Queen Elizabeth class carrier

>>33141028

Something about being gay.

>>33141028
Same reson they didnt go for nuclear.

Cost.

Getting two carriers with ramps and conventional power was a better deal than ending up like France with one carrier that had a catapult and a reactor.

>>33141087
What is that monstrosity blocking the catobar near the front of the ship?

What is this ship....gay?

>>33141028
>assembled from 41 sections built in six shipyards

Very interesting. Although they must be counting each as the finished section of the carrier and not individual assemblies.

>>33141087
Why not conventional power and steam catapults?

File: blinkybird.gif (989KB, 500x269px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 500x269px

Why has nobody ever built a ramp WITH a catapult on it?

>>33143653
Because a steam catapult system is more complex and expensive to build and maintain than a simple ramp. And they need these things as simple to maintain as possible since they will only have two.

>>33143695
Ever driven over a speed bump too fast? That's why.

>>33143695
>Why has nobody ever built a ramp WITH a catapult on it?
We're not trying to launch the planes into space

>>33143695
You don't want to propel them into space, you madman!

>>33143653
This solution is energy costly and drives operationnal tempo down.

When using this design like on the old french Foch/Clemenceau carriers, ship's autonomy has to be counted in number of planes launched and not days or hours of effective deployment.
Generating the huge volume of steam needed from a fuel engine is just too much of a hassle.

Not like it's a problem anyway : this may be a scoop for some people, but both Super Hornet and Rafale M are cleared to take off from a ramp.

That's why indians shortlisted both aircrafts for their future CATOBAR carriers as well as for their current STOBAR, the INS Vikramaditya, which is based on a modified kiev class aircraft carrier.

Because it's efficient.

Something Americans don't understand.

>>33141028
>"jets use a ramp to aid take-off, reducing fuel usage and improving their mission range"

lol wat.

>>33143930
>Because it's efficient.

Doesn't mean I'd rather have a Prius over an Abrams in battle.

What's wrong with a ramp?

>>33144165
- a ramp won't allow a carrier borne fighter to take off with a heavy loading within a short distance. You still can do it, but it disrupts deck activity and reduces operational tempo.
- a ramp won't be more fuel efficient compared to a catapult.
- a ramp takes space on the deck, space you can't use to park planes
- a ramp is more subject to pitch than a catapult, which can cause problems for take off
- a ramp looks funny and ugly

>>33144165
Ramps tend to limit payload and overall size of the aircraft involved (assuming operations use similar deck space as a catapult), as well as limiting the types of aircraft (most importantly fixed wing AEW). That, and you lose deck space that could otherwise be used to store planes/launch helos.

That last point isn't too much of an issue for the QE due to the sheer size and design, but for smaller carriers/helicopter carriers, the ramp usually costs you at least one helo landing pad, which can be a major operational limitation. It's part of the reason the USN has never used ramps on our LHDs - they'd rather be able to operate more helicopters simultaneously than get a somewhat higher payload from their fixed-wing aviation.

>>33141028
>millenials need a phone app to not get lost

what the fuck

>>33144712
>>33144594
A ramp is still better than paying a fucking billion dollars for a catapult like the US lol

>>33144905
>A ramp is still better than paying a fucking billion dollars for a catapult like the US lol

Being able to operate more fixed wing aircraft than the F-35B over the next half century is worth a billion dollars.

>>33143506

Well, the name does drop a hint as to the class's sexual orientation.

File: image.jpg (13KB, 443x332px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 443x332px

Australia fell for the ramp meme
What makes it worse is that this is an amphib and not a carrier

>>33143695
They have.

It worked pretty well actually.

But it still has the ramp limitations.

>>33141028
>THOSE CREW NUMBERS

Well, the QE class is doing something right.

>>33141028

I'd love to do a big write up on it, but I don't have time to.

But it is far, far more complex that the anons have alluded to.

>>33145462
Australia kept the ramps in case she decided she wanted a carrier down the track.

>>33141028
Cost. Ramps mean they get two carriers.

>>33141028
To get sic air

>>33141028
I guess you burgers were missing out all along.

>>33143695
You could do this, but the G-force would be fucking silly, it'd put a hell of a lot of stress on the plane and pilot, especially the landing gear.

>>33141028
Because everyone between the fall of the soviet union and the annexation of Crimea thought we were at the end of the history and there would never be a peer on peer conflict between major powers again

>>33147257
They kept it because The Tonester wanted F-35Bs to live out his great power fantasies and shirt-front Putin while stopping all the boats forever.

But then the sensible heads in the DMO told him "No you fuckwit, we don't have the dosh for that shit" and nothing came of it.

>>33147335
Annexation of Crimea ? Let me
Guess ...... You believe Russians hacked U.S elections as well ? Guess that makes me an Ivan or vatnik huh

>>33141028
Because escort carriers are cheaper than super carriers and Labour won't let the UK spend anything of defense.

>>33147413

At 72000 tons (empty), total aircraft capacity of 72 and surge sortie rate of 110 - they're certainly not escorts carriers.

File: 1475544709250.gif (97KB, 346x360px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 346x360px

>>33143765
WE SHOULD DO IT

>>33147427
Gerald R Ford class is over 50 m longer, displaces over 30,000 more short tons, has 16 more decks, is considerably slower, and carries half again as many aircraft, not to mention the difference in their abilities to launch and receive planes. The Queen Lizzie class was obviously designed to be price conscious, just like escort carriers.

>total aircraft capacity of 72
I'll need a citation on that one. I'm seeing 50 on a full load with an air wing size of 40.

>>33147470
>considerably slower
Sorry, faster.

>>33147385
Are you implying the annexation of Crimea didn't cause a shift in European attitudes towards defence spending?

>>33147257
>>33147347

They kept it because modifying the design to not include it was too expensive.

They will never be F35 carriers, that would require far too much work and would be extremely expensive.

>>33147470
>Gerald R Ford class is over 50 m longer, displaces over 30,000 more short tons, has 16 more decks
Just because X object is part of a group does not excude Y from that group.

Neither does QEC being in the superclass diminish the Fords or Nimitz - I'm not sure why people get so defensive over this. I will also remind you that the Kitty Hawk at 61000 was also considered a super.

>is considerably slower,
The QEC can move at 30+, but that's unrelated to the definition of a supercarrier. This was confirmed by the project director Ian Booth.

>carries half again as many aircraft,
See futhered down.

>not to mention the difference in their abilities to launch and receive planes.

Again, that's unrelated to the term supercarrier.

>The Queen Lizzie class was obviously designed to be price conscious, just like escort carriers.

All projects are built to be price conscious. I would advise you to learn what an escort carrier is before pushing your personal definition. They are strike/fleet carriers. Supercarrier is not a role, but only a reference to tonnage.

>I'll need a citation on that one. I'm seeing 50 on a full load with an air wing size of 40.

Dr Peter Roberts, Director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute. RUSI is one of the top military think-tanks in the world, obviously not high as RAND, but before you say something out of ignorance.

>>33147587
>I'm not sure why people get so defensive over this
Because it implies a comparable level of force projection.

>Dr Peter Roberts
A name drop isn't a citation, my friend. I'm not seeing anything substantial about them housing 72 aircraft, only 72 sorties by 36.

>>33147676
>Because it implies a comparable level of force projection.

That's still unrelated to the definition of a supercarrier. Because it is about tonnage.

http://forces.tv/10818180
>Queen Elizabeth could carry up to 72 aircraft at maximum capacity, though normally she would carry 12 to 24.

That's who the quote is from, but the article does not attribute him.

Context for this line:
>She is not expected to ever carry more than 36.

However the author makes a mistake since this number is actually 38 aircraft. As a typical wing will compose of 24 F-35Bs and 14 Merlin MH2s. Though this represents the higher end of a peace time wing carrier, numbers will depend on requirements.

Additionally, this is because current purchase rates, requirements for training / land based deployments / maintenance / testing does not allow for typical 'full' air wings, however one of the key decision for the STOVL model it allows for much easier surges in wings sizes and sortie rates.

Wikipedia does not provide much in the way of depth for information. Hope I've been helpful.

>>33144905
>I'm an underage nogunz britbong lol
steam catapults are fine. Emals are fine. Every serious nation operating a carrier either has one with catapults or want one with catapults. Yes this includes Russia China and India.

>>33148013

Not him, but steam catapults are sensible choice when you're operating a nuclear carrier. The RN wasn't a fan due to through-life-costs (crewing, maintenance etc - impacting surge capability / availability) and requirements for high volumes of steam and water.

Additionally, a traditional steam catapult is not compatible with the IEP (IFEP) power system, so CVF would have required installing another power system in the former of oil fired boilers.

In regards to EMALS, at the time of these decisions were being made, EMALS was still a very much unproven technology. Although, later on (2010ish) the US said it would underright the buy cost for EMALS, it still wasn't sufficient as AAG, EMALS and the F-35C were having seriously problems although they've been mostly fixed, mostly. Introducing that risk into the carrier program was untenable.

>>33147786
So if I took a boat that could launch 1 helicopter and put a shit ton of weight on it to be slightly above that of the queen then it would be a super carrier by your definition?

>>33148084
>Being autistic

Not that anon but it isn't "his" definition. Its THE definition.

>>33148084

I'd humour your facetious question, but I believe a 'boat' cannot be considered an aircraft carrier.

>>33148103
>>33148110

Samefag

>>33145462
this will be a drone carrier in 10 years

>>33147413
I didn't realise labour was in charge.

Last time i checked i voted for conservatives and we won.

>>33148263

It was under a labour government when the carriers were offered to the Navy with the probable aim of killing the defence budget to pay for it.

>>33148263
Problem with projects like this is they see multiple governments on either side.

>>33143695
Because aircraft are manned by humans, not Kerbals.

>>33141028
Because it's cheaper, faster and more reliable.

File: 23000e shtorm project.jpg (378KB, 802x1134px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 802x1134px

>>33143695
Soon.

>>33149257
won't happen

File: soon.jpg (182KB, 780x519px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 780x519px

>>33149278
>PAK FA won't happen
>PAK FA doesn't exist
>PAK FA won't fly
>Armata won't happen
>Armata doesn't exist
>Armata is a mock-up without gun stabilisation that can't shoot
>Shtorm won't happen

>>33149347
>Using the PAK-FA or Armata as an example of Russia to deliver

lol

File: 1474033280550.jpg (82KB, 807x526px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 807x526px

>>33149893
Stay mad.

>>33149347

It's a matter of money and priorities.

Russia has so many other things it needs to spend money on in every branch of its armed forces, and with the combination of recent events causing Russian state revenues to be lower than planned, something has to give.

Large aircraft carriers are the most obvious procurement to be "delayed" considering that they are not a traditional strategic requirement for Moscow, and as a project carries significant risk (no institutional knowledge on making, operating, escorting and equipping a super-carrier) amply illustrated by the fact that the Kuznetsov has hardly distinguished itself in operations.

If it does happen, it would probably be as part of a extensive joint carrier project with India, and some other project will be "delayed".

File: 1143.7 ulyanovsk (2).jpg (453KB, 1417x904px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1417x904px

>>33150195
It can't be delayed because there are no deadlines yet. They don't plan to begin construction it in next 10 to 15 years.

>>33147482
How different is the Australian design to the Spanish and Turkish ones? Those two are compatible with the F-35B, especially Turkeys one, as they already are in the F-35 project and confirmed the use of F-35 from their carriers.

>>33150278
plan? was there even official statement about it yet ?

is there even facilitys and dry dock for 100k t ships in russia left ?

>>33150321
>is there even facilities and dry dock for 100k t ships in russia left?

No

However, two are being constructed.

No ships announced for them, as it stands it's just one of Putins "make work" projects for the economy.

>>33150321
>plan? was there even official statement about it yet ?
http://www.militarynews.ru/story.asp?rid=1&nid=417771
Sort of.
>is there even facilitys and dry dock for 100k t ships in russia left ?
https://rg.ru/2016/01/18/reg-szfo/avia.html
Baltic Shipyard, Northern Shipyard.

>>33150482
>No
Yes.

File: QE-Carrier-Module.jpg (1MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1067px

>>33141028
because some navies have a budget, and would rather have two lesser ships than one cost sink

>>33143534
yeah, 41 sections have been shipped into Rosyth Naval yard for final assembly there.

Pic related, LB02

File: Block-Allocation-update.jpg (94KB, 1055x587px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1055x587px

>>33151010

>>33151024
>>33151010
.. did they do this to spread work around, OR was it done to speed up construction by not waiting for one yard to do everything?

>>33151088
AFAIK it was to spread work around

we don't really want any of our remaining shipyards to close so we try to keep the work reasonably spread, that way the skills are still their and if production needs to be increased there are 6 yards available for production

>>33151088
both ..

>>33151010
Interesting. I just found it odd that they shipped in only 41 pieces for the whole carrier. They must not have done a lot of outfitting on the modules then, otherwise they'd be way too heavy to lift.

>>33141028
inferior

File: qe.jpg (124KB, 962x646px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 962x646px

>>33151217
correct the ship is currently being outfitted, although the crane at Rosyth is currently the biggest in the UK with 1000 tonne capacity

>>33145706
>>33141028
Hey, the Canadian Navy could even staff that.

They'd have to park half of the fleet and steal some desk jockeys & RCAF crews to do so, but they could do it.

>>33151324
Yeah that's how I figured it. I knew your crane was slightly smaller than ours, and we're doing a lot more super lifts than 41. So I figured they must not be outfitting the sections much compared to us to keep the weight down.

File: cvf-compare-1205big.jpg (81KB, 761x437px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 761x437px

>>33141028

1/2

*cough*

Well, there's the long story and the short story.

To save myself from effort, the British wanted to continue the success of the harrier program after the Falklands War. Both the RAF and RN had agreed to jointly acquire the F-35 as their harrier replacements, the program was known as JCA (Joint Combat Aircraft) this of course was to be the F-35B.

There's a multitude of already stated reasons, but I'll post a study that outlines it well:

>Studies compared the effectiveness of conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) and V/STOL aircraft at sea. One study, conducted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) in 1980, concluded that V/STOL aircraft provide better mission performance at sea with fewer aircraft. This stems from the V/STOL's ability to generate a greater number of sorties for a given time period, primarily because it is unconstrained by the normal deck cycles of CTOL aircraft. The AIAA study points out that "the air platform from which V/STOL operates can be smaller than today's large deck carrier. The support costs, including logistics, maintenance, manpower, et al. are reduced for both the aircraft and the ship." This concept sets the stage for reducing the large overhead normally associated with sea-based tactical aviation to the point where it can be considered viable on many more seagoing platforms.

File: cvf-model-oct04-1.jpg (17KB, 300x180px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x180px

>>33141028
>>33151610

>The STOVL JSF greatly reduces the training and currency requirement for fixed-wing operations afloat. This increases commensurately its ability to be adopted and employed jointly as the Air Force is no longer excluded from non-land-based operations. With the large power margins, enhanced stability control, and pilot augmentation systems the STOVL JSF will incorporate, safe and efficient landings at sea will become easy and straightforward. This should lead to streamlined training and extended currency limits—so much so that non-naval-trained pilots could become ship-qualified in just a few days. Consider the flexibility of being able to jointly sea base all of the services' primary tactical air assets, not only in the context of the tenets mentioned earlier, but also in the form of indefinite sustainment for the force structure. The STOVL JSF squadrons from any service, with minimal effort, could provide forces for surged or sustained sea-based maritime operations—a force planner's dream.

>Fewer aircraft require less hangar space, fewer maintenance and support personnel, and for STOVLs, fewer ship systems to support them and a much smaller air department. STOVLs require 30% less deck space for operations, which leads to increased operating efficiencies. Those efficiencies allow generation of more sorties given equal mission performance. For example, STOVL aircraft can generate 30% more sorties than CTOL aircraft for targets out to 400 nautical miles, and 15% more for ranges to 700 nautical miles. The affordable combination of multiple missions within one hull design can become a reality based on our emerging technology.

>>33147427
Daily reminder that the Brits use Short tonnes in their measurements.
Using the American system HMS Queen Elizabeth is 80,000 tonnes

>>33144165

In real terms? Nothing.

>>33144712

This anon is wrong, but also right.

Ramps do not limit anything, they only provide a boost. It is the aircraft themselves that is limited.

Without it the aircraft would be required to launch in VOTL with a far more limited payload and amount of fuel -- or even in STVOL with an even futher limited load.

For what adverse impact does it have on aircraft performance when it increase payload, fuel and sea state launches?

>>33151642
>wrong

>>33151642
short tons are smaller than our "tall tons"
The Queen Eliz is actually 40,000 tons, smaller than America class

>>33151610
>Both the RAF and RN had agreed to jointly acquire the F-35 as their harrier replacements, the program was known as JCA (Joint Combat Aircraft) this of course was to be the F-35B.

Well..fucking wrong so you're off to a good start there m8

>>33151801

No, they really did.

This was conceived in the backroom by two blokes who took the term 'Jointness' seriously.

>>33151832
They really didn't.

There was a whole domestic program before the JSF was looked at.

>>33151886

Ah, I misunderstand you.

I am aware, but I had simplified the timeline for tl;dr. Key points are only that they both agreed on the same replacement and that replacement was the F-35B which was under the JCA program. That's really it.

>>33141028
Why does it matter? It is a fucking geometric shape

>>33141028
To reduce fuel usage and improve their mission range

>>33141028
>only 4 MA's
>apaches on a boat why
>giving sailors a map app
>1000 flight crew and fighting troops
>fighting troops
>67 CS's
>11 HM's
>2 towers
>going to get 911'ed by mudslimes

If ramps are so good then why is china planning on catas for its next generation if carrier? Checkmate bongs

>>33141028
The Royal Navy will only operate one at a time (the other in refitting), so having ramps makes sense, because if it had a catapult and the catapult fails, the Royal Navy doesn't have carrier capabilities.

Also, people keep calling this a 'super carrier', like US carriers, but it's not designed to operate in the same way or to the same capabilities.

Should have spent the money on something fucking useful.

Westminster a shit.

>>33141028
Economics.

>>33141028
Bump, as a carrier builder these threads interest me.

>>33154991
What do you think about Terry telling Trump that he wants more carriers built

>>33155008
As long as we can find a reasonable way to pay, I'm all for it. We could definitely be building them faster if the navy wanted (funded) us to.

>>33155099
Also, I know this isn't the politics board, but Trump is coming to NNS to speak aboard the Ford on Friday. I'm curious whether he has a particular announcement to make. We got the news the same day that the White House announced the $54 billion defense budget increase.

>>33143534
I hope the result isn't like my college assignments done in separate shipyards

>>33155149
I'm not sure what that means.

>>33149347
moving the goalposts eh.....
Well not taking into consideration that making a few tank and aircraft prototypes that are not in service is much more different than building and aircraft carrier with systems that the Russians have never built into their aircraft carriers.

Actually the PAK FA DOESN'T fly, the 12 prototypes sit in an airfield 40 miles outside Moscow. Also, if the Armata is coming online, why are they re-opening the T-80 lines?

File: 254884_61994761_2017-02-23_gallery22.jpg (795KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 1200x800px

>>33155209

PAK FA does fly.
And no production lines for new T-80 are being opened.

>>33155008
Well you didn't exactly do a great job replacing the enterprise

>>33144165
It's the pinnacle of homosexuality.

>>33157016
Now THAT'S a sexy airplane! Lockheed, take notes!

File: 1432175691599.jpg (19KB, 400x289px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 400x289px

>>33141028
>those catering statistics

Thats the most british thing I've ever seen

>>33157662
I had to eat britbong navy food once
They literally put fucking bake beans in everything those sick fucks

>>33152180

What's wrong with Apaches operating from a ship? The UK only operates one type of dedicated attack helicopter, so its Apaches are designed and their crews trained for maritime operations. They performed well in Libya 2011 operating from a ship.

>>33147676
>How dare you try to dick measure with America, watch as I become personally offended.

>>33149347
Wasn't the PAK-FA essentially completely refused active adoption for cost concerns over the Su-30?

Same, didn't they cut the order for Armatas from 2100 to 70, to be delivered at around 2020, because of cost concerns?

>>33157395
How so? It'll be coming along in CVN80. Don't blame us for the naming schedule.

>>33150293

Internals arent fit for jet aircraft

>>33158324
I'm sure that's what CNN told you.

>>33158609

With oil still stubbornly failing to rise past $60 /barrel, I'd like to see Russia maintain its military spending commitments.

>>33152331
>because if it had a catapult and the catapult fails
A ship of QE's size would have two cats. One bow and one waist similar to CdG's layout.

>>33143695
I forgot what kind of catapult was being talked about and was trying to picture a fucking trebuchet in an aircraft carrier.
>Guess it would be good for clearing the docks of bystanders when it set sail


I'm going to bed

>>33158920
>t-they're gonna collapse anytime now
did you get your talking points from 2014?

>>33159933

That is the point, oil prices have barely recovered since 2014, so the Russian government will have to amend its military spending timetable assuming revenues aren't going to increase soon.

However, if you insist, sure, lets get some "2014 CNN talking points"

>The Russian government has decided to cut defence spending by 1,000 billion rubles ($15.89 billion), or approximately 30 percent, the draft federal budget indicates.

http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2016/11/02/russian-military-spending-cut-significantly_644155

Oh wait, that's not CNN in 2014, it's an October 2016 article from a news website run by Rossiyskaya Gazeta, which is owned by the Russian government.

>>33160273
>Any time now!
Meanwhile, in the source article:
>нa дeлe oн coкpaщeн нa cyммy в чeтыpe paзa мeньшe
So $4 billion. Enjoy your CNN brainwashing.

>>33160446

>Enjoy your CNN brainwashing.

It's Russian government owned news website. I thought I would use a more balanced article, but I decided to go for something you trust, apparently not. The amusing thing is that Russian government shills are using it as evidence to say how peaceful Russia is and how belligerent NATO is, like this guy on RT https://www.rt.com/op-edge/365084-russias-invade-defense-spending/

>So $4 billion.

Regardless, the sums don't add up. Russia previously planned increases in defense spending to fund its plethora of programs, but is instead making cuts out to 2020. The gap between the previously planned spending and the available budget needs to be closed.

>>33160590
>Random RT blog
I won't even read it. Posting bullshit claims disproven in one click is one thing, but you are not even trying at this point.

>>33160665

You've literally agreed that Russia is making defense spending cuts in trying to disprove that RBTH article. I've nothing left to prove.

>>33160675
I've literally just proven your 30 percent cut claim is nothing by a huge pile of bull shit. Try harder.

>>33160688

The source article talks of year-on-year military spending cuts from now out to 2019.

Yes, the 30% claim is because of shitty Russian journalism, but the fact remains there will be defense cuts for the foreseeable future instead of the raises that were previously planned to renew the Russian armed forces.

>>33160726
30 percent cut claim was your shitposting, as it is proven by the actual source article in Russian. Seriously, try harder.

>>33160922

So you don't deny that instead of budget increases there will be budget cuts out to 2020?

You're the one who is desperately trying to make the 30% claim vital, I don't give a toss.

>>33161149
>It's totally not like I brought up a bullshit claim about Russia cutting its budget by 30 fucking percent to make bullshit CNN propaganda sound more viable
>N-no u...
You didn't even try.

>>33161285

That Russian language Kommersant article itself talks of year on year defense cuts. The fact you are ignoring this just looks bad for you.

>>33161390
The fact that you attempted to push your CNN brainwashing blatantly lying about 30 percent cut simply indicates that you didn't even try. I bet you are a slav.

>>33161465

You are still obsessed with 30% and ignoring actual defense cut numbers. It looks like current figures are for a cut of ~7% in 2017, followed by a further 3.2% in 2018 and 4.8% in 2019.

>Бeз yчeтa этoгo paзoвoгo измeнeния вoeнныe cнизят cвoи pacхoды в 2017 гoдy в cpaвнeнии c тpaтaми 2016 гoдa пpимepнo нa 7% (c yчeтoм — нa peкopдныe 27,1%). B дaльнeйшeм pacхoды Mинoбopoны бyдyт cнижaтьcя yжe нe тaк мacштaбнo: нa 3,2% в 2018 гoдy и нa 4,8% в 2019-м.

>>33161698
You are still trying to get away with blatantly lying about the cut to push your bullshit CNN propaganda.

>>33161718

I didn't lie, I copy pasted from a Russian government owned source to show that talks of Russian defense cuts are not "2014 CNN talking points" but are relevant now.