| Submit your comments on this article |
| Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia |
| A Thales built aircraft carrier for Russia? |
| 2008-11-11 |
This story did not run in English, but did run in French, and in light of the submarine accident is one worth thinking about. Ilya Kramnik has long been in touch with the state of Russian shipbuilding, so he does know enough to know whether this is necessary or not. The headline: Ð ÑÑÑкОй авОаМПÑÐµÑ Ñ ÑÑаМÑÑзÑкОЌ акÑеМÑПЌ or Un porte-avions russe à l'accent français, translated as A Russian Aircraft Carrier with a French Accent. The international exhibition of naval defense and maritime safety EURONAVAL 2008, which was not initially expected to result in much news, has a chance to make history. The commander of the Russian navy, Admiral Vladimir Vyssotski, who is visiting the exhibition, has shown a keen interest in the potential of the French group Thales in the construction of aircraft carriers. The article goes on to note that the Russian Navy has a history of buying ships built by foreign countries, and that the current state of Russian shipbuilding is at a point where this makes sense. The article notes that disruption and delays for several ships under construction highlight the real difficulty Russia faces building ships today, and that working with Thales offers promise. The idea being floated is that all indications are Russia would like to build 6 aircraft carriers similar to the 60-70 thousand ton CVF design being developed for the British and French Navies. Ilya Kramnik's idea is to build the lead ship in France with foreign assistance, including some experience for Russian shipbuilders, then do follow on serial construction of the rest of the class in Russia. It is impossible to believe this would ever happen, mostly because of the technology transfer issues. Thales is building the CVF with the assistance of the United States, and it is hard to believe the US would allow Thales to help the Russians build aircraft carriers without violating some sort of export agreement that protects shared technologies. Much more at link including poaching missing pieces of carrier design |
| Posted by:3dc |
| #14 ION RUSSIAN NAVY > WORLD MIL FORUM = OVERCREWING, LARGE NUMBER OF UNTRAINED NAVAL PERSONNEL, AND POOR SHIPBOARD SMOKING DISCIPLINE MAY HAD CONTRIBUTED TO RUSSIAN "NERPA" DEATHS. SONg - Truly BLINDED [themselves] WID [Naval] SCIENCE!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-11-11 22:16 |
| #13 Didn't _we_ do all the carrier qualifications for the Rafale and its pilots in New Jersey? |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2008-11-11 18:59 |
| #12 Besides #9 + #10,+ wid the USN becom more focused on dev the OWG-NWO "1000-Flags/Nations" GLOBAL TASK FORCE for international humanitarian, peacekeeping, rapid reax, + police actions; + 3-4D BATTLESPACE MANAGEMENT = VIRUAL REALITY already becom steadily archaic, THE RUSSIAN, etc CARRIER [read, CHINA PLAN] COULD BE OBSOLETE BEFORE ITS EVEN DEPLOYED. ALL USN WARSHIPS, as for the other US Services, ARE OSTENSIBLY OCEAN-BASED, PROTO-"MOTHER SHIPS" TO UVS,GMD-TMD + SPAWAR TECHS. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-11-11 18:53 |
| #11 If it is not better than the Charles de Gaulle then no need to worry. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-11-11 16:43 |
| #10 If Russia is busy selling its existing carriers, why would it buy carriers from a foreigner? Wouldn't it be easier to modernize one of its unused carriers? First of all, you have to have a ship worth modernizing. The Russian aircraft carriers are more than 2/3 cruisers, with huge stockpiles of offensive and defensive missiles and launchers. The electronics are mid-70's to early 80's technology - huge, bulky, and cumbersome to upgrade. They don't have a tradition of carrier-launched aircraft, and have to start from scratch building one. The primary Russian shipyard for building aircraft carriers, in Sevastopol, is now nominally on Ukranian territory. The Russians have a major problem, and getting the French to help them out would be a Godsend for them. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-11-11 15:43 |
| #9 Wouldn't it be easier to modernize one of its unused carriers? 1. The institutional shipbuilding knowledge is gone. 2. Unlike US moth-balled vessels, 'unused' here means tied up at a dock or anchored and left there. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-11-11 15:20 |
| #8 Let 'em buy from the French; they'll spend a fortune on replacement propellors.... |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-11-11 15:18 |
| #7 A very basic question: If Russia is busy selling its existing carriers, why would it buy carriers from a foreigner? Wouldn't it be easier to modernize one of its unused carriers? Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-11-11 14:00 |
| #6 Bigjim: France did supply Iraq with nuclear technology way back in the 80's. Chirac helped build the reactor the Israelis took out. And wasn't it French and German intelligence that helped supply the diagrams for Powell's presentation to the UN? You know, those reinforced underground enclaves, mobile WMD factories, and even Saddam's submarine.Thales was involved in the Oil-for-Food scandal, willing to supply anything to the highest bidder. No wonder Europe is celebrating an Obama victory--Bush rained on their party. |
| Posted by: Thealing Borgia 122 2008-11-11 11:40 |
| #5 #3: Isn't going to much of a carrier w/o catapults and arresting gear. Helicopters need neither. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2008-11-11 11:25 |
| #4 The U.S. should encourage this. Russia can ill afford the cost of buying and maintaining an aircraft carrier fleet and the battle groups required to make them effective. Let Putin's ambitions bleed his country. And they make such beautiful targets. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2008-11-11 11:12 |
| #3 Isn't going to much of a carrier w/o catapults and arresting gear. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-11-11 10:09 |
| #2 They will do almost anything and as secretly as they can so long as they make a profit |
| Posted by: blackbeard 2008-11-11 10:07 |
| #1 France has always had a penchant for dealing with nefarious characters. And even though it was for Israel, they are a nuclear proliferator. They were also squalling pretty loud when we invaded Iraq, I wouldn't doubt that they had a hand in helping Hussein (Iraq's, not ours) with his arsenals. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2008-11-11 06:37 |