Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Share

    Poll

    Do you think russia should start designing a replacement for the Kirov class?

    [ 19 ]
    76% [76%] 
    [ 6 ]
    24% [24%] 

    Total Votes: 25

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:41 pm

    While russia for now and the near future may well have the best brown water fleet it is no match for the multiple cNATO carrier groups on the high seas. The USSR started building its first true aircraft carrier(not small aviation cruisers)  the Ulyanovsk but the fall of the union caused it being scrapped. With China working on building its own carriers and America adding the Gerald Ford class into their naval arsenal do you think Russia should start putting money on making a new carrier or battlecruiser to replace the becoming obsolete Kirov class?
    Having a capable blue water fleet is essential to spread your influence globally and the USSR knew that so they continuously upgraded their fleet up to the fall of the soviet union. After that most of  the russian navy's ships were scrapped leaving with a tiny force of cold war era weaponry. But now that the fleet is modernising it should be an objective of paramount importance to return the blue and green water capability of the russian navy. Lets hope that MoD has that in mind.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:21 am

    I think the two Kirov class vessels they intend to give a significant upgrade to should suffice for the next 30-40 years. Large ships tend to last longer than small ships as long as their fundamental design is sound.

    The Kirovs' main drawback was the combined nuclear and diesel propulsion that meant it could sail everywhere at 16knts with nuclear only or it could use its fuel and hit 30+ knots but only for a few thousand NM till the fuel ran out.

    That was because the Soviets had not developed a compact powerful nuclear power plant for large vessels and carriers.

    AFAIK they have been working on this and now have or will soon have such a NPP that can power large vessels without making a large vessel really really large.

    Russia doesn't need carriers because China has them or because the US has them... the Russian Army has experienced real combat with no air support and knows the penalty paid for such a situation.

    It simply makes sense to have airpower as a component for both the Navy and the Army, simply because it extends vision and extends reach that simply makes the ground forces or sea forces or undersea forces safer, and more effective at the same time.

    The new Russian carriers don't need to be Nimitz super carriers... in fact the Kuznetsov is a very good size, and the major overhaul it will go through to add catapults (EM hopefully) and a nuclear power plant as well as the removal of the Granits... in addition to completely upgrading the electronics and wiring, and of course all the fuel capacity for the ship can be converted to fuel capacity for the aircraft and of course more ordinance storage and food and supplies for the crews.

    The upgraded Kirovs will no doubt receive other upgrades during their operational lives, as will the Kuznetsov.

    The ideal number of carriers is a multiple of three, so 3 or 6.

    The reason being the cycle of training, operational, and upgrade is pretty much continuous. Lots of countries with single carriers have problems where their carriers are called hangar queens because they are never ready when needed.

    The reality is that this is just bad planning... ie being cheap.

    If you want one carrier to be guaranteed to be available then you need to buy three. That means there will always be one ship scheduled to be available at any one time and in a real emergency you could guarantee to have two available.

    With only one vessel... if it is in dry dock getting a major refit it doesn't matter if it is WWIII... it just wont be available.

    With the Russian situation I would suggest 6 carriers, three in the Pacific Fleet and three in the Northern Fleet, though they could probably get away with two in each fleet.

    The current air component will be Mig-29K2s, but by the time the first new carrier enters service it will no doubt carry a mix of PAK FA and UCAVs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:17 am

    Oh well, would've been awsome if a new succesor for the kirov was in development that is larger, with stealth technology, more and newer missiles, much better missile shield and more lethal in every way.
    The kuznetsov isnt an aircraft carrier its and aviation cruiser because it carries too little aircraft(only 12 Su-33s which would be severely outnumbered in a possible battle with a NATO carrier group) compared to true carriers like the nimitz and charle de gaulle and are also armed with antiship missiles.

    It is a pity that none of the Kiev class cruisers remain in service. They couldve been upgraded like the Vikhramiditya giving russia some good light carriers better than the british Invincible class.

    IMO Russia should start building a couple of aircraft carriers similar to the cancelled 70000 ton Ulyanovsk which had much more aircraft than the kuznetsov, with the same antiship armament yet still lighter than the nimitz.

    BTW even 4 upgraded kirovs are highly outnumbered by the ticonderoga class and hundreds of harpoon carrying destroyers and aircraft of the NATO navies and so it would be a good idea to build a couple more battlecruisers

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  TR1 on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:22 am

    Trying to match all of NATO is an unachievable, pointless and wastefully task at this point.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:42 am

    Oh well, would've been awsome if a new succesor for the kirov was in development that is larger, with stealth technology, more and newer missiles, much better missile shield and more lethal in every way.

    Actually I am quite looking forward to see what they do to the existing Kirovs to upgrade them.

    The Kirov was already quite stealthy in terms of its vertical launch weapons and hull shaping.

    A British Naval officer once said that the best way to detect the Kirov was from its wake because the radar signature was relatively small, but its wake was large.

    I am looking forward to seeing the new destroyer design, but would rather see more support ships and smaller ships produced to replace a lot of older vessels that need to be retired.

    If given a full upgrade the Kirovs will be formidibly armed and as time progresses it will get even better armed as new missiles and guns become available.

    For instance the 130mm guns could be replaced with the new 152mm guns that were joint developed with the army (koalitsia) that offer the capacity to fire old shells to 40km and new shells to 80km and to allow standard shells to be fitted with guidance kits that use GLONASS to enable shots to land within 10m of the target in all weathers day or night... which sounds impressive... and it is pretty good, but set for air burst they could be devastating to a range of target types.

    Of course the 152mm guns might be for Destroyers and there might be a 203mm gun for Cruisers...

    The kuznetsov isnt an aircraft carrier its and aviation cruiser because it carries too little aircraft(only 12 Su-33s which would be severely outnumbered in a possible battle with a NATO carrier group) compared to true carriers like the nimitz and charle de gaulle and are also armed with antiship missiles.

    It is an aviation cruiser because if it was called an aircraft carrier there would be issues with it sailing through the Turkish straights to the Black Sea.

    With the massive upgrade that will remove the Granits it is likely rather more aircraft can be carried, and with the purchase of Mig-29K2s they will almost certainly carry more than 12 fighters.

    Keep in mind that US carriers are strike carriers so they need fighters to protect the ships in the battle group, but they also need fighters to protect the strike aircraft... Granits don't need an escort.

    With EM cats of course they will likely add heavy aircraft like AWACS, but will also be able to launch fighters at heavier weights which should make them more capable.

    It is a pity that none of the Kiev class cruisers remain in service. They couldve been upgraded like the Vikhramiditya giving russia some good light carriers better than the british Invincible class.

    Well yes and no. Not saying anything against the Indians... they wanted a carrier in a hurry and what they are getting will be a good vessel in my option, but with Russia they need to upgrade port facilities, they need to build new support and supply ships, and they need some decent destroyers and a couple of fully upgraded cruisers in service before they think about putting lots of carriers into use, so if they have the time they should use it wisely developing brand new carriers from scratch using new technology and new knowledge gained from studying carrier operations around the world and make sure what they build is not a white elephant, but a capable ship that is flexible and will do what they need without blowing the budget every time the engines are turned on.

    IMO Russia should start building a couple of aircraft carriers similar to the cancelled 70000 ton Ulyanovsk which had much more aircraft than the kuznetsov, with the same antiship armament yet still lighter than the nimitz.

    Russia has its own interests, and one of them is not to over spend to outdo all of Europe and north america (NATO).

    Russia needs to look at what it needs and wants and then build a force based on that... they wont ever need to control the north atlantic or pacific, but it might want to send a battlegroup to almost anywhere on earth to promote its interests.

    I say build up the Russian navy and its home ports and foster good international relations and restore supply and maintainence ports where they are welcome... like in Cuba and in Vietnam.

    Anyone with a family knows that if you are going to the middle of nowhere you take everything in case you can't resupply, so it becomes a major expedition. If you know where you are going and know you have a bed for the night and shops to buy food and supplies if you forget something it becomes much easier to take that trip... there is less risk and it is easier and simpler to plan what you are going to do when you get there... it is easier to go more often.

    BTW even 4 upgraded kirovs are highly outnumbered by the ticonderoga class and hundreds of harpoon carrying destroyers and aircraft of the NATO navies and so it would be a good idea to build a couple more battlecruisers

    4 upgraded Kirovs is unlikely. More likely 2 upgraded Kirovs and perhaps 4 upgraded Slava class ships could form the backbone of two battle groups... one for each of the northern and pacific fleets.

    The advantage of unified upgrades means that the Slavas and Kirovs will have the same NPP, the same cruise missile launchers (UKSK), the same missile launchers (Redut), the same guns, the same electronics and sensors, so maintainence and support will be greatly improved and simplified for all vessels.

    Previously there was a range of different missile armament like SS-N-14, SS-N-22, SS-N-19, SS-N-12, and each with its own sets of sensors are all replaced by the UKSK system which can perform existing anti ship and anti sub missions and adds land attack capability. The Redut SAM system will do the same for SAMs. The unification of weapons and sensors includes upgrades to more stealth friendly vertical launch bins and of course advanced AESA sensor and Thermal Imager and EO arrays.

    I agree a from scratch new design cruiser would be cool, but for the moment it makes more sense to upgrade existing designs to reduce their operational costs and to unify their design with the new weapons and sensors being fitted to new vessels. These new multipurpose designs are new for the Russian Navy which pretty much had custom designed vessels for their every need. The custom design optimised their performance for their particular purpose, but meant a logistic and maintainence nightmare with all the different systems.

    The added problem was that the custom designs were not produced in large numbers.

    I have mentioned before on a different thread that by building a new destroyer you can pretty much replace the Udaloy and Sovremmeny with one vessel, so instead of making 14 Udaloys and 14 Sovremmenys you can make 30 new destroyers that all have the same propulsion and weapons options. A Udaloy class vessel for anti sub use has 8 SS-N-14 Silex anti sub missiles as its primary armament. A Sovremmeny class vessel has 8 ready to fire Sunburns (SS-N-22). A new Destroyer fitted with two UKSK launchers can carry up to 16 missiles that could include Onyx/yakhont/brahmos... a replacement for Sunburn with higher speed and much longer range, Klub missiles including subsonic and supersonic anti ship missiles, a subsonic 2,500km range land attack missile, or a 40km range anti sub missile that delivers a guided torpedo... much the same as the SS-N-14 Silex. This means the new destroyer can have double the main armament of either the Udaloy or Sovremmeny, or a balanced combination of both armaments (ie 8 x Onyx and 8 x Klub anti sub). This makes the vessel much more flexible and versatile and cheaper to make in larger numbers. The flexibility means you could probably make 20 instead of the 28 of the two earlier types you would need.


    Trying to match all of NATO is an unachievable, pointless and wastefully task at this point.

    Totally agree. I think Putin has given up the cold war, his push to upgrade the Russian military is not to face NATO or the US, it is to make it a more capable more compact mobile force that can do damage well beyond its size that can protect Russia from any threat. Major threats like US or NATO can be dealt with more effectively and efficiently with nuclear weapons... tactical and strategic, so wasting money on a conventional force to take on the world will just make life in Russia less comfortable... and remember it is the Russian taxpayers that are going to pay for the military.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:18 pm

    But even if the russian navie's doctrine is home water defence would be excessive to build 1 or 2 more admiral kuznetsov sized carriers giving the navy a little more aviation capability and giving it a little more reach in defensive or closed water operations?

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:13 pm

    The Kirov class of cruisers are outstanding battle cruisers and Yes, Russia needs to build more such cruisers but no more aircraft carriers please . Aircraft carriers are slow moving and are highly vunerable to modern day anti ship cruise missiles. Instead Russia should build a larger number of smaller flattops - smaller, light carriers .


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 07, 2012 2:28 am

    But even if the russian navie's doctrine is home water defence would be excessive to build 1 or 2 more admiral kuznetsov sized carriers giving the navy a little more aviation capability and giving it a little more reach in defensive or closed water operations?

    Home defence can be supported by land based aircraft that are cheaper to buy and operate.

    The main reason for carrier based aircraft is the ability to project power globally.

    The colonial powers of Europe like Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France relied on their navies to support colonies around the world... they did not become global powers and then build powerful navies... the powerful navies came first.

    A global reach gives a government and a country options it would other wise not have.

    Not always perfect of course... Americas enormous naval power was of no use when Georgia invaded South Ossetia, but in other instances it has been very useful.

    With piracy still a problem the capacity to send a group of ships to an area to apply pressure, or to protect your interests will become more and more valuable.

    If the north pole region continues to melt and become more viable as a trade route then support and control of that will be of interest to Russia.

    Having just one carrier like they do at the moment is not cheap and may not be available when actually needed.

    It is going into overhaul for about 5 years shortly to have a major upgrade, so any problem that occurs in the next 5 years will not be able to be handled with naval sea based air power... unless the Mistrals can deal with it like a surprise Japanese invasion of the Kuriles.

    The main point is that the focus will be on carriers for defence of the naval vessels within the carrier group.

    Any land strike or engagement of enemy ships can be left to the range of cruise missiles on board the vessels... and when the new frigates have twice the main armament missiles as Soviet destroyers then a Russian carrier group will be very powerful. Carriers will add air protection rings and extend the reach and vision of the group.

    Very simply the AEGIS class cruiser in the persian gulf that shot down an Iranian airbus in the 1980s didn't have the option to send up a fighter squad to investigate the incoming blip on the radar screen... if they had I rather suspect hundreds of lives would have been saved both in the Persian Gulf that day and over Lockerbie a few years later... Even an unmanned drone could have been flown up to intercept the blip and identify it as not being an F-14, or a military aircraft.

    Aircraft carriers are slow moving and are highly vunerable to modern day anti ship cruise missiles. Instead Russia should build a larger number of smaller flattops - smaller, light carriers .

    They are not planning super carriers... it is my understanding that something in the 30-40K ton range is what they are aiming for. The main priorities would be AWACS and fighters and drones, so the electronic view from the sea surface up to space can be observed, and anything of interest can be investigated in a way that is not lethal.

    They will have four Mistrals, but real fighter aircover and a platform that proper AWACS aircraft can operate from would be useful. Fixed wing carriers result in more effective air power than VSTOL carriers in my opinion... the Sea Harrier is a formidable aircraft, but a Mig-35 or Su-35 or PAK FA would be rather better.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:06 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    They are not planning super carriers... it is my understanding that something in the 30-40K ton range is what they are aiming for. The main priorities would be AWACS and fighters and drones, so the electronic view from the sea surface up to space can be observed, and anything of interest can be investigated in a way that is not lethal.

    Thats why a few Kuznetsov sized carriers are a good idea...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:39 am

    As I said, it will be very interesting to see what upgrades and changes they apply to the K when it comes out of its big upgrade in 2017-2018. Nuclear propulsion, removal of Granits, and other changes like adoption of smaller and more compact SAM vertical launcher bins and a serious electronic upgrade should redistribute the use of space on board the vessel from propulsion and fuel for the ship and anti ship attack capability, to more planes and more storage for fuel for those aircraft plus more sophisticated electronics and communications equipment... but most importantly EM catapults should allow heavier aircraft to operate from the vessel. I would love to see an AWACs type fixed wing aircraft for two critical reasons.

    First... it extends the vision range of the fleet and greatly improves early warning from high altitudes it allows sea skimming missiles to be detected very early which is critical in stopping them.

    Second it creates a small compact AWACS that Russia could sell to many of its allies and customers as a cheaper alternative to a big full sized AWACS aircraft. Not every country can afford an A-50U or soon A-100... they are big expensive aircraft... though very useful. (just like most NATO countries can't afford their own Sentrys).

    A smaller, lighter, cheaper option that still offers airborne warning and control features that can improve the performance of a small air force, and would be particularly useful over mountainous areas where ground radar has problems, or for use over vast expanses of empty territory or sparsely populated territory... Iran, Australia, Canada, Russia, India, China, Brazil, South Africa all might be interested...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:14 am

    I think yakovlev started working on a carrier based AWACS called the yak-22but it was cancelled because the Ulyanovsk carrier stopped being constructed.

    Do you think it would be reasonable to add a UKSK launcher on the modernised kuznetsov and/or future russian carriers just like you suggest on the mistral?

    My main concern is without a somewhat larger carrier force it will be hard to assist Cuba or Venezuela if USA starts bothering or even invading them and also as you said a single carrier might not be in full readiness when its needed and its good to have a backup.

    PS
    I'm a bulgarian teenager and and unlike most people in my country I'm a supporter of russia and I'm very interested and respect russian weapons and dont view russian political policy as "evil" and "occupational". I also dont view NATO as the good guy. Unlike most people my age(and very often above my age) I dont go trolling and insulting anyone who points out an advantage in russian weapons and I get annoyed when I see someone do.

    I've always wanted to see the truth about russian military and weapons without western propaganda and russian advertisements getting in the way. I've wanted to have the most complete info about future plans and developments of the russian MIC and here some experts which are not available in other sites.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:45 am

    I think yakovlev started working on a carrier based AWACS called the yak-22but it was cancelled because the Ulyanovsk carrier stopped being constructed.

    That would be the Yak-44, and it is fairly logical to stop funding and development for an aircraft that required catapult launch from an aircraft carrier when the only carrier they were planning to have a catapult launch system was cancelled.

    Now, however, if they are planning to fit catapults to the Kuznetsov then it is equally logical to look at aircraft that could use that catapult launch system to add effective AWACS capabilities.

    It is possible they might revisit the Yak-44, or perhaps they might look at more exotic solutions like an Aerostat, or airship, or perhaps even a UAV based system.

    Here are some pics of the Yak-44 BTW:





    Of course new design solutions are possible and likely... current aircraft design of 5th gen fighters seems to include the integration of radar antenna arrays within the structure of the aircraft, with fixed antennas covering 360 degrees using electronic scanning rather than moving antennas. By having the antennas as part of the air craft structure it removes the need for an external antenna with all the drag and extra weight that incurs. A low drag design should allow higher flight operations for longer periods.

    Regarding UKSK launchers in carriers... they have space for them, but most of the vessels they will be operating with will also have them too, so I rather doubt there will be any shortage.

    In my personal opinion I would say yes, but don't over do it... one 8 cell UKSK launcher per carrier so that no matter what they will always have the capacity to deal with enemy subs (using the ASW Klub) or enemy ships (using Klub or Onyx) or land targets (Kalibre). They were talking about 160 missiles in the SAM system tubes to be fitted to the Mistral, so I would expect 6 Pantsir-S1s, which would be 196 missiles in Pantsir-S1 alone and the 160 vertical launch tubes being the vertical launch Redut systems... lets say 14 tube Redut, which means 10-11 launchers and 140-154 actual tubes.
    A lot of missiles, plus 12 30mm gatling guns... though I would also expect Duet turrets as well, but this is a large vessel, and British experience in the Falklands was that vessels with defences tended to defend themselves, whereas undefended targets were sitting ducks. Missile attacks on Frigates that were successfully jammed or decoyed often acquired targets like ex civilian transports that were very vulnerable to hits.

    Having air defence systems on all military vessels is important, though you don't want it to reduce performance or change the role of the ship.

    It is of course possible that what they actually meant was 160 missile tubes for the smaller Vityaz missiles, which will be like the smaller S-400 missiles, which means instead of 10-11 Redut launchers that sort of number could be accommodated in 3 Redut launchers with 4 missiles in each of the 14 launch tubes, which would mean 168 missiles of the 40km and 120km flight range. In fact you would probably use a couple of tubes for the larger missiles, perhaps 4 S-400 large missiles with a range of 250km to deal with enemy force multipliers like AWACS, or JSTARs, or even troop transports or tankers that might stray into your airspace.
    Having 4 large missiles means the launcher they are in can fit only 40 small missiles, and the other two redut launchers with 56 small missiles each would result in a load of 56 + 56 + 40 small missiles, or 152 small missiles plus 4 big missiles or a total load of 156 missiles. Of course the Pantsir-S1 systems each have 32 more missiles each, so 6 systems would be 196 missiles more, plus 12 guns.

    PS
    I'm a bulgarian teenager and and unlike most people in my country I'm a supporter of russia and I'm very interested and respect russian weapons and dont view russian political policy as "evil" and "occupational". I also dont view NATO as the good guy. Unlike most people my age(and very often above my age) I dont go trolling and insulting anyone who points out an advantage in russian weapons and I get annoyed when I see someone do.

    I am very much the same... except I am not Bulgarian of course. I had one Bulgarian lecturer at University, and quite enjoyed his lectures on artifical intelligence. Didn't hurt that his daughter was also doing the course and was stunning... if I was 10 years younger I would have asked her out. Embarassed

    I've always wanted to see the truth about russian military and weapons without western propaganda and russian advertisements getting in the way. I've wanted to have the most complete info about future plans and developments of the russian MIC and here some experts which are not available in other sites.

    Often beliefs that Russia and Soviet equipment is rubbish is based on ignorance or misinformation. Other times the real problem is that it was being used for something it was never designed for in the first place. A good example would be the T-72. Fine for Iraq to invade Kuwaite with, or Iran. Not so good for taking on the US and most of the rest of the world on a flat open desert without air superiority.
    Another example is the AK-47. Derided in the west as being inaccurate, yet it is effective enough in combat. In fact combat statistics seem to show that most soldiers can reliably hit targets out to about 75 metres most of the time and that at ranges beyond 200m the number of hits on target is actually rather low, yet the west demands sniper level accuracy out to 400m or more... ranges at which the 5.56mm round is not even effective.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:50 am

    Of course now that I think about it the new AESA radar being developed for the Ka-52 for use on the Mistrals would give that aircraft excellent air to air and air to surface capabilities, and as such the Mistral based Hokums should be able to carry and effectively use AAMs. Of course lack of speed or altitude would seriously reduce the performance of these missiles in combat, but against other helicopters and maritime patrol aircraft such weapons would be quite potent.

    As radar pickets however I would expect target data it could transmit back to the ship should allow a helo to fly at altitudes of 4-5Km up and scan and track incoming threats or targets that could be engaged by ship based missiles or helo based AAMs.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:54 am

    [quote="GarryB"][quote]Regarding UKSK launchers in carriers... they have space for them, but most of the vessels they will be operating with will also have them too, so I rather doubt there will be any shortage.
    [quote]
    Good enough is the enemy of better...

    What bad would do a few more onyx or klubs in a russian naval group? After all most ships the russians might fight against have a very large amount of SMs that could easily(in my knowledge) shoot any russian SSM out of the sky so it wouldnt hurt to have a few more AshMs for saturation or self defence.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:11 pm

    Well I agree, but it becomes a problem when making your vessels carry everything and being too multi role makes them less useful in their primary roles.

    For instance if they had to reduce the number of helos to 12 to make room for the UKSK launchers, then I would say it was a problem, because the Mistral class is a helicopter carrier and its job is to bring helos and landing forces to where they are needed. The more helos it can carry, the more capable it will be as a helicopter carrier.

    Having said that any ship that can't defend itself is a problem... even when it is surrounded by other ships it still needs to be able to protect itself, and the information I have read suggests that it will be much better protected than the french models, which pretty much have MANPADS launchers and 50 cal HMG positions. Even just fitting 6-8 Pantsir-S1 turrets would be an enormous step upwards in firepower and self protection capability with each Pantsir-S1 system having a turret with Thermal and digital optics and MMW radar and CM wave radar plus two 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns and 8 ready to launch two stage hypersonic missiles that can engage targets from 2m above the water to 15km up in the air from about 1.5km from the ship out to about 18-20km from the ship, plus each turret has a below deck reloading system with a further 24 missiles per mount. Fitting 6-8 of these on a large Russian vessel is standard but extremely extravagant on a western vessel where even large vessels might get 4 Phalanx systems in comparison.

    To be clear I think the addition of Pantsir-S1 and Redut (the vertical SAM launcher system) will take up a lot of extra space, and they might mount a couple of Duet systems which are cheap and simple and don't take up a lot of space but combine two more 30mm gatling guns. Adding one UKSK system for up to 8 missiles for land attack or anti ship or anti sub use will likely be all they can fit and all they should fit as it will give anti sub protection, which would mean there is less need for an ASW helicopter to be carried for that purpose.

    In 5 years time when all these carriers are operational the Mach 6-8 Brahmos II/Onyx II should be operational, as will the new hypersonic missile (Zirconium)? they are also working on.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:51 pm

    I think the kashtan or palma is much better than the pantsir for mistral...

    Yak-44 is too big for a kuznetsov sized carrier. A small radar carrying drone wouldtake up less space and would be stealthier.

    I think antiship capability on almost all ships just is mandatory as AT capability is for almost any land combat unit.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:28 am

    I think the kashtan or palma is much better than the pantsir for mistral...

    The Palma is the cheap and low cost alternative to Kashtan... it has two 30mm gatling guns and 8 missiles ready to launch, but its sensors are EO and thermal only.

    The Kashtan has EO and thermal plus MMW radar and CM wave radar and it has below deck magazines for a further 24 missiles (total-32), plus it has two 30mm gatling guns.

    The Palma has longer barrel guns than Kashtan, but Kashtan-M has the same longer barrel gun and improved systems and electronics to speed up and improve accuracy of the laying and stabilisation systems.

    The Pantsir-S1 in its naval model is the replacement for the Kashtan-M and differs mainly because it has missiles that reach twice as far (18-20km) and much higher (15km vs 5km) and can engage targets flying lower (2m above the water vs 5m above the water).

    Note the naval Pantsir-S1 uses two long barrelled 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns the same as Kashtan-M and Palma.

    Yak-44 is too big for a kuznetsov sized carrier. A small radar carrying drone wouldtake up less space and would be stealthier.

    Would take up less space and be stealthier are the two worst reasons to pick an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier.

    Right now they have no AWACS fixed wing aircraft on the K and you can't get much stealthier or compact than that... Smile

    Stealthier is not a consideration for an AWACS aircraft, as it will spend much of its time transmitting radar signals to find targets.

    Big means big antenna (long vision) and long endurance (more fuel).

    The whole purpose of a catapult system is to allow heavier aircraft that would otherwise be too big for the vessel to operate safely.

    I think antiship capability on almost all ships just is mandatory as AT capability is for almost any land combat unit.

    I agree, but an aircraft carrier generally relies on its air power to provide that anti ship capability... its purpose is in its name... it is a carrier of aircraft. I agree it needs to defend itself so it needs lots of SAMs and AD systems...

    I would probably go with one UKSK launcher each carrier, but most of the time I would load a mix of anti sub missiles, land attack, and anti ship weapons.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:25 pm


    Yes 1 or 2 UKSKs will not entirely make the carrier a worthless burden in case all its aircraft get shot down.

    And here is my idea for a layout of the new russian battlecruiser:
    A 45000 ton vessel with a kirov type hull modified to emit less wake. And covered with RAM of course.

    The superstructure would be near the center of the hull(a nearer to the stern) unlike the back mounted kirov. With RCS reducing design and RAM coating.

    In the same approximate position where the granits were placed in the Kirov there would be 25 heavy warhead long range high supersonic stealth(the adjectives just keep coming) AshM, a succesor of the granit. My personal designation for it would be P-900 Opal Cool

    Very near the AshM launchers there would be a naval S-500 launcher carrying almost 100 SAMs.

    For secondary surface to surface weaponry there would be 8 UKSKs- 4 near the stern, 2near the bow and the last 2 somewhere on the aft superstructure area. The default laod for them would be land attack and ASW clubs.

    There would be multiple vityaz casettes in around the ship.

    For CIWS the same layout as the kirov- 4 naval pantsirs on each side.

    For artillery the ship would have 3 naval koalitsiya turrets- 1 fore and 2 aft

    And in the stern a small hangar carrying 3 helos

    Thats all the equipment my battlecruiser design would have

    plus all the latest available sensor and jamming systems ...

    What do you think of my proposed layout?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  TR1 on Tue Aug 14, 2012 12:16 am

    I think it would be a scary beast that has zero chance of ever being built Very Happy

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:30 am

    Yes 1 or 2 UKSKs will not entirely make the carrier a worthless burden in case all its aircraft get shot down.

    No carrier would have all its aircraft shot down... after it lost a few it would be used more defensively and withdrawn to a more defensive position.

    Used properly a carrier compliments the air defence of the group... much the same as an airforce protects an army, except this airforce has a mobile airfield.

    In the same approximate position where the granits were placed in the Kirov there would be 25 heavy warhead long range high supersonic stealth(the adjectives just keep coming) AshM, a succesor of the granit. My personal designation for it would be P-900 Opal

    Intersting... but can I suggest that instead of 25 dedicated launchers that you adapt the Brahmos II to the UKSK launcher. A converted Kirov class vessel can be adapted to 10 UKSK launchers, which means 80 hypersonic long range anti ship missiles.

    Very near the AshM launchers there would be a naval S-500 launcher carrying almost 100 SAMs.

    S-500 will be optimised for ABM use... that is a lot of missiles considering there are no known effective ballistic anti ship missiles.

    I would recommend perhaps carrying 10 missiles so the vessel can protect a port or small country, or could be positioned in the path of a BM attack.

    For secondary surface to surface weaponry there would be 8 UKSKs- 4 near the stern, 2near the bow and the last 2 somewhere on the aft superstructure area. The default laod for them would be land attack and ASW clubs.

    Upgraded Kirovs are to be fitted with 10 UKSK launchers so I would expect a 45K ton vessel to take at least 3 times that number.

    There would be multiple vityaz casettes in around the ship.

    Naval Vityaz equivalents are called Redut.

    For CIWS the same layout as the kirov- 4 naval pantsirs on each side.

    I would take the 8 Pantsirs and add Morfei in vertical launch tubes, and probably half a dozen Duet mounts as well.

    For artillery the ship would have 3 naval koalitsiya turrets- 1 fore and 2 aft

    Actually I would put Coalition on my destroyers... this is a cruiser and I would put 203mm guns on it.

    What do you think of my proposed layout?

    I like it, except for the comments above.

    I think the idea of standardisation is excellent and I would strive to have all the cruise missiles in UKSK launchers... simply because that means more flexibility. If the naval S-500 fitted in a UKSK launcher then instead of its own dedicated S-500 launcher you could have S-500 missiles sprinkled around your ship with the spying enemy not knowing how many you are carrying or even if you are carrying.

    With the SAMs having them all loaded into the Redut system is a similar advantage for all the same reasons, though it would need to be designed so that it can either carry the largest missiles, or increasing numbers of smaller missiles. ie the standard S-300 full sized missile is the biggest missile size it would take and it would take one per tube. The small S-400 missiles fit four to a tube. You would need to make sure that Morfei, which is a small IIR guided missile could be packed into two layers in the tube so perhaps 6 missiles per layer and two layers per tube means that one tube = 1 S-300 = 4 x S-400 small missiles = 12 Morfei missiles.

    This means that depending on the mission the weapon load can be very much adapted to what is needed without needing different launchers for different weapons with different performances.

    BTW I agree with TR-1... cool but even the US couldn't afford it.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:01 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]
    BTW I agree with TR-1... cool but even the US couldn't afford it.


    I wouldnt be surprised if the US would replace half its nimitz class carriers with gerald ford ones and build 20 more zumwalt class destroyers by 2020.

    Even UK with all its budget cuts will build 2 queen elizabeth supercarriers plus 6 type 45 destroyers so why cant russia whose economy is on the rise build 1 or 2 new battlecruisers?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  TR1 on Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:34 pm

    The UK can barely afford one Queen Elizabeth, the other isn't going to be in service, the only reason they are completing it is to avoid cancellation fees.

    20 more Zumwalt is impossible, the class has been capped at a far lower number.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15490
    Points : 16197
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:42 am

    Even UK with all its budget cuts will build 2 queen elizabeth supercarriers plus 6 type 45 destroyers so why cant russia whose economy is on the rise build 1 or 2 new battlecruisers?

    The UK will most likely build one QE carrier... and by no means would I call it a super carrier... it is no 100K ton Nimitz class vessel.

    Most likely they will try to convince France to share their carrier program so they can get around the problems of just having one operational carrier.

    In other words they will make an agreement with France to ensure that they both don't have their carriers in overhaul at the same time so if one or both countries need a carrier capability that one or the other carrier will be available for use.

    Russia is in the middle of a rebuilding phase to reconstruct its Army, Navy, Air Force, and Aerospace Defence forces.

    The question they will ask is, is this something that is truly necessary right now or are there more important things to spend money on.

    Will two super cruisers make them safer or will it just cost a lot of money.

    Right now I would suggest it is the latter.

    They have Two Kirovs they can upgrade and overhaul, they have 3-4 Slava class cruisers that can be given a similar upgrade using the same propulsion and sensor and weapon changes so that the future Russian fleet has standard propulsion and sensors and weapons so it is not a nightmare to operate and support, and it also means that suppliers of the equipment and weapons and systems can concentrate on core products instead of a different radar for each ship class and no two sets the same.

    This will improve the performance of the Navy and also reduce costs and the military industrial complex that supports the navy can be consolidated down to fewer companies that will support a larger number of ships.

    The old Russian/Soviet Navy had dedicated missiles with dedicated launchers, so a Sovremmeny class destroyer had 8 launch tubes for 8 SS-N-22 sunburn missiles which would have been very effective enemy ship killers, but no land attack capability or anti sub capability. To get protection from Subs they had to carry torpedo tubes and depth charge launcher rockets.

    The old Krivak class frigate had a 4 tube launcher for SS-N-14 Silex missiles that dropped a guided torpedo in the water after flying subsonically to the target area.

    The new frigates they are building have two UKSK launchers that could be filled with up to 16 Oniks supersonic anti ship missiles with a range of 5 times the SS-N-22 or more. Or it could carry 16 Klub missiles that deliver guided torpedoes to attack subs out to twice the range of the SS-N-14.

    A frigate with 4 times the fire power of an old frigate, or twice the fire power of an old missile destroyer.

    More importantly this new frigate is a multi purpose vessel whose role can be decided at port when its tubes are loaded... it can be an anti ship destroyer or an anti sub destroyer... or it could have 8 of each type of missile and be both. More importantly it can add land attack cruise missiles with 2,500km range and have a capability no previous Russian destroyer or frigate ever had. Just as important, there is now one launcher type (UKSK) and a family of related missiles made by one company instead of several different missiles with different launchers for the same job. Oniks and Brahmos can replace Granit, SS-N-22, Vulkan, and SS-N-12 on ships and submarines.

    The point is reduced costs, reduced maintainence problems... which is critical for Russia because with its 5 fleets it can be an issue when all of one class of ship is located in one port and visits another port only to find there is no support equipment compatible with the system that is faulty and needs attention.

    It is like a Mig-29 landing at an airfield that operates Su-27s only. Very similar looking aircraft but zero parts compatibility, so if it needs some attention in its engines you have to either take it apart and truck it to the nearest Mig-29 airfield or truck or fly in some parts and an engineer to sort it out... a pain in peacetime... potentially a real headache in wartime.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 991
    Points : 1144
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:12 pm

    What about the US navy's gerald ford class?


    I agree than starting to build a new battlecruiser now is impossible but what about 5-7 years from now?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  TR1 on Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:11 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:What about the US navy's gerald ford class?


    I agree than starting to build a new battlecruiser now is impossible but what about 5-7 years from now?

    5-7 years from now if anything the construction of destroyer or small cruiser sized ships will be critical, as the retirement of 1155s and 956s gets closer. They floated a date of 2016 for the new destroyers, which seem to be cruiser sized anyways. I find it highly unlikely so soon after that a massive battle cruiser will be planned - if ever in our lifetimes, even in days of big bad USSR the big cruisers were highly controversial.

    So, your battlecruiser thirst will only be quenched by refitted Nakhimov this decade, which is still a more impressive cruiser than anyone has around, so all good Very Happy.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russia should build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 3:40 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:40 pm