Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:55 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:Key dates:
    Kuznetsov refurbishment finish date : 2020-2022
    LK-110Ya class construction start : 2021

    Based on this the earlies date for the Russian super aircraft carrier is 2023.
    Most probable is 25.

    They have to learn how to make new, complex ships. The icebreaker will be the most important milestone in this process.

    Hopefully before the Chinese get their carriers operational.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers would be nice in Pacific to counter Chinese interests.

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:15 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Just because they may want to have something does not mean that they need it.

    India could invest loads of money and successfully design and build nuclear icebreaker. But what use would they have for it? Other than some basic scientific stuff none at all.

    Same applies for Russia and oversized aircraft carriers. For 10+ billion that the project construction would cost for just one unit (to say nothing of timetable) they could purchase entire new navy composed of vessels they have actual need for.

    They should build more than one type of ships but those types should be missile ships, corvettes, frigates and landing ships. Destroyers at later phase. Small carriers at much later one. That is it.

    Everything else is just waste of time and money on needless bling.

    We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers would be nice in Pacific to counter Chinese interests.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 318
    Points : 324
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Apr 29, 2017 7:39 pm

    Well, China is probably going to have 4 carriers, certainly atleast 3.5 by 2025, and maybe even 6 (atleast 5) by 2030.

    2 Type 001 aka Kuznetsov-class (1 of them improved, the recently launched Type 001A)

    2 Type 002 class, conventionally-powered, with catapults

    2 Type 003 class, supercarriers, nuclear-powered, probably with EMALS

    They are going to launch their first Type 002 carrier around 2019-22. In any case it seems to already be under construction, so the Chinese are building atleast 2 carriers simultaneously. They are also building 4 (!) Type 055 cruisers/heavy destroyers simultaneously. The good thing for Russia is that that will keep the US quite busy...
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5432
    Points : 5536
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:05 pm

    Russian Patriot wrote:..........

    We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers  would be nice in Pacific to counter  Chinese interests.

    Still those that you would need would be much smaller than supercarrier.

    Ships no larger than Kuznetsov with nuclear propulsion and catapults would more than suffice.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5432
    Points : 5536
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:10 pm

    Russian Patriot wrote:........
    Hopefully before the  Chinese get their carriers operational.

    I don't think that Chinese Navy is any real threat at least not in foreseeable future.

    And even if they get them up and running they still have increasingly questionable application in the age of hypersonic missiles. To say nothing of Russian sub fleet parked in Pacific.

    Besides, it USA that is chomping at Chinese sea turf, not Russia.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1390
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Sat Apr 29, 2017 9:41 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Russian Patriot wrote:..........

    We don't need 11 like the US but at least 2 carriers  would be nice in Pacific to counter  Chinese interests.

    Still those that you would need would be much smaller than supercarrier.

    Ships no larger than Kuznetsov with nuclear propulsion and catapults would more than suffice.

    Well we're getting off topic, but IMO the only issue with the Kuz is that it's aircraft can't launch with full-load, a Russian carrier that can allow this would be enough.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 489
    Points : 485
    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 : 16541
    Points : 17149
    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 : 16541
    Points : 17149
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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 : 835
    Points : 833
    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 : 489
    Points : 485
    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 : 16541
    Points : 17149
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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 : 5432
    Points : 5536
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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 : 5432
    Points : 5536
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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 : 5432
    Points : 5536
    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 : 796
    Points : 814
    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 : 16541
    Points : 17149
    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 : 5432
    Points : 5536
    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 : 1390
    Points : 1391
    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?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:17 pm