Russia developing new aircraft carrier

Interfax ^ | 05/15/05

[Centurion2000]

I believe we are scaling the total procurement of DDX back to twelve anyway.

Twelve pocket battleships is plenty if they are mounting the new railgun

EM gun on the brink of fruition for land and sea applications(range:500km)

Some very interesting commentary about the firepower of a DDX with railguns is more than an Iowa class BB. One of these with each carrier group (12) would allow naval gunfire support up to 500km range.

[ProudVet77]

If the rail gun does finally appear I agree with you. But I don't want to see a DD(X) built till we have the rail gun ready to deploy. The AGS ($15K/round) is a waste of money, and to build a 2 billion dollar DD(X) around it is a waste.
That is why the DD(X) keeps getting put off. Rummy has taken the money for the DD(X) and put it into the LCS and other valid systems like UAVs. The DD(X) is just not ready for prime time. We have much greater needs right now. The only, repeat ONLY thing the DD(X) has is a big gun system which we have not had in many years, and still won wars.
According to the last budget I saw, the USN has money for 1 DD(X), scheduled for 2011 delivery. By then we will have built 12 LCS vessels at about the same cost.
Tactically they do not belong with a CBG, they belong with an Amphib Group, and in fact, IMHO, they should be mounted on the newest Amphib ships the LHA(R), since they go where the Marines go. If we took that approach the DD(X) would be unnecessary.

[Centurion2000]

Tactically they do not belong with a CBG, they belong with an Amphib Group, and in fact, IMHO, they should be mounted on the newest Amphib ships the LHA(R), since they go where the Marines go.

Does the LHA generate enough power for one ? It's a good idea but I think about the power question.

Hmm ... the LHA could also use ice filled copper jacketed railgun rounds for close defense and short direct fire offense.

[ProudVet77]

To be blunt, no. (but the DD(X) power system is very non-specific, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/dd-x-specs.htm) But if it was a requirement, it could be done. It's big enough, with a flightdeck of 910 feet. A small reactor of the type used on LA class subs could supply power to at least 2 railguns at 12 rounds/minute, and supply power to catapults for the jets, as well as the rest of the ship. Sort of a twist, nuclear power for everything but the propulsion. ;)
The LHA sticks around in the area anyway as it has a hospital for the Marines, as well as helicopters for their movement when needed.
Sadly I think the USN brass is hung up on a super destroyer.

[Tommyjo]

The E-3s sold to France and UK are not downgraded variants. These are full all singing and dancing variants with no restrictions. Why do you think that they are restricted in any way? Why do you also believe that France will not be getting any upgrades? You are aware that E-3F have already undergone upgrade by Boeing and that the fleet will be completely upgraded by 2006.

[Law is not justice but process]

Knowing the state of the Russian economy, even with the recent influx of oil cash, I would be surprised if the Russian Navy built any aircraft carriers that did not come in a box with "Revell" written in the upper right hand corner. Someone call Testers and see if there has been an order of several million little tiny bottles of gray paint and a tanker truck of plastic cement.