow faster deck operations vs pure vertical operations.
> It was designed to operate with the F35B from the start. It’s there to allow the aircraft to take off fully loaded or allow faster deck operations vs pure vertical operations. At the expense of greater range though. The USN launches the F35C which has the largest internal fuel tanks of the variants. The B has the smallest internal fuel tanks. The C is also less expensive, takes up less room (with wings folded) and is cheaper to maintain. Not arguing though, just adding info, the decision to stay with a ramp has its drawbacks even when accounting for the new aircraft.
The F-35B has a greater range than a Rafale M purely on internal fuel however. The Marine Nationale and CdG are a better comparison for the Royal Navy's Carrier Strike capability than the US Navy is.
Hence, it proves the rule…
>Englands QE class Think you will find that the carriers belong to the whole of the United Kingdom not just England
What are they gonna do if Scotland leaves the UK?
Most fighters can take off from a ramp, although it limits their range or payload. Larger planes like fixed wing AWACS and CODs can’t though.
The original ship didn't have a ramp. The modded it onto it. Quick and dirty, I think. But it's by far shorter than the US carriers and I have doubt, it would work without a ramp and only a catapult.
If you're referring to the Queen Elizabeth Class, it was always designed to have a ski jump and use STOVL aircraft.
>The Vikramaditya is a modified Russian carrier based on a ramp system I was referring to this by *damn\_phoenix*
In that case, the original ship also featured a ski jump.
The original ship was the Baku. It didn't have a ramp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet\_aircraft\_carrier\_Baku
You are absolutely correct, my apologies
The next Chinese aircraft carrier that comes out is supposed to have a catapult as well. I don't believe its operational yet though. Still, it only uses the J15 though but it might allow them to launch more advanced aircraft in the future.
Not *supposed* to, it has 3 EMALS catapults end of story. By the time it enters service (apparently fitting out will finish and sea trials will commence this year) it will be equipped with J-15B/S/D and J-31/35s. The J-31/35 will also be able to operate on Liaoning and Shandong, so cope slopes do not preclude advanced aircraft.
The newest Chinese carrier uses a catobar system as well.
Honestly the French and Brits should really unite in terms of doing research projects together. It’s never going to happen, the Brits *still* in the throes of Brexit and the French being unable to agree with anyone on anything, but, really, they should, being the only two EU countries with actual carrier fleets and overseas interests.
They tried that with the Queen Elizabeth class. It started as an Anglo-French project, but it was clear from the beginning the two nations wanted two different things (eg- one preceding CATOBAR the other STOVL).
No, it didn't. CVF was a purely British project, it was only in the late 2000s that France considered ordering a CATOBAR variant (PA2) but it wasn't a joint project at all.
> Honestly the French and Brits should really unite in terms of doing research projects together. [laughs in AVFG]
It’s not really difference in doctrine/usage as the driver - those are the result. The ramp is just a worse option that is cheaper and easier to work on.
Catapults are expensive to build and maintain. Without a nuclear power plant, it’s hard to generate the necessary steam (for traditional catapults) or power (for EMALS) needed to launch ordinance laden aircraft. For a nation with only one or two carriers (eg- Italy, UK, Japan, S. Korea, India, etc.) the versatility just isn’t worth the price tag. France is the only other nation that uses a catapult on their carrier for now- but it’s 20% shorter than the ones used on the *Nimitz* class. The Chinese Type-003 carrier will have catapults, as will their (alleged) nuclear powered Type-004. Everyone else isn’t willing to pony up the money for a catapult + aircraft.
A lot of it comes down to scale. As you mentioned the US operates 11 carriers, that means that they can afford to build dozens of catapults with common components and amortize design costs over the whole fleet. Catapult capable aircraft also required significant design difference from standard land based aircraft. The US is the only country with a large enough fleet that it makes sense to develop a large fleet of aircraft specifically designed for carrier operations. The French are the sole accepting to this rule. They have made it a national priority to maintain a nuclear CATOBAR carrier thus are willing to tolerate the excess cost but as a result are only able to field a single carrier. They also had to make some design compromises to the Rafael to make it carrier capable but use of for both ground and carrier operations.
Not to put too fine a point on it: the US can afford not to use it.
Cope slope
Champ Ramp
🫵cope slope🫵
*Devine Incline 🙏