Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share

    Klingsor

    Posts : 6
    Points : 6
    Join date : 2011-06-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Klingsor on Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:33 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Moscow set to upgrade Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier

    The Fleet Admiral of the Soviet Union Kuznetsov, currently the only aircraft carrier serving as the flagship of the Russian Navy, will be upgraded, the media reported, quoting Navy sources. The aircraft carrier, due to enter a dry dock in 2012, will be re-launched in 2017.

    Originally laid as the Leonid Brezhnev in 1982, launched as the Riga in 1985 and renamed as the Tbilisi in 1987, the warship received her current name in 1990. Western analysts call her a ship of a thousand names.

    The Admiral Kuznetsov entered service with the Russian Navy in 1991 and was used for the operation of deck aircraft, the development of new tactics, including those for dealing with carriers of theoretical enemies.

    In the late 1990s and the early 2000s, it was repeatedly proposed that the Admiral Kuznetsov, which remained moored for long time periods, be decommissioned and sold for scrap.

    However, an improved situation in the country gave the ship a new lease of life. Her propulsion unit and other equipment were repaired, and she started taking part in various high seas war games more often.

    In the mid-2000s, Navy representatives and Russian political leaders once again started speaking of the need to build aircraft carriers for the Navy. Moscow decided to preserve the Admiral Kuznetsov, used to train deck aircraft pilots.

    The upcoming large-scale modernization was motivated by the need to eliminate the ship's inherent drawbacks and to repair some of her units. Plans for docking the ship in 2010-2012 were discussed more frequently and have now been confirmed.

    Although it is hard to assess the revamped carrier's specifications, her future appearance can be predicted on the basis of available reports.

    First of all, the defective propulsion unit comprising steam turbines and turbo-pressurized boilers will be replaced either with a gas-turbine or nuclear propulsion unit.

    The ship's 3M45 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship cruise-missile launchers will be dismantled, and her internal layout changed. Consequently, the hangar area will be expanded to 4,500-5,000 sq. m. for storing additional fixed-wing aircraft.

    The Admiral Kuznetsov's air defenses will be strengthened by replacing 3K95 Kinzhal (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) missiles with a multi-role naval system featuring 80-120 new-generation and medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).

    Moreover, 4-6 Pantsir-S1 (SA-22 Greyhound) combined short to medium-range SAM and anti-aircraft artillery weapons systems will be installed.

    The new weapons systems will feature state-of-the-art radio-electronic equipment, probably including the standard Sigma combat information and control system, due to be installed on all new generation Russian warships. The system facilitates unprecedentedly effective cooperation between task force elements.

    The carrier will also receive aircraft catapults, a logical option. Considering the fact that her ski-jump will remain intact, one or two catapults can be located on the angled flight deck.

    A similar engineering solution was envisioned for the incomplete Ulyanovsk super-carrier, whose keel was laid down in 1988, but the project was cancelled when it was 40% complete along with a sister ship in 1991 after the end of the Cold War.

    By that time, the Soviet Union had developed steam catapults and tested an experimental version at the ground-based NITKA training facility incorporating a ski-jump and deck arrestor. Consequently, this task is feasible.

    The choice of catapults is linked with the choice of the ship's propulsion unit. Steam catapults require a nuclear propulsion unit, while a gas turbine propulsion unit leaves no choice but electromagnetic catapults. Moscow will either have to develop such catapults independently or buy them abroad, or ... copy them illegally.

    The carrier's air wing is to comprise 26 new Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29K Fulcrum-D multi-role fighter aircraft, helicopters and navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (Future Frontline Aircraft System) fifth-generation fighters, currently under development. It appears that 15-20 of these aircraft will be built pending the ship's re-launching, which is likely to take place in 2020 rather than 2017.

    The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.



    MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik)

    source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20100406/158454665.html

    No point in bothering with steam cats... Old technology.

    EM cats offer lots of benefits including technology that could be used to launch dumb bombs at enormous speeds as mentioned above by Pervius.

    Would need specially designed bombs like the special high temperature resistant FAB bombs used with the Mig-25RB strike aircraft that allowed Mach 2.85 speed bombing with FAB-1500 bombs.

    The technology could also be applied to other EM guns including potential new tank guns.

    One of the main problems with conventional tank main guns is the size of the rounds needed. An EM gun able to fire solid rod penetrators at 4-5km per second would be a huge breakthrough in gun design and would allow drastic reductions in calibre and ammo size. An added bonus would be no propellent would be needed any more which makes the vehicle much more survivable too.

    Such a weapon could take tank armament back to pre WWII stages where tank guns for anti armour use were in the 37-50mm calibre range and relied on velocity of effect, while against softer targets or area targets a machine gun or heavy low velocity gun was needed for HE shell power.

    One could imagine a BMP-3 like armament arrangement except perhaps instead of a 30mm cannon perhaps a 45-57mm EM gun firing 2kg penetrators at 5km/s for anti armour use and a 100mm gun for its HE power effect on area or soft targets.

    Nuclear propulsion makes sense for the Kuznetsov upgrade as it frees up space and reduces the logistics train for the carrier... it will just need to carry aviation fuel and air ordinance. Especially when it is making even its destroyers nukes too.

    Nuclear propulsion should provide plenty of electricity for an EM cat. Hopefully the vessel will be electric drive rather than steam generated from the nuke reactor.

    Electric means propulsion pods can be fitted front and or aft and greatly improve manouver performance. They also allow gearless infinite step motors with no transmission elements needed.

    Don't know about the catapults, because if they install just one, exclusively for the "heavy" AEW/cargo aircraft, I don't think the
    expense of developing EM cat's is justified. Besides that would require a far less complex steam circuit than the 4 cat's of Nimitz
    carriers.

    Totaly in agreement with you on Nuclear propulsion, but disagree on electric drive: not worth the much extensive modification to the
    design it requires. It would be back to hydrodynamics studies and scale models again.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:21 am


    Don't know about the catapults, because if they install just one, exclusively for the "heavy" AEW/cargo aircraft, I don't think the
    expense of developing EM cat's is justified. Besides that would require a far less complex steam circuit than the 4 cat's of Nimitz
    carriers.

    Steam cats would take years to perfect and implement properly and even then they require lots of high pressure, high temperature steam pipes through your ship.
    They are not variable... you look at the plane and its weapon load and its fuel load and you set the cat to a specific pressure. Some ordinance or loadouts will require special settings to prevent damage or to ensure the aircraft gets airborne.
    After you push the go button there is nothing you can do to change it.

    With an EM system it will all be computer controlled and you would set the aircraft type and let the system do the rest. During the aircraft acceleration it can detect how it is accelerating and if it is too slow it can add more power to make sure the plane gets airborne without ripping its undercarriage off in the process.

    It needs lots of power, but there is plenty of electrical power in a nuke.

    The technology of an EM catapult is well worth the investment because EM guns also have potential for very long range very high velocity weapons.
    Steam technology is not much use for anything else and is pretty much a dead end.

    Very simply the Russian military has already said it doesn't want to buy old stuff and old technology.
    If they were making a new rifle would they start by designing a matchlock musket and then when they have made the best matchlock musket in the world move up to a flintlock rifle?

    The advantage of cats is getting heavier aircraft on board, and getting heavier aircraft on board. Ironically after the Kuznetsov comes out of refit... supposed to be 2017, but likely to be 2020 by the time she has fitted out and is back in service the planes landing on her decks will likely be T-50 variants with relatively light payload and fuel weights and high thrust that really will not need cats.
    The aircraft on board that will need cats with either be AWACs, Inflight refuelling, or Strike/bomber aircraft.
    I would think the Russians will prefer cruise missiles for strike and attack missions, but AWACS and IFR aircraft would greatly improve the performance of the carrier by extending the vision and reach of the aircraft on board... that is the whole point of air power at sea and these assets would make it even better in that role.

    Regarding electric drive it has an enormous range of advantages... the primary advantage is that the nuclear reactors are no longer limited as to where they can be positioned. Instead of sticking them near the rear of the ship in line with the shafts to the props you can move them to the centre of the ship and replace a lot of wasted dead weight (ie ballast) that is used to balance the ship in the water. The nuclear power plant will have lots of failsafe features like auto shutdown in case something goes wrong so a torpedo detonating directly under it (to create a huge air bubble under the ship that breaks the ships back and sinks it) is always going to sink the ship anyway if it is powerful enough to lift the whole ship out of the water... or at least that section. By putting lots of weight there and not behind it where the reactor normally goes there is a small chance the air bubble might not lift the ship high enough to do enough structural damage to sink the ship.

    Either way by going for electric propulsion you can get rid of the enormous shafts and most of the gearing and replace the rear mounted fixed propellers with pod mounted propulsion units that can be turned to give amazing manoeuvre capability.

    Again, for ships this is new technology and has already been applied to Russian Icebreakers.

    It makes the ship design much more modular and easier to put together and in the water it means no more tug support required and the ability to move in tight areas you would never take another carrier into.

    It has interesting connotations in regard to wake homing torpedoes as the vessel can sail forward and then stop then accelerate sideways for a bit and then accelerate backwards... in effect sailing back past the incoming wake homing torpedo. What will it do when the wake turns 90 degrees? And then 90 degrees again?


    I think electric drive will be useful and will also result in large capacitor bank technology being improved... which will also be needed for EM cats... and EM guns.

    Even in their tanks they are looking at electric drive hybrids... it is the way forward.

    (It is also rather quiet and is already used in diesel electric subs so it is hardly brand new except for use on ships.)
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  runaway on Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:57 pm

    Russian Navy Command made a decision to shape aircraft carrier groups which are to expand presence zone of Russian Navy in the Pacific and the North Atlantic, writes Izvestiya referring to a source in Russian Navy Main HQ. Final decision whether to build aircraft carriers is upon the President of Russia, but currently it is expected that Russian Navy would receive two carrier groups by 2027 – one at Pacific Fleet, another at the Northern one.

    At present, Russian military works on technical specifications for perspective aircraft carrier. According to preliminary estimates, the ship will be nuclear-powered with a view to economy diesel fuel. As is planned, the carrier's project will be completed in 2017 and launched in 2023. To reduce costs, the ship will be built under modular principle at two shipyards of United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) with final assembly at Sevmash (Severodvinsk).

    By the time the first aircraft carrier is launched, the Navy must complete shaping of escort group. Expectedly, it will consist of missile cruisers, destroyers, attack submarines, frigates, corvettes, landing ships and supply vessels. Totally, each carrier group will comprise 15 ships except carriers. Presently, USC constructs new frigates and corvettes, designs destroyer project and plans to retrofit mothballed missile cruisers.

    Apart from shaping of aircraft carrier groups, Russian Navy will have to construct new bases and a ground-based shipborne aircraft simulator in Yeisk, Krasnodar region.

    President of USC Roman Trotsenko said in mid Oct 2011 that the company was developing specifications for the new carrier, and final decision would be made in 2017. Supposedly, the aircraft carrier would be laid down in 2018 and launched in five years. Earlier on, Russian defense minister Anatoly Serdiukov repeatedly stated that the ministry had no plans to lay a carrier's keel in the long prospect. Russian vice premier Sergei Ivanov also said construction of an aircraft carrier was not provided by State Arms Program 2011-2020.


    Sounds logical with 2 carriergroups. And very potent ones with Mistrals, Kirovs! But they should really build at least 3 carriers, to be able to have 2 operationable at one time, as we have discussed earlier.

    But first, 5 boring years with no carrier, as the K is at overhaul.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:05 pm

    It is going to be a long wait, but hopefully the Navy uses this time to get itself sorted out regarding new weapons and systems for their new vessels.

    Have heard Poliment needs a little more work... have heard that even the K is getting up to 120 VLS tubes for Redut missiles.

    (note for those who have trouble keeping track Poliment is the naval version of the SA-20... which are the 40km and 120km range S-400 missiles that fit in packs of four for each full sized S-300/-400 missile.
    The missiles are called Redut, but the whole system including the AESA antennas are called Poliment AFAIK.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 106
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  ali.a.r on Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:42 am

    I was doing a bit of research into the Russian navy. I found an interesting idea put forward by a former navy man. He was proposing a refined version of the reforms and procurement which is currently underway. It was a really long article, but I'll try to give the gist of it. He wanted to commission one Mistral each for the Black sea fleet and the Baltic fleet, while the second two (which are to be built in Russia) would be commissioned to the Pacific Fleet. The Kuznetsov would be with the Northern Fleet. In time, he also wanted for two or three new heavy carriers (revamped modern versions of the Ulyanovsk class), to be built to supplement and eventually replace the Kuznetsov. He reckoned that this would create a new carrier force, instead of recreating an old force.
    What are your opinions on this?
    Neutral
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:54 am

    He wanted to commission one Mistral each for the Black sea fleet and the Baltic fleet,

    The Mistrals are too big for the Black and Baltic seas... they would serve no purpose in either area except antagonise the locals.

    Any further problems with Georgia can easily be dealt with using the forces moved into the region after the conflict... instead of facing lightly armed paratroopers, they now face much much better armed paratroopers who likely want revenge for what Georgia did to their comrades... and there will be plenty of volunteers in North Ossetia and Chechnia and Dagestan to go back in and deal with Saakashvili if the need or opportunity ever came up again.


    while the second two (which are to be built in Russia) would be commissioned to the Pacific Fleet.

    The French made vessels could be fitted with all sorts of sneaky stuff like hidden kill switches or beacons that are remotely activated... it makes sense to base them as far away from France as possible.

    There are only two places a Mistral class carrier would be of use to the Russian navy and that is in the Pacific fleet to protect the Kurile islands and also operate in the Pacific in the smaller islands to help locals by providing access to its state of the art medical facilities during peace time, and aide during a disaster with helicopters and trucks to deliver aide and perform rescues.
    The other place is the Northern Fleet to protect the potential oil resources on the Russian north shelf.

    The Kuznetsov would be with the Northern Fleet. In time, he also wanted for two or three new heavy carriers (revamped modern versions of the Ulyanovsk class), to be built to supplement and eventually replace the Kuznetsov. He reckoned that this would create a new carrier force, instead of recreating an old force.

    By rebuilding the Ulyanovsk class carriers are you not recreating an old force?

    The new carriers don't need to look anything like US or western carriers and could be fairly exotic in design.

    A double hull vessel would allow massive internal space without being too long and with two flattops could allow continuous take off and landing operations from each deck for example.

    ali.a.r

    Posts : 106
    Points : 111
    Join date : 2011-11-04

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  ali.a.r on Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:52 am

    So, I guess that the current plan is good in your opinion. Have any designs for future carriers been finalised yet?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 08, 2011 5:04 am

    Well the current plan is for no actual new aircraft carriers in service till the end of the 2020s... 2027-2030, and I think that is perfectly sensible.

    To make them right now would be silly as there are no support vessels in service or planned that could properly support their operations, and the base facilities and infrastructure needs a lot of work too.

    Not to mention that international basing would be required too so a base in Cuba and a base in Vietnam and Venezuela would make them more capable because it would greatly shorten support and supply lines.

    The Mistrals should be relatively cheap to operate, and from what I have read they are talking about up to 120 missiles, which I assume will be Redut/Vityaz which are the smaller S-400 missiles with 40km and 120km ranges respectively... being vertical launch systems they wont take up too much space.

    They also mention 2 to 4 naval Pantsir-S1 systems, so these wont be defenceless helicopter barges.

    I doubt anything will be shown that is serious before 2017 when they want to look at competing plans.

    There will likely be fantastic designs from all sorts of arts students but I think the Russian Navy will be relatively conservative and the ships wont look too different from the sorts of vessels the British and French are building.

    I doubt they will be identical as they will likely not have a strike role... for that mission the Russians will likely prefer Klub cruise missiles.

    The opportunity to give their naval forces full air support of course will just make them more effective.

    Lots of money is being spent on the Navy... not choosing to have carriers is like choosing not to have insurance... sure you save a bit of money... but when you need it...

    Air power doesn't make your navy invincible but not having air power would make you easy meat for even modestly equipped countries.

    Lets just say the British attempt to recover the Falklands came close to failure.
    If the Argentines had struck 10 years earlier and the Brits had fixed wing carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers the British would likely not have lost so many ships.
    If the Argentines had struck 5 years later than they did in the late 1980s then the British might not have had any carriers at all and without carriers those Argentine pilots would have decimated the British fleet if it had even been sent.

    With a carrier the British had a choice... without one... well it is like Russia and Kosovo or Russia and Libya... no carrier and they got to speak but few listened.

    You could argue that in Georgia the US were impotent too despite having more carriers than the Russians will ever likely have, but I would suggest if US ties to Georgia were more than oil pipelines like Russias relationship with Serbia was they might have done rather more than they did.

    The fact that GPS was turned off in the Georgian region clearly shows that the US knew exactly what was going on and also supported Georgian aggression... but they didn't go much further than that.

    I wouldn't give them those Humvees back either... Twisted Evil
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:52 am

    http://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201201272258-iux0.htm#
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:22 pm

    What type of aircraft do u suggest for future carriers?

    Interceptor role:
    Fighter attack role:

    The US are F/A-18E/F and F-35C (replacing F/A-18)
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  runaway on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:18 pm

    George1 wrote:What type of aircraft do u suggest for future carriers?

    Interceptor role:
    Fighter attack role:

    The US are F/A-18E/F and F-35C (replacing F/A-18)

    The answer is obvious:

    Interceptor role: PAK-FA
    Fighter attack role: MiG-29k

    However, as the new carriers are a long way off, the MiG-29k is certainly outdated by then, but this armament of aircraft´s will equip Kuznetsov after the refit.

    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 5709
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm

    Well, Superhornet, Rafale, J-15, Tejas will all be active naval aircraft by then, and MiG-29K can certainly hang with them, so I don't think it will be badly dated.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:51 pm

    PAK-FA i think it is too large for carriers
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:53 pm

    PAK FA is too big for smaller carriers like the new carrier for India, but for the Kuznetsov that currently operates the Su-33 the PAK FA is slightly smaller than the Su-33 so should be fine.

    Of course the Mig-29K of today will be obsolete in 2025, but by 2025 it will be upgraded with all sorts of new stuff that will make it competitive.

    Wort case scenario there is no reason why the PAK FA can't be both fighter and attack aircraft on a carrier.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:26 pm

    The contract design of Russian navy’s new carrier will be developed by 2014

    The contract design of Russian navy’s new carrier will be developed by 2014 and the ship will be constructed after 2020, Lenta.ru reports with reference to Vladimir Visotskiy, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian navy.

    According to him, the new ship will not be like a traditional carrier. "It will be one step ahead. The ship must perform its mission in any environment", - Visotsky explained.

    The advanced carriers perform their duties in only two types of environment – “air and, at best, the lower space orbit group". "But we intend to go further – there is space, there is an underbody, there is an upperworks with uncontrolled and controlled vehicles. That is to say we intend to make an integrated carrier, which would be able to perform its mission in almost any environment", - Visotsky said, noting that the main emphasis will be put on aerospace element, able to provide the sea supremacy.

    The late launch of ship’s construction is connected with the necessity of careful elaboration of its project, Visotsky explained. If we start the construction today, we will have an upgraded “Admiral Kuznetsov” or degraded” Enterprise” or “Minsk” and “Kiev”. "That is what they have to offer today. But we need to make a quantum leap", - Visotsky said.

    The existence of plans for construction of the carrier has been confirmed for the first time by Anatoly Serdukov, Russian Minister of Defense, in mid-November 2011. According to him, the Ministry of Defense has ordered the elaboration of avant-project by United Shipbuilding Corporation. However, the financing of the carrier’s construction is not assumed by the State program in the area of arms for 2011-2020. As expected, the elaboration of ship’s avant-project will be completed in 2012.

    At present Russian navy operate only one carrier – aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser “Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov”. The ship was built in 1985 in the network of 1143.5 "Krechet" project and put into operation in 1991. 12 ka-27 helicopters and 33 Su-33 fighters form the carrier’s air grouping. It has been reported earlier that the modernization of the cruiser will be started this year and it will be completed in 2017.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 3:19 am

    http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_11_26/Russia-is-developing-a-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carrier/

    Russia is developing a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier

    For the past two years Russia has been designing a prospective heavy nuclear-powered aircraft carrying cruiser, which should become one of the most important elementsof the country’s national security at sea, a source in the Military-Industrial Commission under the government of the Russian Federation informed journalists today.

    "The Russian Navy needs an airborne cruiser, which would be dozens of years ahead of his time, and not just an analogue of modern aircraft carriers existing in the United States or other countries," he noted.

    "The main requirement for this ship is its ability to act in all environments: space, air, water, land and underwater", the source emphasized.

    Voice of Russia, TASS
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:05 am

    Good.

    To those that ask why Russia needs a carrier, I would ask why Russia needs an Air Force.

    An Army can fight without air support, just like a Navy can operate without carriers, but the Army becomes much more effective when it has air cover because the Intel alone, not to mention the strike capability multiplies the effectiveness of the land or sea based force by many times, while at the same time denying the enemy air component the opportunity to do the same to their sea and land forces.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:20 am

    How many they need in numbers? 4? or more?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:28 am

    I would think 3-4 would be enough, though if they can be made cheaply and efficiently perhaps 6 might be ideal.

    Normally if you want to guaranteed have one carrier available all the time then you need three... one fully operational, one in training, but ready if needed, and one in overhaul/upgrade.

    That means in an emergency you might be able to have two carriers available for an incident.

    4 would mean two in the Pacific Fleet and two in the Northern Fleet.

    With a Mistral carrier assigned to each carrier group that would result in pretty effective airpower and pretty good power projection capability.

    Of course the upgrade of the K should unify propulsion, weapons and sensors, so it can count as one as well.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    NickM

    Posts : 181
    Points : 128
    Join date : 2012-11-09
    Location : NYC,USA / Essex,UK

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  NickM on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:36 am

    The perfect aircraft carrier are the Elizabeth class carriers of the Royal Navy.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5681
    Points : 5709
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  TR1 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:41 am

    NickM wrote:The perfect aircraft carrier are the Elizabeth class carriers of the Royal Navy.

    What makes it better than the larger and more capable new American carriers?
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10373
    Points : 10844
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:25 am

    GarryB wrote:I would think 3-4 would be enough, though if they can be made cheaply and efficiently perhaps 6 might be ideal.

    Normally if you want to guaranteed have one carrier available all the time then you need three... one fully operational, one in training, but ready if needed, and one in overhaul/upgrade.

    That means in an emergency you might be able to have two carriers available for an incident.

    4 would mean two in the Pacific Fleet and two in the Northern Fleet.

    With a Mistral carrier assigned to each carrier group that would result in pretty effective airpower and pretty good power projection capability.

    Of course the upgrade of the K should unify propulsion, weapons and sensors, so it can count as one as well.

    I would say 4, and the 5th the kuznetsov for training.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 770
    Points : 947
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:20 pm



    The problems that the Navy find today with the selection of the cardinal technical requirements to include in the design of the new generation.... "aircraft carrier"..... are dictated almost entirely by the the enormous incertitude about the level of operations to assign to a similar asset two decades far from today.


    Aircraft Carriers are assets that cannot be renounced if you aim to expand military influence (mean of political and economic influence),but : areimmensely costly -requiring obviously also a big amount of corollary surface and submenrged units to operate - require more groups to obtain an effective expeditionary capability, need several years to achieve ,a among the crew, the professional "know-hows" to allow complex military operations to be conducted very far from friendly bases.


    Russia ,like URSS before, has obviously never aimed at achieve those offensive assets which find a place only in a strongly expansionist military doctrine ; moreover no other Nation at world is contemporaneously more aware than Russia that similar assets would represent nothing more than an immense, fearful waste of financiary resources in any conflict against a major enemies (for the near absolute impossibility to defend them ,in plain ocean, against the very sophisticated asymmetrical weapons that it had developed ,already since Cold War, to destroy them).


    Returning to the initial problem domestic strategists have argued that the enormous financiary resources for the realization of a 2030 and over "Carrier battle group" could be justified only commiting to them (through technical requirements very far from today aircraft carriers) a STRATEGIC ROLE, encompassing unique features capable to render the new "carriers" true mobile nodes and a C4 epicenters of the Russia Federation's future Air and Space Defense structure ; the final formulation of its requirements will, therefore, also wait the maturations and validation of some of the most important scientifical acquisitions (including also some true brekthroughs ) of some of the Institutes operating in the correlated fields.

    Capability to launch "aircraft", in the classic meaning of the term, will therefore NOT be its central and even less its defining feature.

    Of course a program with so a high degree of technical risks has also a commensurated probability to don't be even only initialized and ,in this optic, the extremely prudent behaviour adopted on the project is a wise position : it could allow to avoid to throw in a black hole hundreds of billions of rubles in the next decade SAP.



    Firebird

    Posts : 946
    Points : 978
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Firebird on Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:55 pm

    I'm trying to figure all this out. I understand the Ru Navy wants designs for super-ambitious carriers that can provide a base for fighter planes, UCAVS, reconnaissance planes, underwater vessels (unmanned and manned), and perhaps even satellite launches. Who knows, perhaps laser/ energy weapons too.

    What I can't figure out is that an 80 or 100 000 tonne carrier is usually jammed with a big flight deck and the support for planes. So how does it cater for all these other possible uses. Now I can understand that the Typhoon subs could be converted to become underwater vessel "motherships", but how will this super-advanced aircraft carrier work? Will it be a huge vessel? OR will it have a flight deck but a sparse number of planes? Or will there be VTOL planes instead of skijumps?

    OR, perhaps it will literally be a floating base? American once planned for a giant carrier which could have airliner sized planes landing on it. Ofcourse plans never realised. It was called a JMOB or joint mobile offshore base.

    Then the question is, will there be a major chain in military doctrine as a result? Will there be a closer alliance with India, or CIS members? A little puzzling, but also very fascinating.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16414
    Points : 17025
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:42 pm

    Lets be clear. Russia doesn't want or need a Nimitz carrier.

    The purpose of Russian carriers is not to allow them to do what the US Navy did in Serbia or Iraq or Afghanistan.

    The purpose of the new Russian carriers is to provide air cover for the other Russian Naval units it will be operating with.

    In other words it is like the Russian Army having Frontal Aviation as a component of it... it can use it as a recon asset to monitor and control the airspace above the Army. It wont be used for deep strikes etc... a deep strike would be much more easily performed via long range cruise missile.

    Regarding:

    "The main requirement for this ship is its ability to act in all environments: space, air, water, land and underwater", the source emphasized.

    I would suggest they don't mean their new carriers will be part of the new SEA LAUNCH system with proton rocket launch facilities at one end of the vessel... I rather suspect they mean like an extension to Sigma that allows the carrier to monitor enemy activity underwater, on water, on land, in the air and in the space above, and share that information with other platforms and get information from other platforms including subs, ships, aircraft, and of course satellites.

    They might mount a launcher for the naval S-500 for instance, but that would largely be to defend the carrier from ballistic missile threats.

    I would say 4, and the 5th the kuznetsov for training.

    Right now they don't really need any... they still have a lot of rebuilding of their navy and its infrastructure to do. In 10 years time it will be useful to have something in production, which means they have to start designing it now.

    If they were designing a new rifle they wouldn't start by learning how to make a matchlock musket, so I equally think any work on steam cats should be put aside and EM catapults should be the main focus. Both would be difficult and expensive to develop, but if you spend the money on steam cats you end up with a perfected obsolete technology, whereas EM technology can be applied to other areas like EM guns and indeed the work on super magnets can also be applied to more powerful electric motors too... which would also be very valuable for the Navy and the Russian military in general.

    4 carriers would be a useful number without being excessive, the focus will be on maximising the number of aircraft per vessel.


    _________________
    “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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:52 pm