Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 12, 2010 12:46 am

    Hopefully they use the extra time well and fully explore what their needs and wants in carriers are.
    The Russian Navy itself needs a lot of resurrection so that when it gets some carriers it will have a better idea of what it wants to do with them.

    There is supposed to be a huge upgrade of the Kuznetsov shortly that might help answer some of these questions and a lot of the changes and improvements applied could also be applied to upgraded older large ships.

    By 2020 Russia will know if it is at the forefront of new technology or if it is stuck in a time loop where 5 year plans keep failing and nothing really changes.

    Military development has often as much to do with fashion as anything else... for some companies a delta wing is what they do. For a while it was swing wings that solved all the problems. Now it is stealth. In 20 years time the aircraft carrier we know today might have been replaced with aerostats at 40,000m as AEW and AWACS roles and UCAVs that can be stacked up in boxes on ships that look more like container ships with a top flat deck where land and sea targets are attacked by cruise missiles with multiple warheads that can be dropped on targets as it overflys them and for the last target it uses the built in warhead to crash into the target. For air targets it can do much the same with internally carried AAMs or wing mounted AAMs with the last target chased down and rammed.

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Dec 12, 2010 5:06 am

    Peter the Great has already been modernised. They know how to upgrade Kirovs, we are just waiting on them to get off their hands and do something.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:55 am

    The Kuznetsov is supposed to be getting a major upgrade and will probably have a C4IR system installed, I believe the current system is called Sigma and it combines air, sea surface, and underwater information into an integrated view to help manage a fight against a variety of threat types at once.

    Right now they are working on the design of new carriers that will likely have the role of defending the ships they operate with.
    They wont be Nimitz like carriers, though they will likely be conventional take off but arrested landing carriers. They will likely be nuclear powered and it would make sense for them to develop EM catapults for the simple reason that steam cats are obsolete. Steam cats take up a lot of space and require a lot of personel to operate and there are limits on how they work.
    EM cats are smaller and simpler and require fewer crew to operate, they place less stress on the aircraft they are launching and can be programmed to give more control during aircraft launches by changing the rate of acceleration during the take off.
    They should also be easier to maintain and operate.
    And finally having lots of very high pressure steam pipes all over your ship is asking for trouble with regards to battle damage.
    A steam cat is easier to damage and when out of action you are very limited as to what you can launch.
    Needless to say different aircraft with different fuel and weapon loads need different accelerations which need to be carefully calculated before launch and if you get it wrong with a steam cat the wheels get ripped off or the plane ends up in the water. With an EM cat the acceleration can be measured as it is happening and the system could compensate by increasing the acceleration to get the aircraft airborne. You could probably add weight sensors to the deck and just have the controller type in the aircraft type and it could do it itself.

    This could make the upgraded Kuznetsov a testbed for the new carriers they are going to make after 2020.

    Certainly new compact powerful nuclear reactors would be well worth designing as they could be retro fitted to the Kirovs during their major upgrades and indeed the Akula subs during their upgrade and modification.

    I have said before here that a carrier is not just a command centre but its aircraft extend the eyes and the reach of a surface group.
    A catapult allows for heavier aircraft to operate from carriers and also for existing aircraft to take off with heavier weapon and fuel loads.
    Nuclear propulsion means a carrier is using less space to carry fuel to deploy to different areas which can be used to carry more aviation fuel and ordinance so the aircraft can operate longer without resupply.

    Needless to say you spot a blip on the radar that is 400km away... having a carrier with you means you can send a couple of fighters to investigate without revealing where the carrier group even is... if they identify the blip as a civilian airliner then a potentially sticky situation is dealt with. Without the aircraft carrier the best you could probably do is send a helo which will take longer to get to an intercept point and will likely not be able to fly high enough to properly ID an airliner or threat that is flying at 10,000m. The longer it takes to properly ID the target the closer it gets and the more nervous you become.
    Even a carrier with a truly awful interceptor aircraft like a Yak-38M is better than nothing as it could zip out and ID a target one way or another.

    Hoof
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 26
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Hoof on Thu Jan 06, 2011 8:17 pm

    GarryB wrote:\
    Even a carrier with a truly awful interceptor aircraft like a Yak-38M is better than nothing as it could zip out and ID a target one way or another.

    Didn't they ditch yak-38s ? anything being developed to take its spot ?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:06 am

    The Yak-38 had the worst crash record of any aircraft in service.

    The only aircraft comparable was the Harrier and it was much more widely produced and used.

    Sadly more pilots were lost with Harriers, and in terms of pilot losses the Yak-38 and Yak-38M had a pretty good record because of the safety system activated during the hover. If angles or speeds exceeded safe minimums the system automatically popped the pilots out of the aircraft. Probably led to a few unnecessary aircraft losses but certainly saved a lot of lives too.

    In the 1980s the Yak-141 was being tested but there was no money.
    It was really the first scratch built supersonic VSTOL aircraft.

    The French cheated by taking a supersonic fighter and putting lift jets in it to make the first real VSTOL aircraft of course.

    There were plans for a newer stealthy VSTOL aircraft called the Yak-43 that had a 25 ton thrust main engine and two life engines but its box shape was altered to a more stealthy design and it would have been a very large supersonic fighter.

    It was however realised that the penalty of taking off vertically and being a high speed fighter was simply too much.

    If they had relaxed the speed requirements a bit and went for a larger thicker wing for more lift and fuel space like the Sea Harrier it would have been a much better aircraft in my opinion.

    Seems they have decided that VSTOL is not worth it and conventional take off but arrested landings is the way forward for the Russian Navy. The removal from service the four carriers that the Yaks operated from killed them initially but I rather doubt they would have had a better future if that had not terminated them.

    Interestingly they were always considered light attack aircraft and were tested operationally in Afghanistan in the light attack role.
    They were tested against the Su-25 and we all know which aircraft succeeded there. Smile

    The silly thing is that if they were for light strike then a larger fuel filled wing that generated more lift together with rolling takeoffs could have greatly improved performance and produced a much more viable aircraft. Ironically with a larger wing and say 6 wing hard points, fitted with a Mig-29 radar and R-73 missiles it would have been rather potent in air combat too.

    Much like the Sea Harrier with AMRAAMs was.

    Hoof
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 26
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Hoof on Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:18 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The silly thing is that if they were for light strike then a larger fuel filled wing that generated more lift together with rolling takeoffs could have greatly improved performance and produced a much more viable aircraft. Ironically with a larger wing and say 6 wing hard points, fitted with a Mig-29 radar and R-73 missiles it would have been rather potent in air combat too.

    Much like the Sea Harrier with AMRAAMs was.

    Thats kind of sad... I'm sure if they them as just as STOL, they wouldn't have as many problems, and probably with right modifications it could have been a better aircraft...

    But in that case i think mig-29k would be a better choice, sadly I doubt they will be able to operate from mistrals...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:13 am

    The mistrals are much to small to operate fighter jets... there simply isn't enough space on board for fixed wing aircraft plus fuel and ordinance to make them worthwhile.

    The irony of the Yak-38 and Yak-38M is that the newer Yak-38M was even less impressive than the Yak-38 it was supposed to be an upgrade of.

    The Yak-38M had more power but being a subsonic aircraft that didn't translate into a faster aircraft, but did shorten its range through higher fuel consumption, which is bad for an already short legged aircraft.

    ...just shows what a neat aircraft the Sea Harrier really is.

    Of course my favourite navy strike aircraft is the Buccaneer.
    Just love those curves and it has such good performance.

    BTW I remember in the 1970s and 80s there were models of new Soviet Carrier programs and most of the models had Mig-23s on them.
    I think models today for the next gen carriers might have Mig-29K and Su-33KUB aircraft but when they start cutting steel it will be the naval T-50 that takes to the oceans.

    Always wondered what sort of navy aircraft the Mig-23 might have made... it certainly has speed and range in its favour, but could probably do with more than 2 BVR missiles and 4 short range missiles for the CAP role.

    Hoof
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 83
    Join date : 2011-01-06
    Age : 26
    Location : HAFB, UT

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Hoof on Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:21 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Always wondered what sort of navy aircraft the Mig-23 might have made... it certainly has speed and range in its favour, but could probably do with more than 2 BVR missiles and 4 short range missiles for the CAP role.
    not sure Garry... I know it probably wouldn't make the best dogfight fighter... Visibility is somewhat poor in mig-23... they had to use mirrors to reduce blindspots... I do wonder what maneuverability it has ? I do know that 23s make decent attackers/field bombers... they used those in Afghanistan...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:34 am

    The last model Mig-23s, the Mig-23MLs were cleared to 8g manouver capability and that is as good as any folding wing carrier based fighter... the Hornet and Super Hornet and the Su-33 and Mig-29K are all limited to 8g manoeuvre capability because of the folding wings.

    Plus had they gone to service in the 1980s they could have been equipped with R-27 and R-73 missiles which would have made them much more potent fighters than the R-24 and R-60 missiles they had.

    In many ways the late model Mig-23s were actually better than the early model Mig-29s... the IRSTs on the late model Mig-23MLs were actually rather better than the IRSTs on the communist export and general export down graded model Mig-29s and the Mig-23 accelerated faster than the Mig-29 as well.
    Another factor was that the early Mig-29s were limited to the semi active radar homing R-27R base model and could not even carry the IR guided R-27T or extended range version of either missile (ie R-27ER and ET).
    This meant that the Mig-23 could carry a better long range weapon load with 4 BVR R-24R and R-24T missiles.

    Once the Mig-29 got the R-73 missiles to replace the initial R-60s it suddenly became a much more capable aircraft and was always easier to fly and more manoeuvrable... though the Mig-23 was a rocket in acceleration terms and had good flight range.

    A Mig-23-98 upgrade with new radar and missiles, plus perhaps a 117S engine Twisted Evil would be a potent aircraft... especially if the mid point wing positions were made to swivel as they were on the Su-24 to add more AAMs.

    Of course the costs saved with just having one engine are lost in the weight and complexity of the swing wing design.

    Perhaps a Mig-21 that dumps the Mach 2 performance for a thicker wing, more fuel and more hard points... but then it starts being a Mirage... or the Ye-8 variant of the Mig-21 perhaps and then it starts looking like a Typhoon... Twisted Evil

    There is a lot to be said for a scratch build Mig-29 redesigned with a single 117S engine or perhaps the engines even further apart and (the intakes) turned side on for stealthiness and the gap between the engines filled in with lots of fuel and electronics with a 5 hard point wing including wing tip R-73/9M100 missiles plus a tandem of 4 9M100 missiles on the fuselage sides in semi conformal launch positions... plus a thorough RCS reduction program on the airframe but still external wing pylons and a modest AESA radar as a numbers aircraft to fill in the gaps between the more expensive T-50 where full stealth is not needed.
    Drop the vertical and horizontal tail surfaces and extend the wing for greater area and manoeuvre the aircraft with thrust vectoring engines.
    Relatively cheap and simple LO fighter/bomber with good range (due to extra volume for fuel and bits and pieces) and with the conformal and wingtip weapon points the 4 remaining wing points can be for fuel or air to ground weapons.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Pervius on Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:56 am

    If American Ford Class Aircraft Carrier with new electro-magnetic aircraft launcher can aim the launching rail "up"....could it spray JDAM munitions into a country like a metal rain?

    Is the new American Aircraft carrier actually going to be a Super Battleship? Notice munitions holds in new Ford Class Carrier is doubled in size? I think they did this because new ship will have fully automatic electro-magnet rail gun able to launch planes...or lift up and launch bombs?

    How would Russia stop thousands of JDAM's raining down on them from that?

    Russia needs to modernize and atleast have 3 ships able to launch aircraft. UAV's for reconnaissance as well as UAV's fitted with air to ship/air to air for helicopters would be cheap. Use India's UAV method, cheap...wooden props still gets weapons in the air.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:57 am

    If American Ford Class Aircraft Carrier with new electro-magnetic
    aircraft launcher can aim the launching rail "up"....could it spray JDAM
    munitions into a country like a metal rain?

    As long as the JDAM can take the g forces and the electronics in it aren't trashed by the huge magnetic field strength.

    Is the new American Aircraft carrier actually going to be a Super
    Battleship? Notice munitions holds in new Ford Class Carrier is doubled
    in size? I think they did this because new ship will have fully
    automatic electro-magnet rail gun able to launch planes...or lift up and
    launch bombs?

    More likely they want to improve its independance by not having to rearm so often to reduce the logistics tail of the vessel.

    How would Russia stop thousands of JDAM's raining down on them from that?

    Torpedo most likely or tactical nuclear armed anti ship missiles.
    How likely is a US attack on Russia anyway?
    Why risk a full nuclear retaliation?

    BTW JDAM used in such a way would be like any other long range ballistic weapon, so S-300V4 and likely S-400 and S-500.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:15 am


    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.

    Klingsor
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 7
    Points : 7
    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    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.)

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    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.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    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
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    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
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 105
    Points : 110
    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?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    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#

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    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)

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    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.


    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    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.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9432
    Points : 9924
    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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:40 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:40 pm