Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 448
    Points : 448
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:23 am

    The Chinese navy want to get complete control above the Chinese sea first.

    Second will be Taiwan.

    Without having control above Taiwan the Chinese Navy doesn't has chance to cause problem to anyone on the Pacific ocean.


    It hasn't got to pass through Korea and Japan to the Russian areas as well.

    So, at the moment China is "contained" .

    However as it seems in 10 years time Japan will have to be in good military friendship with China.Not with the US .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:34 am

    To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

    The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

    Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

    No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.


    _________________
    “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
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:39 am

    Talk of Russia and China fighting at sea or anywhere else gives the US an immediate erection...

    Both countries have rather too much to lose and so very little to gain from fighting each other.


    _________________
    “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
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sun Apr 30, 2017 3:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

    The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

    Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

    No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.

    Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 774
    Points : 776
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:To go further off topic from the long launch position the current aircraft can take off with a full load.

    The real issue is what is the point of having air cover if you don't have anything to cover.

    Destroyer/cruisers are a must to provide mutual defence for AC.

    No, they don't want or need US strike carriers... but some fixed wing carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets would be useful and would extend the vision and reach of any group of ships and subs they operate with.

    US havn't solved the issue of the the carrier's lack of defence against subs too. Russian's sub would have the same problem and US has more ocean going SSNs while Russia still hasn't got enough support big warships to provide defence for carriers. The problem is bigger for chinese navy and Indian navy as they lack in number and technology for SSN.

    While it's doubtfull that an US carrier can survive in a modern war against oniks, SSNs, aviation ... The situation is totaly different for Indian and chinese. They would lost their carriers the first day. IMO it's a wast of time for them to start building carriers while SSN could be more usefull. But they are doing the same mistake than USSR by building what the opponent build and not by adaptating their strategy. If india has to face Chinese carrier they should buy 2 more Akula than buying the Vikramanditha (very bad carrier by the way). And if china wants to face US navy they should invest more in long range detection capabilities, long range bombers and very long range missiles and modern SNA.

    Economicaly India can't do what China does and China can't do what US does. The US has all he EU to buy their weapons and invest in their program while China, Russia and India doesn't have. The main advantage of US is in a economical war, not a military. That's the tactic they used against USSR and they are trying to use it against china too.
    avatar
    Hannibal Barca

    Posts : 1241
    Points : 1263
    Join date : 2013-12-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Hannibal Barca on Sun Apr 30, 2017 7:03 pm

    I constantly hear that Taiwan needs to be cleared first. I don't understand what is in Taiwan that needs any clearance.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 448
    Points : 448
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Apr 30, 2017 11:46 pm

    Hannibal Barca wrote:I constantly hear that Taiwan needs to be cleared first. I don't understand what is in Taiwan that needs any clearance.

    Taiwan blocking the access of China to the Pacific.

    Actualy, ifTaiwan willing to host a few Chinese submarine base then everything would be OK.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue May 02, 2017 6:19 am


    Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.

    The Su-33 cannot carry external fuel tanks so its max weapon load is 10 AAMs. That is no where near its normal max payload, but it is the max weapon load it would be able to carry from a carrier.

    From the long launch position on the K the Su-33 can get airborne with a full weapon and fuel load.


    _________________
    “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
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue May 02, 2017 7:19 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    Please clarify, also note that when i said full-load, i meant in both fuel and weapons.

    The Su-33 cannot carry external fuel tanks so its max weapon load is 10 AAMs. That is no where near its normal max payload, but it is the max weapon load it would be able to carry from a carrier.

    From the long launch position on the K the Su-33 can get airborne with a full weapon and fuel load.

    Ok, interesting, i am assuming that pad way in the back is the long launch position, if so than i have little issues with the ship, although any future carrier will likely not have such an odd launch position.



    P.S: Any further discussion will be on the proper thread.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5023
    Points : 5131
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue May 02, 2017 9:21 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:........



    P.S: Any further discussion will be on the proper thread.

    Man, inefficiency of this thing is staggering. Although a lot of it comes from the fact that it uses conventional powerplant that takes up a lot of space when you include fuel supply.

    However, that tower it taking up huge amount of real estate on deck. Just by offsetting it to the side you could immensely improve this ship by extending takeoff lane.

    There is no way Russian Navy needs anything bigger than this. They can easily get the job done with ship 1/3 smaller with more efficient arrangement and nuclear propulsion.

    To say nothing of catapults and new smaller weapons systems.

    Also that 5th gen fighter jet contract with UAE will prove to be blessing from heavens for any next carrier project.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue May 02, 2017 11:46 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:........



    P.S: Any further discussion will be on the proper thread.

    Man, inefficiency of this thing is staggering. Although a lot of it comes from the fact that it uses conventional powerplant that takes up a lot of space when you include fuel supply.

    However, that tower it taking up huge amount of real estate on deck. Just by offsetting it to the side you could immensely improve this ship by extending takeoff lane.

    There is no way Russian Navy needs anything bigger than this. They can easily get the job done with ship 1/3 smaller with more efficient arrangement and nuclear propulsion.

    To say nothing of catapults and new smaller weapons systems.

    Also that 5th gen fighter jet contract with UAE will prove to be blessing from heavens for any next carrier project.

    IMO, even if the tower were shrunk the new space would probly be used for UKSKs in order to make room for EMALS on the Ski-jump.

    As for size, personally i think any new carrier will probly at least have a minor increase in size compared to the Kuz.

    How is a contract with the UAE gonna help the carrier project??
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5023
    Points : 5131
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 03, 2017 2:21 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:.......

    As for size, personally i think any new carrier will probly at least have a minor increase in size compared to the Kuz.

    How is a contract with the UAE gonna help the carrier project??

    I fully expect next one to be smaller than Kuz. Other than price and construction speed you need to keep in mind that with nuclear propulsion and catapults it will have much more useful space regardless of smaller ship size overall.

    Also, new weapons like UKSK take up much less space than Granit launchers in this case. Same for AA missiles.

    UAE contract is important because one of the reasons they moved to MiG-29K for carrier aviation it's smaller size so they are easier to move around in confined space and you can fit more of them than Flankers.

    But with completely new fighter jet financed by UAE and developed from ground up they will have 5th gen aircraft with the same size as MiG-29 or even smaller.

    Superior aircraft that takes up less space and paid for by someone else. Perfect. They could not ask for better setup.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed May 03, 2017 3:08 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:.......

    As for size, personally i think any new carrier will probly at least have a minor increase in size compared to the Kuz.

    How is a contract with the UAE gonna help the carrier project??

    I fully expect next one to be smaller than Kuz. Other than price and construction speed you need to keep in mind that with nuclear propulsion and catapults it will have much more useful space regardless of smaller ship size overall.

    Also, new weapons like UKSK take up much less space than Granit launchers in this case. Same for AA missiles.

    UAE contract is important because one of the reasons they moved to MiG-29K for carrier aviation it's smaller size so they are easier to move around in confined space and you can fit more of them than Flankers.

    But with completely new fighter jet financed by UAE and developed from ground up they will have 5th gen aircraft with the same size as MiG-29 or even smaller.

    Superior aircraft that takes up less space and paid for by someone else. Perfect. They could not ask for better setup.

    I expect otherwise, but whatevs.

    True, but i expect a hell of a lot more missiles, 32 minimal.

    I see, so you're not talking about Pak-FK, you're talking about a new LMFS, can i get some info/sources on this UAE contract.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed May 03, 2017 3:12 am

    BTW, i have been meaning to ask, does the Kuz have ice-breaking abilities and if not, than would a future carrier be likely to have such abilities?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5023
    Points : 5131
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 03, 2017 4:17 am


    Few official data on UAE contract but from what they told press, general opinion here is that they will be using current and future MiG-35 components that will be installed into freshly designed low observable airframe.

    Number of engines is still a mystery. If you ask me single engine setup would be preferable.

    Kuz doesn't have icebreaking abilities. Back when it was built Arctic was still inaccessible wasteland.

    I don't think new carrier will have any as well. Unless they repurpose next gen icebreaker which is very unlikely.

    And why would they need it for? Much simpler and cheaper to just build airfields along Arctic coastline.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 711
    Points : 731
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed May 03, 2017 12:08 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    However, that tower it taking up huge amount of real estate on deck. Just by offsetting it to the side you could immensely improve this ship by extending takeoff lane.

    Offsetting it further to starboard?  Have you seen the K from the front?....

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 03, 2017 12:38 pm

    Carriers don't operate alone... to be useful the entire carrier group, from carrier down to refuelling vessel and cruisers and destroyers in between would need to be ice breakers...

    And if only the carrier was an icebreaker then sailing single file through an ice sheet would make them horribly vulnerable to attack... especially from enemy subs... ASW helos are not really very efficient through ice but torpedoes set to run under the ice still work.

    Most carriers have a waste position for take offs at higher weights...

    The advantage of nuclear power plant and electric drive propulsion is that you don't need an enormous drive shaft and an engine connected in line with that enormous drive shaft. You can place components where you like for balance and with several propulsars you get the benefit of excellent manouver performance as well... no tugs needed.

    Ok, interesting, i am assuming that pad way in the back is the long launch position, if so than i have little issues with the ship, although any future carrier will likely not have such an odd launch position.

    The design of the angled deck... most inventions of carriers are british inventions by the way... is intended to allow two aircraft to be set up near the nose to take off while landing operations can continue. The landings are angled so that if an aircraft misses its arrester wire or if the wire breaks then the aircraft can get airborne again... generally as it touches down to catch the wire the pilot selects full AB so that if the wire is missed the aircraft can quickly recover speed and fly around for another attempt.

    The long takeoff position is therefore only usable when there are not landing operations underway, but greatly increase the payload capacity of the aircraft operating from that position.

    To launch an attack, when no aircraft need to land the waist launch positions are used to increase launch rates.

    As you can see from this drawing there are two launch angles... indicated by two dotted yellow lines moving from the centre of the ski jump back to the two standard launch positions. Also as you can see the top one goes all the way back to level with the rear of the island... the three box shapes are the blast deflectors that are raised to protect things on the deck from jet engine wash when aircraft on those positions take off.

    Obviously the rear position can only be used when no aircraft are landing and can of course also only be used when the front takeoff position has been vacated. That means the front one or two launch positions take off first and then the rear position is launched. All three can be rapidly launched as only two positions conflict for takeoff.



    _________________
    “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
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5023
    Points : 5131
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 03, 2017 1:52 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    However, that tower it taking up huge amount of real estate on deck. Just by offsetting it to the side you could immensely improve this ship by extending takeoff lane.

    Offsetting it further to starboard?  Have you seen the K from the front?....


    Correct, it is already pushing it.

    Still next one will definitely have something more efficient, preferably moved further to the back in addition to being smaller. At least base should be smaller so it frees up more space. Every square meter helps.

    Also, a lot of tower's size goes on chimney. Need for this would be eliminated trough use of reactors.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1337
    Points : 1344
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed May 03, 2017 9:53 pm

    Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5023
    Points : 5131
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed May 03, 2017 10:16 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

    That base is homeport of pacific fleet nuke subs. Top secret if there ever was one. Any plans for expansion would be pretty classified as well.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 524
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed May 03, 2017 10:33 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

    The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

    Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

    People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

    The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

    This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed May 03, 2017 10:57 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

    The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

    Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

    People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

    The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

    This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

    Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 524
    Points : 528
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Wed May 03, 2017 11:29 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

    The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

    Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

    People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

    The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

    This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

    Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

    The Black Sea can be bottled up with little Effort via the Bos straight. also, a carrier fleet will never be deployed within the black sea.

    Vladivostok can be locked down by Japan with Ease with US assistance try again.

    syria will be partitioned Assad will never gain full control over it again, Thus any fleet based there will be within easy range of attack by US allies.

    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Wed May 03, 2017 11:37 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:Ok guys, here's the thing, i have been looking at the map and the only places i can see for Russia to one day build a true blue-water fleet are the Northern regions of Murmansk and the Kamchatka region, because i am not to sure of the amount of ice these places have i was asking whether any future carrier would have ice-breaking abilities.

    On that note, i have been wanting to ask whether there are any major plans to expand the naval base in Kamchatka?

    The russians legitimately have no good area to build a base for a carrier fleet.

    Since all the ships would require icebreaking ability and the other regions can be locked down to bottle up the Carrier fleet.

    People don't seem to understand the Russians have no viable warm water naval ports that have open access to the ocean all.

    The only way for Russia to change this is to build annex land which they will not do or perhaps build a major base near the Kurils while they will be close to japan. They will have some easy access to the pacific.

    This is a problem they have had since soviet times and one they cannot solve unless some seas stop freezing over or they magically get some new land.

    Your argument only applies to the arctic ocean and baltic sea(irrelevant). The black sea hasn't frozen since the 50s and will never freeze again. Same with Vladivistok. So Russia is perfectly capable of having a blue water navy in the pacific. Once it secures Syria as an eternal ally so will the black sea fleet be capable of becoming blue water in the mediterranean.

    Buliding carrier battlegroup in Black sea? Why not in a bathtub? Syria is not a good place for carrier to be permanently deployed either. Best place that Russia has on disposal for carrier fleet is Pacific fleet.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5532
    Points : 5577
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Wed May 03, 2017 11:39 pm

    eehnie wrote:It is curious to see how some people here is obsessed with smaller aircraft carriers than the US has (better if they are only helicopter carriers), or..., if big aircraft carriers are done, they must be to counter China (as US tools).

    WTF.

    There is here a bench of "Russian supporters" that are sistematically talking against every real Russian ally. Just trolling.

    And yet there are also people that are saying how China is somehow biggest Russian ally, based on what.. noone really knows.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:47 am