U.S. Commissioning New Class of Supercarrier, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) Tomorrow

Jul 21 2017 - 57 Comments
By Tom Demerly

UK, China and U.S. Launch New Carrier Classes in 2017, Russia Lags Behind.

The U.S Navy and Newport News Ship Building Company officially commissioned a new class of “supercarrier” advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier tomorrow at the Norfolk Naval Station in Norfolk, Virginia.

The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is the first ship in this new class of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers for the U.S. Navy. It is the first major redesign of U.S. aircraft carriers in 42 years.

Among a long list of new engineering features on board USS Gerald R. Ford are the controversial electromagnetic catapults and arresting gear, a new, smaller, lower radar cross section island structure, larger and more efficient flight deck facilitating faster aircraft launching, more than twice the electrical power of previous carrier classes and a more efficient crew compliment with 500 fewer personnel on board. The massive 1,106-foot-long carrier displaces a staggering 100,000 tons fully loaded and is powered by two new generation nuclear reactors.

U.S. President Donald Trump has been critical of the costs of the program, especially the new electro-magnetic catapult and arrestor take-off and landing systems. The benefits of the new systems are claimed to be less buffeting of aircraft upon launch resulting in better control and less airframe fatigue per launch and recovery. The electromagnetic catapults are also lighter in weight than steam catapults in use on current U.S. carriers and are claimed to require less maintenance than steam-powered launch and recovery systems.

It’s worth noting that some problems have already occurred in launch testing on other carriers with the U.S. Navy’s version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the larger wingspan, folding wing F-35C. The problems may have been limited to test launches with no weapons loads and required modifications to F-35C landing gear. Depending on the status of these issues the Navy’s F-35C may benefit in particular from electromagnetic catapults.

CF-03 FLT 182/CF-05 FLT 91 First Arrestment aboard USS Nimitz on 03 November 2014. CDR Tony Wilson was flying CF-03 and LCDR Ted Dyckman was flying CF-05.

This year has been noteworthy for new international aircraft carrier operations.

On Jul. 17, 2017, the Royal Navy launched the first of its new Queen Elizabeth Class of aircraft carrier. The HMS Queen Elizabeth (RO8) is the first of two carriers in this new class that will include the second vessel, the HMS Prince of Wales (RO9) when it is launched in 2020.

HMS Queen Elizabeth uses non-nuclear electric propulsion that burns primarily diesel fuel. This is a lower cost alternative to the U.S. nuclear powered carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth is a smaller carrier than its new U.S. counterpart, and intended to operate with a compliment of thirty-six F-35B V/STOL aircraft and four helicopters. The vessel is currently configured without launch catapults, but is engineered to be “backwards and forwards compatible” for retrofitting of a catapult launch system. The vessel is also smaller than its U.S. counterpart, the new USS Gerald R. Ford. The HMS Queen Elizabeth is 920 feet long compared to the USS Gerald R. Ford’s 1,106 foot length. It also displaces “only” 70,600 tons compared to the Ford’s 100,000+ tons of displacement.

A Royal Navy Merlin helicopter was the first aircraft to fly from the deck of the England’s new HMS Queen Elizabeth. (Photo: Daily Telegraph)

The Chinese have also been vigorous in their carrier development program with the recent launch of the impressive Type 001A, their first indigenous construction carrier. Previous Chinese aircraft carriers were purchased second-hand, mostly from Russia, and served primarily as development testbeds for aircraft, crews and likely doctrine.

This first domestically built Chinese carrier, likely to be named “Shandong”, was officially launched in Dalian, Liaoning province, on Apr. 26, 2017. The Type 001A “Shandong” uses a ski-jump style launch system and an arrestor cable recovery.

A Chinese J-15 makes an arrested landing on the carrier Liaoning. (Photo:USNI)

There have been recent photos of Chinese J-15 aircraft with updated landing gear that is both reinforced for carrier landings and, most interestingly, a catapult bar on the nose wheel. The new version of the J-15, referred to frequently as the “J-15A”, is considerably reworked to include not only the landing gear modifications but new engines and avionics.

A new version Chinese J-15A appeared with catapult launch capable landing gear. (Photo: Chinese Media)

A Jul. 6, 2017 report filed on Chinese media reported that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, or “PLAN”, is conducting land-based testing on a new electromagnetic catapult similar to the one already installed on the new U.S carrier Gerald R. Ford.

Satellite images showing a land-based catapult launch test facility at Huangdicun Airbase in Liaoning Province, China. The U.S. Naval Institute, an intelligence publications resource, reported that satellite imagery showed two types of catapults located at the Huangdicun facility beginning in late 2014, one steam and one electromagnetic. This base also houses China’s J-15 aircraft on land.

Finally, with news of new aircraft carriers from the United States, China and England an assessment of Russia’s current aircraft carrier capabilities suggests they are lagging behind.

Russia deployed its only carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, to the eastern Mediterranean in fall of 2016 in support of operations in Syria. The results could accurately be described as “mixed”.

Kuznetsov, an old ship originally launched in 1985, lost two if its only fifteen aircraft to accidents including an embarrassing one when one of Russia’s most experienced pilots was forced to ditch his aircraft next to the carrier due to problems onboard that prevented him from landing. He was ordered to hold in the landing pattern so long while addressing the onboard recovery problem that his aircraft eventually ran out of fuel. The pilot ejected next to the carrier and was recovered. The aircraft was one of two lost on the Russian adventure to the Mediterranean in support of the President Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria.

The Admiral Kuznetsov has had previous problems on its only seven deployments since 1990.

In 1996, the ship’s potable water distillation system failed and, embarrassingly for the Russians, the U.S. Navy came to the aid of the vessel, supplying fresh drinking water to the crew.

Back in 2015 Russia announced insights into a proposed new, very large aircraft carrier class in the 100,000 ton “supercarrier” range. Russian Deputy-Director of the Krylov State Research Center told IHS Jane’s that the project was being called “Project 23000E” or “Storm”. Budget constraints, Russia’s support of the war in Syria and economic concerns have all but cancelled progress on the project. The most recent intelligence suggests Russia was attempting to partner with India to share development costs in the hopes of India eventually acquiring one of the new class of proposed Russian supercarriers for its own navy.

Russia’s carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is beginning to show its age. (Photo: RT)




  • Have they solved the problems with the EMALS and the AAG yet? Seems to me that from the articles I’ve been reading as of late, this warship isn’t really fit for operational service yet and is a bit of a ways away from it.

    • FelixA9

      Read articles written by people who know what they’re talking about (i.e., not the MSM).

      • The MSM is too busy getting the basic specifications on the ship wrong to go into depth on its inner workings. I am talking articles (not even blogs) written from the sector.

  • leroy

    The Kuznetsov never leaves port without a tug as part of its battlegroup. I can think of nothing more embarrassing, and imagine that the Russian Navy has no pride or self-respect even putting to sea under those pitiful conditions. A tug!

    Face it – Russia is not nor will they ever be a true naval power. China on the other hand is making great strides, but they are a long way off before they will be able to sail a ship as complex as the Ford. Regardless, the U.S. Navy will control the world’s oceans for at least the next 100 years.

    Ford-class CVN, America-class LHA, F-35B/C stealth, MQ-25A unmanned air, E-2D, P-8A, MV-22. U.S. Naval and Marine Corps Air reigns supreme. Who dares to deny this? Only an absolute fool would!

    • Black Eagle

      $4 billion ultra modern stealthy Zumwalt-class destroyer also needed a tug boat when lost its propulsion and hit a wall in the Panama Canal. This was even more embarrassing. I never saw any modern Russian ship that would broke somewhere and would need a tug to be towed to the port!

      Aircraft carriers aren’t a threat for major powers like Russia since 60’s when first supersonic anti-ship missiles came into serial production (Kh-22), soon be ready to face hypersonic anti-ship missiles such as Zircon, which will be ready to make floating graveyards of every ships that would try to mess with Russia. Not to mention Russia is going to be very first country that will have such lethal and fast missile in service.

      • Not that I want to defend leroy’s post but the Kuznetsov often sails with a tugboat because it’s in such poor shape. It has been towed home a few times and it tends to get denied entry into ports because it’s so dilapidated.

        • Black Eagle

          No wonder when the last serious overhaul of the Kuznetsov was done 20 years ago, moreover the ship has 32 years and doesn’t have nuclear propulsion, unlike the brand new Zumwalt.

          • More excuses, the Zumwalt is a new ship, new technology and has teething problems. Kuznetsov is way out of the teething issues, and now more into bad maintenance and being badlybuilt.

            It is a joke.

            • Uniform223

              The limiting to only 3 Zumwalt DDGs is a shame. The USN is pushing for advanced capabilities like energy based defensive systems…


              and rails guns…



              unfortunately the only ship (currently) designed to really take advantage of these developing systems.

            • Black Eagle

              Even when it is a new ship, it shouldn’t be broken so often. Russian new warships don’t have such serious problems not even during sea trials.
              Kuznetsov is over 3 decades old and last time deeply overhauled sometimes in 1996-1998, so it has more right to be broken than any other new warship.

              • Yet, somehow, they break over and over.
                Lets look at the Armata breaking down at a parade then. I was willing to let that one slide, but you keep bringing the Zumwalt teething issues.

                • Black Eagle

                  That wasn’t good argument at all because the Armata didn’t break down, it was just a lie most of Western media started spreading with speed of light and it looks that after 2 years some people still believe it.
                  They totally ignored the fact that whole incident looked more like someone just activated an emergency brake because when they later tried to tow the Armata out of the Red Square, they simply couldn’t move with it and few minutes later the Armata left the Red Square on its own.

              • El Kabong

                “Russian new warships don’t have such serious problems not even during sea trials.”?

                Prove it.

                Let’s see those “cutting edge” NEW Russian ships with modern stealth and electronics…

                • Black Eagle

                  Did you see any article about that some modern Russian warship crashed somewhere or collided with another ship in the recent past? Of course you didn’t because there was no such an incident.

                  If something like what happened to the USS Zumwalt in the Panama Canal or to the USS FItzgerald near Japan coasts would happen to any Russian warship, you can be sure Western websites would spreading bs about it at least for 1 month.

                  • El Kabong

                    How many Russian carrier fighters crashed on one cruise?

                    How many Russian submarines have sunk?

                    How many Russian ships need rescue tugs to escort them?

                    How small is the Russian fleet?

                    • Black Eagle

                      And what has this in common with modern but still failing Zumwalt-class?
                      However, the answer on your questions is simple, no more than American ones.

          • The Zumwalt is not nuclear powered and in addition it’s already had to be towed back to port at least once. The tumblehome design of the Zumwalt is terrible for stability and the ship will be a rough ride in rough seas, such as what the North Pacific experiences regularly. The Zumwalt, only procured in a handful of ships, is not an effective platform for the future because there are too few of them, too many compromises have been made, and they are too expensive. We could have built better, more stable, more worthwhile ships and more of them for what we’ve spent on the Zumwalt program so far. It’s a flop of a program.

          • El Kabong

            Where, oh where is a NEW Russian carrier?

            • Black Eagle

              Do they necessarily need a new aircraft carrier?

              • El Kabong

                Are they using the one they have?

                • Black Eagle

                  Not as often as U.S. uses its aircraft carriers. Russia doesn’t depend on aircraft carriers. If something will break up, for example in the Middle East, Russian aircraft can be there within hours, while U.S. will have to wait days until the CVNs will arrive.

      • Ahh pro-Russian bravado on unproven wonder wweapons that can barely do 1/3 of what the Russians say.

        The PakFa is falling apart, that carrier can’t even sail a normal distance without needing to refuel. The SU-34’s always crashing, or having problems.

        • Black Eagle

          Don’t be funny. Russian missiles are one of the best, especially when it comes to the rocket engines, if you don’t believe go ask U.S. government why they are still buying Russian made RD-180 and RD-181 rocket engines.

          PAK FA is fine, Kuznetsov is going to be dry docked soon and deeply modernized and Su-34s are almost 2 years beating the hell out of the ISIS in Syria. Not even one Su-34 was lost.

          • Sure, after Russia went Capitalist, and now they stopped producing it. Which, interestingly, the US wants to build it in the US.

            But, here’s the curious thing, you can count, perhaps in one hand, the stuff America buys from Russia.

            Yet, Russia keep buying things from the west, from plane computers and electronics, to planes itself.
            Oh, this is even more interesting, they keep using land bases to launch attacks. Sure, it is a nice idea, but so far, it seems very few missions were ever done from the Kuznetzov itself.

            Oh,look at his…

            • Black Eagle

              I know there are not many things in which U.S. depends on Russia, but still their dependence on Russia is quite shocking.
              And rocket engines are not the only Russian technology U.S. or NATO depend on.
              For example, the dependence on Russia’s fleet of An-124s is also quite obvious, C-5s probably can’t deal with most of the cargo what can be just a huge disadvantage during in a war time. That’s something what you would just hardly expect of a country with $600 billion military budget, but it’s really happening.

              As for the Russian dependence on West, Russia doesn’t import anything regarding to military technologies for their weapon systems, at least not such serious things such as engines, radars, etc. Sure they were importing some military stuffs in the past, for example UAVs from Isreal, but that already ended, Russia is pretty self-sufficient in this field now.
              Today Russia’s cooperations with Western companies are mostly just in areas oriented on civil sector, for example in development of commercial airliners, but that’s something what U.S. do as well.

              At the end, here is also something interesting for you.

              https://theaviationist.com/2016/12/07/yet-another-u-s-fa-18-has-just-crashed-in-japan-its-the-9th-legacy-hornet-lost-in-6-months-and-the-crash-rate-is-alarming/ This happened just 2 days after the Su-33 incident.

              http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/21/us-fighter-pilot-approaching-uss-carl-vinson-ejects.html And another one.

              Not to mention those F-16s, C-130 and RQ-4 that U.S. lost during last 2 months, and without combat deployment.

      • El Kabong

        How many subs has Russia lost?

  • leroy

    What a sight it will be when the HMS Queen Elizabeth sails side-by-side with the USS Ford!

    Recently the UK Defense Minister Sir Michael Fallon contrasted the Royal Navy’s new 65,000-ton carrier with the Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, which sailed through the Channel late last year; “When you saw that old, dilapidated Kuznetsov sailing through the Channel, a few months ago, I think the Russians will look at this ship with a little bit of envy.”

    I agree Sir Michael. I totally 100% agree! : )

  • Craig King


    Britain, Russia and China have one each. America has ten going to twelve. Remind me again which is the superpower.

    • Simon Ng

      How much did the Americans spend remind me again?
      12 American carriers to do exactly what?
      We are not in 1944 when the Japanese Navy was taking on the Americans.

    • Black Eagle

      It doesn’t really matter when you realize there’s no chance how U.S. aircraft carriers could sneak close enough to Russia’s or China’s shores.

      • FelixA9
        • Black Eagle

          Don’t make me laugh, 35 years old naval tactics that has no use in nowadays. Even in that time, they were pretty limited to do something at such distances out of Soviet territory.
          Nowadays, over-the-horizon radars are fully operational in Russia, for example the Podsolnukh-E capable to detect sea surface and air targets at hundreds kilometers away and don’t forget coastal defence systems such as Bastion-P and Bal which are protecting Russia’s shores day by night and are ready to precisely struck everything within their range with swarms of anti-ship missiles.
          As I said, there’s no chance how the CVNs could seriously endanger Russia.


          • It is not a question of sneaking anymore. It is a question of providing a platform for the planes to bomb the place.

            And you think the US doesn’t have defenses against those wonder weapons that are touted in the Russian websites that no one seems capable to prove if it even works? You will be so very wrong.

            • Black Eagle

              And you think those aircraft for which CVNs would providing platform, could so easily penetrate through Russian air space and trigger airstrikes?
              They would be likely splashed out of the sky by long or medium-range air defense system before they would even have some chance to reach Russian shores. The CVNs would have to be docked at least 400 km out of the shores to not be in range of coastal defense systems what would make the airstrikes pretty ineffective. And also don’t forget that attack submarines and strategic bombers armed with long-range anti-ship missiles would mostly patrolling in the water/sky.

              No one seems capable to prove if it even works? I don’t think so.

              • 1. Russian wonder weapons that no one has any evidence of ever working or even reaching 1/3 of its technical specifications.

                2. Gatling guns, and Air defense systems, don’t forget, destroyers, cruisers, submarines. This is why American carriers never go to a mission alone.

                3. Don’t forget Stealth aircraft, and no, Russia doesn’t have even a radar to catch them. Not even a single drop of evidence that it can do it.

                4. If you are going to quote the F-117 I’ll have to laugh, and hard.

                5. Don’t forget as well, that America’s military is updated, and often times 2 to 3 decades ahead of Russia. Russia itself even tested American weapons and planes, and they found out how inferior their own weapons, the Russians, were. Why do you think the Russians got missiles? Reverse engineering from American missiles!

                • Black Eagle

                  1. There are plenty of evidences about how advanced Russian missiles are, and ingnoring them won’t help you change anything on it.

                  2. Gatling guns? Nice try. Gatling guns are the very last layer of CVNs air defense and if the short or long-range missiles will fail with intereception of all incoming anti-ship missiles then gatling guns won’t stop them as well. Do you remember the USS Stark incident? Of course you don’t. Better go read something about it.

                  3. First of all, stealth doesn’t mean invisibility, just low radar observability. None aircraft is truly invisible on radars. Also there are no evidences that stealth really works agaist modern air defense system of 21st century, stealth was tested only against obsolete air defense systems of some poor countries in Middle East.
                  And secondly, Russia has plenty of early-warning and over-the-horrizon radar stations that are capable to detect VLO aircrafts, for example the Voronezh, its detection range is up to 10,000km and it can tracking 500 targets simultaneously, dont’t even try to think about that some flying object can hide before this.

                  4. I don’t core, your posts are jokes themselves.

                  5. Yes, U.S. is the only country that modernizes its Army. You must be genius!
                  How Russia could reverse engineered American missiles, especially anti-ship missiles, when U.S. didn’t have and also doesn’t have so many kinds of such missiles in service? Can you even thinking? Try to find something about missiles such as Kh-22, P-120 Malakhit, P-270 Moskit, P-500 Bazalt, P-700 Granit or P-800 Oniks, especially when they entered in service, and then you will maybe realize how hard you failed with your post.

              • El Kabong


                These Russian missiles?


                • Black Eagle

                  Who said missiles can’t fail sometimes? Patriot air defense system was failing on daily basis with intercepting of Scud missiles during Gulf War, that’s why U.S. later decided to buy a battery of S-300V for Israelis.

          • El Kabong

            Care to chat about those Russian AShM’s the USN bought as TARGET DRONES?

  • Paul Rain

    > The problems may have been limited to test launches with no weapons loads and required modifications to F-35C landing gear. Depending on the status of these issues the Navy’s F-35C may benefit in particular from electromagnetic catapults.

    Oh well, that’s OK then. The F-35 is so powerful it will never need to use its weapons, and as long as another of these, it will be able to fly from a full two aircraft carriers.

  • Quattro Bajeena

    I wouldn’t say the Chinese got carriers from Russia and copied Russian carrier doctrine. Although they did get the Minsk from Russia (turned into a theme park), as well as the Melbourne from Australia (scrapped), their biggest carrier purchase, the Varyag, was purchased in half-built state from Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union and refurbished into the Liaoning (Type 001). Then it was reverse engineered and the Chinese built the Type 001A on their own. Chinese carrier operations have been modeled on US carrier operations as can be seen by the deck crew.
    Also although the QE and its sister ship could be refurbished to install catapults (originally it was planned to be a joint UK/French design and the French insisted they wanted catapults), the expense involved in doing so, plus the severe budget cuts the UK has been doing to defense, mean both will stay in this configuration. The French were supposed to build a new nuclear powered aircraft carrier but after this French president was elected, considering the budget cuts he’s doing, the chance of that happening in the nearby future are quite slim.

    The Chinese EMALS developer claims their system could be used in the next carrier series the Chinese will build. Supposedly they stopped the construction process, with some modules having been manufactured already, to possibly retrofit EMALS into the design. Still some claim their next conventional carrier series (Type 002) will have steam catapults and only the series after that (Type 003) would have both EMALS and nuclear propulsion.

    • Rudeboy

      The QE class was never planned to be a joint design with France and never was. It was a purely British affair. All of the design work for Thales was carried out in Bristol by BMT. The only French involvement was when they desired to build a second carrier, the PA.2 programme, they asked the British for access to the design in order to design PA.2. They were charged £100m for this, but later withdrew when PA.2 was cancelled.

      You’re getting yourself confused with the Eurofighter Typhoon. France was originally a member of the consortium but withdrew to develop Rafale as they wanted it to be carrier capable (and have a French engine and lots of other things). The French at one time did want to create a nuclear powered carrier, but the realisation that the CdG was a poor design and the huge costs and negligible benefit of nuclear power meant that PA.2 was to be conventional.

      There isn’t going to be a second French carrier. It sailed away with PA.2..

  • Black Eagle

    When 10 aircraft carries and 9 amphibious assault ships still didn’t help U.S. win the war against terrorism and when the number of those ships isn’t enough to beat even North Korea or Iran, then is pretty naive to think 1 more carrier could change something, just more and more taxpayers’ money are wasted on things that represented a major threat during WWII but not now.

    • FelixA9

      Polio vaccine doesn’t cure cancer. Guess we should quit taking it.

      • Black Eagle

        But when aircraft carriers can’t help win the war against terrorism, against some regional powers, then for what purpose they are build? For war with major powers like Russia or China? That’s the polio you are talking about? Sorry, but countermeasures against Carrier Strike Groups existed already in 60-70’s, not to mention those countermeasures that exist now and those that will come in near future.

        • Andwe can Russia not even winning anything…

          Lastly, the US hasn’t officially declared war to a country or anything since the 40’s. So they are limited at what they can do. But Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, America won all of them. Including North Korea.

          • Black Eagle

            U.S. dares to invide only small regional powers without nuclear capabilities, once some enemy has even a small nuclear arsenal, U.S. do nothing except some sanctions which don’t help much anyway. Just look at North Korea, they are laughing U.S. right in the face and still continue with their nuclear program. The same can by say about the Iran.
            Btw, U.S. lost the Vietnam war and then communist governments took power in South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

            • And the world laughs at Russia.

              Curiously, North Korea has China on its back, unless you want a nuclear war, then this should be dealt diplomatically.

              Either way, China is buckling with US pressure.

              The US won, left Vietnam and South Vietnam alone managed to resist for a few years.

              But defeat, let’s just laugh at Russia in Afghanistan

              • Black Eagle

                World has no time for laugh when there is a risk of global war everyday. The majority wants rather good relations with major military powers like Russia than go against it. Only fools can think someone could stand a chance against a nuclear superpower.

                Sure that China wouldn’t be happy about a war right next to its borders but there would be not many things what China could do if U.S. would decide to invade North Korea.
                But the risk of a nuclear war is still one of the main reasons why U.S. can’t so simply make a military intervention there even despite those claims about how decades ahead U.S. Army is.

                Btw, whom has Iran on its back when U.S. didn’t dare to do any military actions there as well? Do you remember when U.S. advanced stealthy RQ-170 Sentinel drone crash landed in Iran and Iran captured it and refused give it back? U.S. wasn’t surely happy that its top secret stealth technology ended in hands of Iranians (and likely also in hands of Russians and Chinese) but still U.S. had no other choice than deal with this loss.



                U.S. understood it can’t beat North Vietnam because of constant support of USSR, so they have withdrawn from Vietnam and lost for what they were fighting over 15 years, this wasn’t any win for U.S. at all. Communists later took control over the whole territory and that’s why Vietnam and Russia are allies and why they have good relations now.

  • Black Eagle

    Obviously they didn’t beat North Vietnam at all when Vietnamese with help of USSR were able to capture whole territory that U.S. was protecting all the time. So ask yourself again what U.S. reached there except that they killed millions of civilians.

    • 1. Agreement reached
      2. US won,
      3. US leaves
      4. 3 years later, North wins.
      How can you say the US lost if they were not even fighting when the North won?

      Yay for soviet meddling on other countries…

      • Black Eagle

        U.S lost their intentions there because it realized, can’t fight against USSR that was supporting the North Vietnam, that’s why U.S. didn’t return back to the war. It’s simple as that.

  • Black Eagle

    They didn’t stop because they still don’t have any replacement for Russian RD-180/RD-181.
    Probably you overlooked this http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_to_Supply_Largest_Ever_Number_of_Space_Rocket_Engines_to_US_This_Year_999.html

    Antonov was founded yet in USSR and the founder was Russian, also the parts were comming to Ukraine from Russia all the time. After the Ukrainian crisis Russia stop supplies parts to Ukraine and therefore only active manufacturing plant capable to build these aircrafts is located in Russia, the Aviastar-SP. It is currently upgrading Russian fleet of An-124s.

    I’m not deny Russia buys Western stuffs, but Western companies such as Boeing and Airbus are also buying stuffs from Russia, for example raw titianium and titanium parts for their airliners.



    Also the manufacturing of Boeing 787 Dreamliner depends on many foreing companies that supply parts to the United States.


    Things like these are called coopearation, if you don’t know. It isn’t a shame when one country buys stuffs from another one as long as it regarding just to civilian purposes.

    As for the crashes, U.S. still leads.










    • i give up,you win, you won by exhaustion. Everything I said you just ignored it, grabbed straws and gish galloped. Congrats!

      • Black Eagle

        Since when counterarguing with facts is called ignorance? That must be something new.