Russian Aircraft Carriers vs. US Aircraft Carriers.
*1st Post in This Section*
American ones are my guess, 1 there are definetly more of them. Also if I am correct The American Nimitz class carriers are the largest carriers sailing the seas right now. They are also Nucleard Power.
It is also said that the Next American Carrier is going to be even better than the Nimitz class. While Russia on the other hand has only like 3(?) Carriers.
America on the other hand has like8 Nimitz with like 2 more on the way, 2 Kitty Hawks (JFK), one mothballed. and like a couple of Enterprises left think like 4.
Russian carriers are for the most part sold or in dock for repairs that will take a while.
American ones are my guess, 1 there are definetly more of them. Also if I am correct The American Nimitz class carriers are the largest carriers sailing the seas right now. They are also Nucleard Power.
It is also said that the Next American Carrier is going to be even better than the Nimitz class. While Russia on the other hand has only like 3(?) Carriers.
America on the other hand has like8 Nimitz with like 2 more on the way, 2 Kitty Hawks (JFK), one mothballed. and like a couple of Enterprises left think like 4.
Russian carriers are for the most part sold or in dock for repairs that will take a while.
The replacement for the CVN class US Carriers are the CVX class which is supposed to be stealth. They have a lower profile in the water and use magnetic catapults instead of steam. The CVX class is supposed to be smaller, more manueverable, cheaper, and operate better in shallow waters. The last two carriers of the Nimitz Class, the CVN-76 (Reagan) and CVN-77 will be transitional ships for the CVX Carriers. They'll incorporate technologies of the new carriers but use the hull and basic design of the old carriers.
Comparably I believe the Nimitz Class carriers can launch more aircraft and quicker than then newest operational class of carriers in the Russian Navy. Most of that is due to their use of four steam catapults vs an angled flight deck on the Russian carriers. The Nimitz can launch two aircraft and land one every 37 seconds. Or it can launch aircraft every 20 seconds if recovery wasn't neccessary.
The Russian carriers also used regular gas propulsion vs the nuclear propulsion of the Nimitz Class. So range was their weekness. The newest class of Russian carrier had nuclear propulsion but those were canceled back in the early 90s.
Comparably I believe the Nimitz Class carriers can launch more aircraft and quicker than then newest operational class of carriers in the Russian Navy. Most of that is due to their use of four steam catapults vs an angled flight deck on the Russian carriers. The Nimitz can launch two aircraft and land one every 37 seconds. Or it can launch aircraft every 20 seconds if recovery wasn't neccessary.
The Russian carriers also used regular gas propulsion vs the nuclear propulsion of the Nimitz Class. So range was their weekness. The newest class of Russian carrier had nuclear propulsion but those were canceled back in the early 90s.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
The American one kicks the Russian one easy.
It's pretty fast, I think it can go just under 30 knots, the biggest ones even. And they can carry up to or close to 100 aircraft. With 4 catapults, it can launch aircraft with a heavier payload in quicker succession than the Russian counterpart which boasts no catapult, but a ski jump. This limits the payload the aircraft can carry quite drastically.
Guys don't be surprised. The Yanks usually have the best weapons in all areas at this stage. Russia's playing a desperate game of catch up and it's unlikely it will for a long time.
The UK is planning to have aircraft carriers comparable or on par with the American aircraft carriers since currently, the aircraft carriers it boasts are pretty much amphibious assault ships to American standards.
It's pretty fast, I think it can go just under 30 knots, the biggest ones even. And they can carry up to or close to 100 aircraft. With 4 catapults, it can launch aircraft with a heavier payload in quicker succession than the Russian counterpart which boasts no catapult, but a ski jump. This limits the payload the aircraft can carry quite drastically.
Guys don't be surprised. The Yanks usually have the best weapons in all areas at this stage. Russia's playing a desperate game of catch up and it's unlikely it will for a long time.
The UK is planning to have aircraft carriers comparable or on par with the American aircraft carriers since currently, the aircraft carriers it boasts are pretty much amphibious assault ships to American standards.
godofthunder9010
Active member
Keeping up in Tanks and Fighters is one thing. In those areas, they at least have designs available that could probably come close to matching the USA. Aircraft Carriers is a whole different ballgame. One carrier is very very expensive to make, and very very expensive to maintain. Russia currently lacks the resources to have an equivalent carrier fleet to the USA.
Russia's one main carrier is currently in for repairs...no word if the repairs will come. in general America has the best Navy, Russia has death ships now due to lack of fudning.
However The USA has a great advantage on Russia, Russia is about 2 deign types behind America now and that will cost alot of money to catch up on.
However The USA has a great advantage on Russia, Russia is about 2 deign types behind America now and that will cost alot of money to catch up on.
c/Commander
Active member
Our carriers will definitely hit 30 knots, up to 40 I think depending on sea conditions and aircraft complement.
The CVN-76 and 77 are actually just a bit over $4 bil a piece to produce, so the cost has been getting cheaper. The yearly operating costs of a carrier can be like $150 mil a year. But each carrier has a carrier group, which comes out to about $1.5 bil a year to maintain. So the cost for one of these ships to stay afloat is pretty high. Especially since they have a service life of 50 years. Most of it is being attributed to the costs of maintaining the crew (somewhere between 5500-6000 crew members). Which is why the newer carrier are going to have reduced crew numbers and will be of a smaller displacement than the Nimitz.Dameon said:
During the Cold War, if I remember correctly, the Nimitz carriers all had a compliment of nearly 100 aircraft onboard. They've reduced the number recently to keep the costs down. But that's still stronger than most of the worlds air forces.
Kozzy Mozzy
Active member
Russia was never able to develop a surface fleet to match the US's. This includes destroyers, cruisers, frigates, and carriers. They just aren't as good as USN ships.
The sub fleet is a different matter.
The sub fleet is a different matter.
i don't think VTOL aircraft will ever be a primary aircraft for the navy. it's a nice option to have, but even now most AV-8s aren't using VTOL to leave the deck, it's normally STOL. but a smaller carrier with a more efficient arresting and catapult system would make the deck area smaller. i think the only limitation is the pilot's ability to handle G forces during TO or Landing.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yup. VSTOL aircraft always have to sacrifice something to get to where it is. Now the place where this changes is probably with the arrival of the JSF. That, the VSTOL version and the fixed wing version seem more or less on par in capabilities.
However, the JSF then again lags behind the F-22.
The Russians don't have any VSTOL aircraft that's realistically going to hit the assembly lines that can get anywhere close to the performance of any half decent fixed wing jet.
The AV-8 Harriers lag behind standard combat jet aircraft and the Forger made by Yakolev is pure shite.
And again, a plane can carry more when it's taking off the standard way than vertically.
Believe me, when the Navy's JSF takes off through the catapult, it's maximum payload will be much higher than when the Marine Corps JSF will take off vertically off the USS Tarawa (etc.).
So in other words, the US's large aircraft carriers still own it. Russia's aircraft carrier doesn't even come close I'm afraid. Now if it managed to put some catapults on it....
However, the JSF then again lags behind the F-22.
The Russians don't have any VSTOL aircraft that's realistically going to hit the assembly lines that can get anywhere close to the performance of any half decent fixed wing jet.
The AV-8 Harriers lag behind standard combat jet aircraft and the Forger made by Yakolev is pure shite.
And again, a plane can carry more when it's taking off the standard way than vertically.
Believe me, when the Navy's JSF takes off through the catapult, it's maximum payload will be much higher than when the Marine Corps JSF will take off vertically off the USS Tarawa (etc.).
So in other words, the US's large aircraft carriers still own it. Russia's aircraft carrier doesn't even come close I'm afraid. Now if it managed to put some catapults on it....
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Anti-American bias probably.
I just don't see how the Kusnetsov class carriers (Russia's finest) could compete with the Nimitz class.
I just don't see how the Kusnetsov class carriers (Russia's finest) could compete with the Nimitz class.
egoz said:
egoz said:
To the best of my knowledge their strategy was to choke US carrier air/ship defense with a combined strike from the Su's carrying Moskit missiles and carrier/ship launched missiles which would be the Sunburns if I remember correctly.
They sort of calculated that from around 40-60 missiles fired enough would penetrate the defenses, hit the carrier and sink it.