Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:05 am

    Isos wrote:Just had the best idea : They should call the new aicraft carrier USSR Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Twisted Evil

    I don't think the men of the sea will appreciate such a cursed name. pirat
    A country and political system that spectacularly collapsed causing wars and depression, to this very day.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    next generation aircraft carriers

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sat Jun 18, 2016 9:01 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:

    Wow, so these so called "fatal flaws" are the price/necessity and the engines, how cute, this article insinuates that the Russian military still doesn't know whether or not they need the T-50 which is insane, if they didn't need it they wouldn't have made it in the first place, if i had to guess the actual debate is on where and how to use it.

    As for the engines, the current ones are fully capable, at worst you can call this issue an inconvenience, but a fatal flaw it is not.

    How reliable of a source for mil issues is Izvestia?
    Engine-wise whatever their fuel consumption issues are, they ought to be more pro-active on integrating low observability on the exhaust nozzle, like yesterday.


    Assume that the main user of theese planes will be the russian navy, and it will be the attacking plane for the next generation aircraft carriers.

    Then they are not in hurry, to certificate the airplane they need the final engine, capable to sky jump with full load.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 19, 2016 9:51 am

    Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

    Proper carriers?

    I guess if they are not like American carriers they can't be real carriers...

    And WTF would they waste time developing steam cats?

    Catapults are expensive and time consuming to develop... Why waste time developing an already obsolete technology?

    AFAIK the plans for the PAK FA have not changed... there was always a new engine in development by Saturn and nothing has changed...

    Perhaps they would be better to do a story on the fatal flaw of the F-35... its crap.


    _________________
    “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

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_trafo on Sun Jun 19, 2016 11:12 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:The only place when this bird needs more thrust is the sky jump,

    I think the t-50 considered as attacking plane, designed for the new russian aircraft carriers.

    Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

    Main advantage of a catapult is not the launch of fighter jets, but the capability to launch small AWACS airplanes.

    With new and modern engines it is possible the launch fighter / bomber jets with full load from sky jump ramps, but the awacs is a different problem.

    I think in the new carriers they will consider two catapul + skyjump ramp,and the catapults will be used by awacs / refueling / freight planes.


    Advantage of this is the capability to use medium sized carriers, like the Kuznetsow with full strike capability.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:21 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

    Using steam catapult to launch fighters is stupid. It takes a lot of time for steam catapult to be fully loaded and more time for the aircraft to by properly arranged at the launching site.

    Meanwhile, using ski jump, fighters can continously take off one-by-one, consumes less time for each, which means in a short time you can launch a lot of fighters to the battlefield.

    Singular_trafo wrote:With new and modern engines it is possible the launch fighter / bomber jets with full load from sky jump ramps, but the awacs is a different problem.

    Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Sun Jun 19, 2016 3:35 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Or they need invest in developing proper carriers and give them steam catapults.

    Proper carriers?

    I guess if they are not like American carriers they can't be real carriers...

    And WTF would they waste time developing steam cats?

    Catapults are expensive and time consuming to develop... Why waste time developing an already obsolete technology?

    Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

    higurashihougi wrote:Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

    yeah lol1

    PS. by all means if steam is obsolete there's also EMALS, just super expensive to develop.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:26 pm

    Using steam catapult to launch fighters is stupid. It takes a lot of time for steam catapult to be fully loaded and more time for the aircraft to by properly arranged at the launching site.

    It will take a lot of time and money to develop cats... em cats or steam cats... makes little sense to spend money on steam cats when they could spend it on em cats.

    As mentioned cats allow heavier aircraft like fixed wing AWACS aircraft to operate safely... which greatly increases the performance of the carrier. It can also launch tankers and transport aircraft to improve flight range of the air group and make transfers and resupply easier...

    Current fighters can carry full load and do ski-jump. You just need to add a rocket propulsion to the aircraft.

    EM cats would be a useful technology that could be used to launch all sorts of things including unmanned aircraft from smaller vessels.

    Rocket assisted takeoff presents a threat to other aircraft and personal on deck.

    Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

    I have no problem with cats, but why waste time and money developing steam cats when it is old technology?

    If they are developing a new sniper rifle will they start with a matchlock smooth bore?

    The main reason for cats on Ulyanovsk was the Yak-44, and it would still be the main reason for such systems... though in a rather significantly upgraded form.

    PS. by all means if steam is obsolete there's also EMALS, just super expensive to develop.

    Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    The technology is closely related to railguns, which they are working on anyway...


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:47 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:Evidently your problem is USN utilizing catapults (and MN), so check the design of Ulyanovsk again and come back to us.

    The problem is not utilizing catapults, but to completely depend on it. U.S. carrier launchs solely by catapult, both fighters and AWACSs have to take of using catapult. That is stupid, since it is faster and more convenient for fighters to use skijump.

    Catapult is only useful to launch aircrafts which are unable to do skijump, like AWACS and other things as Singular_trafo and GarryB mentioned above.

    Russian future carrier utilizes both skijump (for fighters) and catapult (for others).

    BTW, Off Topic Off Topic

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 810
    Points : 829
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  OminousSpudd on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:20 pm

    Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:It will take a lot of time and money to develop cats... em cats or steam cats... makes little sense to spend money on steam cats when they could spend it on em cats.

    As mentioned cats allow heavier aircraft like fixed wing AWACS aircraft to operate safely... which greatly increases the performance of the carrier. It can also launch tankers and transport aircraft to improve flight range of the air group and make transfers and resupply easier...

    Didn't the Soviet develop cats?
    Russia can send a few technicians to Brazil if they want to get any ideas. Shouldn't cost much for the budget Russia has outlined.

    OminousSpudd wrote:Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    +1

    it's the poor man's way into CVs though.


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  sepheronx on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:34 pm

    OminousSpudd wrote:Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    And yet mitigated with MiG-29K.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:36 pm

    sepheronx wrote:
    OminousSpudd wrote:Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    And yet mitigated with MiG-29K.

    With loiter time of potato though. lol1

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 8:48 pm

    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.

    Singular_trafo
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 142
    Points : 142
    Join date : 2016-04-16

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_trafo on Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:28 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost +10% profit price.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Mon Jun 20, 2016 9:32 pm

    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    OminousSpudd
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 810
    Points : 829
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 21
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  OminousSpudd on Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:04 am

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Their method of construction is down to a fine art now.

    As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:06 am

    As I mentioned before, Russia can supplement rocket propulsion for naval fighters so that they can skijump with full load.

    Russia invest in catapult because there are aircraft (AWACS, etc) which cannot skijump and have to use catapult. The future Russian carrier utilize both skijump and catapult.

    Catapult is useful, but force all aircraft to use catapult is stupid.

    OminousSpudd wrote:As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.

    In more details, Russia doesn't rely on massive carriers in navy vs navy battle. It ulilizes anti-ship missiles, including hypersonic missiles which are unable to intercept.

    About granit, it is a supersonic missile, while Harpoon only subsonic. The U.S. navy failed to create any supersonic anti-ship missile.

    Again, Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic Off Topic

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:42 am

    OminousSpudd wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Singular_trafo wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Hahahahaha... yeah because everything about US super carriers is cheap... 14 billion each at the moment aren't they?

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    Americans build huge numbers of cheap, large capable vessels and subs with no problems.
    Only PRC can approach that industrial capability and it will take them another couple of decades or so.


    Rounded up a bit.

    The CV mass is 100 kT, the price is paid by the goverment, not foreign buyer.
    The price/tonn roughtly like the russian ship.

    If India allowed to buy any of these vessels, then you can expect a price in the north of 20 billion $.Maybe 30?.

    Same for Russia, India paying the market price, not the manufacturing cost  +10% profit price.

    Yeah sure.
    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Their method of construction is down to a fine art now.

    As for poor man's carrier, yes and no. It all comes down to mission statement, the multirole aircraft in the Russian carrier inventory weren't meant to counter enemy surface vessels really, they were just part of the IADS. Kuznetsov's bank of Granits were for that. In a Navy vs. Navy battle I'd say you'd get about the same trade off in terms of firepower (although Granits are going to be a lot more effective than Harpoons) over the course of the initial engagement.

    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers. Not a tug boat and one escort to visit Chavez across the Atlantic. It is also hampered with propulsion problems that happened to stay active (and not sold or scrapped in the crazy 90s and 00s). It has served/serves no major operational purpose whatsoever with its current air wing of a few Su-33s, apart from showing the flag, training and cruising the North Sea, Atlantic and Med a few times (less than 6 proper deployments).

    That's it really for the past 36 years.

    A dozen of Granits are a good solution to the fact that the air wing had (assuming MiG-29K comes online soon) no strike capability/role.

    To use that and imply CATOBAR carriers hosting navalised PAK FA are useless, is not prudent. It's an example to avoid and a dead doctrine for a Navy that will never exist.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 21, 2016 10:43 am

    If a 3,500 t Krivak IV cost 0.5 billion USD made in Russia with Ukrainian engines, 14 billion for a 120,000 t nuclear CV made in USA (engines made there) makes sense. Pretty much same cost per ton actually, which actually makes the Russian side quite expensive.

    And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot... if is the biggest word in the English language.

    You are either ignoring what I am saying or just enjoying talking around it.

    It matters not how much it costs Russia to make a 100K ton carrier with steam or EM cats... even if it was free it would be a waste of money and time and space.

    They don't need strike bombers carried around the world to invade or bomb other countries... they can send a submarine with a dozen cruise missiles to do the job much quicker and much more effectively.

    For Russia a carrier is about protecting navy vessels with an air component, so fighters, yes, AWACS, yes... strike bombers no.

    At best they would find an anti ship and anti sub capability for their aircraft useful but they will mostly be shooting down enemy aircraft and enemy anti ship missiles before they can do damage to the Russians ships or subs.

    That said US CVs are quite well priced, good for them really.

    Optimised to maintain the empire... worthless to Russia.

    In fact a burden for Russia if it had such vessels.

    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers.

    The Soviet and Russian view of an aircraft carrier is an air defence hub, around which the IADS of the navy is based. It is not a strike carrier to invade or bomb countries like Libya or Vietnam, it is the air component that will defend Russian navy ships from enemy air power and support in an attack on enemy naval forces.

    No doctrine my ass.



    Last edited by GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:29 pm; edited 1 time in total


    _________________
    “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

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I don't think the Kuznetsov fits any doctrine in the current Ru Navy. It's a random USSR relic destined to operate in a larger Soviet Navy with many other Kiev and Ulyanovsk class carrier groups and Kirov/Slava class cruisers, with lots of escorting destroyers.

    The Soviet and Russian view of an aircraft carrier is an air defence hub, around which the IADS of the navy is based. It is not a strike carrier to invade or bomb countries like Libya or Vietnam, it is the air component that will defend Russian navy ships from enemy air power and support in an attack on enemy naval forces.

    No doctrine my ass.

    In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 1:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot

    Club ultron level unlocked, alas the forum functionality doesn't see it through.  
    Still ignored from now on welcome

    higurashihougi wrote:In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.

    All that is fair enough, I know were you're coming from.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 307
    Points : 311
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:21 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    GarryB wrote:And if we jammed a flower up your ass you would be a flowerpot

    Club ultron level unlocked, alas the forum functionality doesn't see it through.  
    Still ignored from now on welcome

    higurashihougi wrote:In Russia it is named "heavy cruiser with the capability to launch aircrafts". In short, Kuznetsov is a cruiser, it is armed similar to a cruiser, and used as a cruiser i.e. enhance the control of sea space.

    The ace of Russian Naval Force are not carriers, but vessels harboring anti-ship missiles. Anti-ship missiles displaced the dominant position of carriers after WW2 as it does not need bulky airfield to be launched while provides outstanding strike range similar to the aircrafts.

    With advanced guidance system and missile engines, strategic bombers like Tu-95/22M3/160 can effectively function as ship-killer.

    The existence of gigantic U.S. carrier fleet simply means that, military level of US Navy has been stagnating since WW2. US Navy stop at the level of WW2 carriers while Russia already advanced into the era of guided missiles.

    Yes, the U.S. Navy fails to deploy even a supersonic antiship missiles, while Russia is having Kh-22, Kh-15 and P-800.

    All that is fair enough, I know were you're coming from.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.

    The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).

    KiloGolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1261
    Points : 1279
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  KiloGolf on Tue Jun 21, 2016 3:30 pm

    Isos wrote:The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.

    Isos
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 307
    Points : 311
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Tue Jun 21, 2016 7:42 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:The soviet doctrine was to lunch massive salvos of anti ship missils. Kuz wasn't mean to operate alone. It was meant to go with Slavas and Kirovs. All together would make air denial between the two fleet, Su33 would destroy fighter whiwh were to far for anti air missiles and All the ships would lunch their missile: 12 P-700 (kuz), 16 P-100(slava), 20 p-700 (kirov) + 2*24 p-700 (Oscar subs).

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.

    Well now they are focusing on their litoral capabilities. They won't try to fight in the open seas. US navy is smaller too. Their ships are not so new as they pretend. AEGIS is old. New europeans frigate are far more advenced.

    I visited MBDA and the man told us that french missiles are better than US because US can lunch like 4 missile on one target ( because they have money) and europeans need something very good. So they make their missiles much better.

    With a litoral navy they have air force with them to support + KILO SUBS + S400. So they don't need lot of big ships. Kirov operated 200 km from russia with frigates and corvettes will desrtoy evry US ship.

    However having just small corvettes is stupid as they will be destroyed by aircrafts.

    They could try while making peace wwith Ukraine to take the last Slava and put s 400 and oniks on it, will be very good.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 22, 2016 12:44 pm

    Ski-jumps mean a large fuel burn on takeoff, and in most cases a minimized weapons load. See the Su-33.

    No they don't.

    Taking off with full AB engaged uses the same amount of fuel whether taking off on the ski jump or with a catapult... the difference is that the ski jump adds a vertical component to the lift on takeoff to add vertical as well as forward momentum to the aircraft, while the cat just adds to horizontal speed to allow the wings to provide more lift at takeoff.

    There are three takeoff positions on the K... two short ones and one long one... the short ones are perfectly adequate for any and all aircraft on the K to take off with a full fuel load and a full load of air to air weapons... the latter weighing rather less than max payload of the aircraft but none of the aircraft have significant air to ground capability, so a heavy bomb load is not going to be used or needed.

    the long takeoff strip allows full payload takeoffs.

    Didn't the Soviet develop cats?
    Russia can send a few technicians to Brazil if they want to get any ideas. Shouldn't cost much for the budget Russia has outlined.

    They worked on a cat system but as it was never put into service they got no experience in its use so they really don't know if it would have been effective or not... and that was more than 30 years ago.

    They have said they are developing cats now for new carriers so I suspect they will be EM cats.

    it's the poor man's way into CVs though.
    ???

    It would be as accurate to say that steam or EM cats are the gold plated expensive way to give carriers AWACS.

    With loiter time of potato though.

    Likely a much more potent dogfighter than either the SH or F-35...

    Still ignored from now on

    Hahaha... fine.

    But, the way I see it is carrying 12 anti-ship missiles and effectively one or two dozens of Su-33s with no strike capability gives this ship/doctrine the worst of both worlds. Bad at being a cruiser and horrible at being a carrier.

    You don't understand the game do you?

    US carriers sit off the shore of the Soviet Union... their job is to murder people so they need strike aircraft that can fly into Soviet airspace and drop nuclear bombs on Soviet citizens to kill them. It has tanker aircraft and fighter planes to support those strike aircraft. the ships in the carrier group are there to protect the carrier. That is what a US carrier group is.

    In "peacetime" it is to intimidate smaller countries and do the same thing with conventional bombs.

    The Soviet and now Russian carrier is not intended to go to the US and murder Americans... its purpose is to protect Russian shipping by providing air cover, Soviet and Russian ships are intended to fight US carrier groups and to protect SSBNs until they have launched their missiles at the west... therefore the Russian aircraft are dedicated to the air to air role with a much lighter weapon load of AAMs and little or no strike capability. the MiG-29K is fully multirole but will only be used in limited strike missions likely in conventional wars against smaller enemies than the west.

    In terms of providing air cover the only advantage of having a cat is enabling refuelling tankers to operate from the Russian carrier and of course the extra vision you get from a fixed wing AWACS or AEW aircraft. that is why the ski jump was chosen over cats... there are no real missions where cats would be needed as air to air payloads are a fraction of strike mission payloads.

    With only 12 Granits the K would contribute to an attack but the Kirov and Oscar would be the core of attacks with 20 and 24 missiles each... with upgrades the Kirov will likely have 80 Onyx and the Oscar 72 Onyx missiles... in 10 years time the same number of Zircon hypersonic missiles.

    Sure, but imo right now that doctrine is dead.

    One Slava in that fleet and barely a couple of Oscars and one Kirov. Also a single carrier unit (or anything for that matter) means many months in the year, operational availability and thus capability is next to zero. I could see that doctrine making sense if the Varyag was kept, one extra Slava was there, Kursk was still around and a couple of Kievs were still active in original or the upgraded version active in the Indian navy.


    See... you don't know what you are talking about... if the doctrine is dead then why?

    What has changed?

    If the doctrine is dead then why is every new Russian ship equipped with UKSK launchers allowing them to carry Onyx? Kirov has 20 Granits, Oscar has 24... a new modern corvette has 8 modern equivalents in the Onyx or a 2,500km land attack cruise missile. The new boats of the Russian Navy will be able to carry rather more than their big heavy cruisers and large SSGNs could carry and can also carry long range land attack missiles too as an option... but the threat has not changed... the threat is still US carrier groups and NATO ships...



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

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

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:01 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:01 pm