Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    Benya
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 288
    Points : 292
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Benya on Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:49 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    As a military concept an Aircraft Carrier is only a sea airfield, with its oun military protection inside (air defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine,...).

    Like on land airfields, is the size of the aircrafts that you want to land and take off what determines the size (lenght) of the airfield. On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.

    With the improvements in the aircrafts in the reduction of the needed lenght for the runway, and with the shipbuilding improvements allowing the production of bigger ships, the limitiations that forced the use of specific aircrafts, are mostly a question of the past.

    Today this still can limit the use of 45 ton aircrafts like the Su-34, but not the use of 30-35 ton aircrafts.

    And this is what the US really hate to see. The US hate to see Russia building Aircraft Carriers that allow the use from sea platforms (aircraft carriers) of aircrafts like the Su-27, the Su-33, the Su-30, the Su-35, the Su-PAK-FA or the MiG-35.

    Even the Project 23000 Aircraft Carriers would not allow to Russia to do an operation like this of Syria for the defense of the government of Angola, as example. Without the use of aircrafts over 35 tons and with a safe use of land platforms not always assured, to exclude also the use of the current Russian aircrafts between 30 and 35 tons makes not sense for Russia. Helicopters are significantly weaker and significantly more vulnerable aerial platforms.

    Egypt has now the 2 Mistrals, and its Navy is not more powerful than the Navy of Russia.

    OK, first...

    In the long run, aircraft like the Su-30/35 or the Su-34 equipped with anti-ship weaponry operating from a coastal airbase would be much more cost-efficient than a supercarrier.

    Second...

    A squadron of fighter-bomber aircraft coupled with an Il-78 Midas tanker could deploy – literally anywhere – much faster than an aircraft carrier sailing at 17-20 knots speed, so in this case, building supercarriers that would cost sh*tloads of money would make no sense.

    Third...

    I said yesterday that in case of a naval conflict in the vicinity of Russia, Russia's main objective would be to protect her own waters, which task could be done from mainland airbases with ease. Taking part in occasional expeditionary missions like Syria would require only a small naval air contingent, since most of the aircraft currently used there came to Latakia from mainland bases. The Kuznetsov air squadron's only task there (before they completed their deployment some months ago) was to somewhat supplement/reinforce the air contingent at the Hmeimim airbase.

    Fourth...

    As you can see, the only reason why Uncle Sam keeps 10 supercarriers plus 8 smaller carriers in his fleet is to support its constantly warfighting land/marine forces around the globe.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:31 pm

    Air space is not free for Russian military forces. You see it in Europe. Russia has access to Syria, and basically to all the countries of the continental Asia platform as explained before.

    But the problems begin when the Russian aircrafts need to fly over the arc formed by the US, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Turkey, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, British bases in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE and Oman.

    http://ian.macky.net/pat/map/nhem/nhemblu.gif



    Following to the South? Somalia?, Kenya?... Do you see it easy?

    Today is difficult for Russia only to go to Transdnistria.


    Last edited by eehnie on Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:44 pm; edited 6 times in total
    avatar
    A1RMAN
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  A1RMAN on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:34 pm

    I don't understand how some people here came to a conclusion that Russia has money to develop, build at then maintain full-scale AC.

    Current military budget is being cut. New types of weaponry are delayed and purchasing numbers are decreasing. We are gonna see comparably low numbers of T-50, Armata and other new systems in upcoming years. Officials stated many times that the reason for this is financing.

    And in this situation you expect them to throw in billions in developing and building ACs + air wings + helos? Not to mention that we currently have technological and professional (workers, engineers) problems with building much smaller, less complex ships.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:58 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:I don't understand how some people here came to a conclusion that Russia has money to develop, build at then maintain full-scale AC.

    Current military budget is being cut. New types of weaponry are delayed and purchasing numbers are decreasing. We are gonna see comparably low numbers of T-50, Armata and other new systems in upcoming years. Officials stated many times that the reason for this is financing.

    And in this situation you expect them to throw in billions in developing and building ACs + air wings + helos? Not to mention that we currently have technological and professional (workers, engineers) problems with building much smaller, less complex ships.

    A nuclear submarine is more complicated than a carrier.

    Carrier require only political will, nothing else.
    avatar
    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 10114
    Points : 10608
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  George1 on Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:09 pm

    From USSR era carriers were considered vulnerable. I think this is the factor that they are referred as costly. Too much money for sth vulnerable during war. Unless Russia wants to assume a role as a global policeman like US, thus participating in enabling by force UN resolutions for example


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 536
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:14 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:I don't understand how some people here came to a conclusion that Russia has money to develop, build at then maintain full-scale AC.

    Current military budget is being cut. New types of weaponry are delayed and purchasing numbers are decreasing. We are gonna see comparably low numbers of T-50, Armata and other new systems in upcoming years. Officials stated many times that the reason for this is financing.

    And in this situation you expect them to throw in billions in developing and building ACs + air wings + helos? Not to mention that we currently have technological and professional (workers, engineers) problems with building much smaller, less complex ships.

    Because you know about fuck all about budget.

    Take a look at SAP2020 and SAP2025.  Cutting budget isn't even happening with procurement idiot. SAP2020 is only 40% used of over 20T rubles. But I figure you are too dumb to do math.
    avatar
    A1RMAN
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  A1RMAN on Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:21 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:

    Because you know about fuck all about budget.

    Take a look at SAP2020 and SAP2025.  Cutting budget isn't even happening with procurement idiot.  SAP2020 is only 40% used of over 20T rubles.  But I figure you are too dumb to do math.

    I came to this forum to have sensible, respectful discussion. I don't know where you got an idea you can address me in this manner, but it's absolutely unacceptable. I'm not interested to continue this talk with you and I'm gonna report your post to moderators.
    avatar
    miketheterrible
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 536
    Points : 538
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Wed Apr 05, 2017 11:22 pm

    A1RMAN wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:

    Because you know about fuck all about budget.

    Take a look at SAP2020 and SAP2025.  Cutting budget isn't even happening with procurement idiot.  SAP2020 is only 40% used of over 20T rubles.  But I figure you are too dumb to do math.

    I came to this forum to have sensible, respectful discussion. I don't know where you got an idea you can address me in this manner, but it's absolutely unacceptable. I'm not interested to continue this talk with you and I'm gonna report your post to moderators.

    Go ahead.  Doesn't disprove you are an idiot with a retarded comment. Like I said, go do some math. Then read Austin's post in the armament thread. http://www.russiadefence.net/t2358p375-state-armaments-program-2011-2020

    The mods can go ahead and do what they want. If I cannot point out the obvious about scum posters who make wild accusations, then this forum isn't worth much effort.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 314
    Points : 318
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:40 am

    Said it before and I'll say it again Russia should just get china to make them Type 001A carriers at least two until russia can start to build their own, just install your own weapons and systems on it and get them to make the hull.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 581
    Points : 605
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:49 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    A1RMAN wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:

    Because you know about fuck all about budget.

    Take a look at SAP2020 and SAP2025.  Cutting budget isn't even happening with procurement idiot.  SAP2020 is only 40% used of over 20T rubles.  But I figure you are too dumb to do math.

    I came to this forum to have sensible, respectful discussion. I don't know where you got an idea you can address me in this manner, but it's absolutely unacceptable. I'm not interested to continue this talk with you and I'm gonna report your post to moderators.

    Go ahead.  Doesn't disprove you are an idiot with a retarded comment.  Like I said, go do some math.  Then read Austin's post in the armament thread.  http://www.russiadefence.net/t2358p375-state-armaments-program-2011-2020

    The mods can go ahead and do what they want.  If I cannot point out the obvious about scum posters who make wild accusations, then this forum isn't worth much effort.

    Nicely said. No need to hold the hands of the Russia-haters in this forum, or tolerate their agitprop BS. Facts are a great disinfectant for such pathogenic agents.
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:49 am

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Said it before and I'll say it again Russia should just get china to make them Type 001A carriers at least two until russia can start to build their own, just install your own weapons and systems on it and get them to make the hull.

    That's an option but it still doesn't change the fact that carriers are at rock bottom of priority list for Russian Navy. Different geography, different doctrine, different geopolitical situation, list just goes on.

    There are ships that are important to have and there are ships that are nice to have but are not crucial. Carriers fall in latter group from Russia's standpoint.

    They are currently building surface navy from ground up. Missile ships and corvettes are being handled, frigates are on their way (issues notwithstanding), landing ships/helicopter carriers are up next after that.

    And once that is done they will be moving on to destroyers, more specifically Lider class.

    Only after this is done will aircraft carriers come into play and I firmly believe that they will be offshoot of Lider project. It will not be supercarier. It will be much smaller. I believe that correct term is "strike carrier". Correct me if I am wrong on name.

    My guess is that it will be no bigger than Japanese Izumo class or US Wasp class but even that one is on the bigger end.

    Izumo is roughly 250m in length. Kuznetzov is 300m. Lider class is is projected (and officials went on record with this) to be 200m.

    Based on Lider class you can design derivative strike carrier.

    So imagine Izumo class with nuclear propulsion and catapults. Having nuclear reactors means more internal space available than Izumo for both aircraft and weapons. It will have weapons because there is no room in both Russian doctrine nor budget for unarmed vessel.

    This is 21. century. There will be no dogfights over the ocean. Just ocean patrols, sub hunts and maybe couple of neocolonial wars. Exception to the rule in Russia's case but still realistic possibility (see Syria).

    By going with Lider derived strike carrier approach they can have carrier fleet without throwing money down the toilet.

    Until then Kuznetzov can hold the fort in case one of those " exceptions " occurs out of the blue, once it's done with overhaul of course.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:45 am

    This is wrong, papadragon, and agrees not with the new Russian doctrine of 2015.

    The Russian maritime doctrine of 2015 say this:

    http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50060

    Russian Federation Marine Doctrine

    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.

    July 26, 2015 16:00Baltiisk
    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.
    1 of 3
    Vladimir Putin held a meeting to discuss the new draft of Russia’s Marine Doctrine.
    The meeting took place on board the frigate Admiral of the Soviet Navy Gorshkov. Participants included Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu, Commander of the Navy Viktor Chirkov, and Commander of the Western Military District Anatoly Sidorov.

    * * *

    President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.

    We have been updating the Russian Federation’s Marine Doctrine. This very complex document’s main aim is to provide our country with an integral, consistent and effective naval policy that will protect Russia’s interests.

    The Doctrine has been drafted and approved. This is a big event for our future navy, and for developing our shipbuilding industry, because the main customer – the navy in this case, and the Defence Ministry – formulate their future needs, and the industry must carry out these tasks. Industry adapts to new tasks depending on the needs formulated.

    Let me note that for the first time, the Doctrine also includes provisions of a purely social nature. They cover marine medicine, and provisions for improving the health of sailors and the specialists working in the marine field. This is very important. People need to know that from now on, our strategic documents for developing our country’s fleet and navy will address the social aspect too, and will give people what they expect from their service, as they carry out the tasks that face our country today in this very complex and important area.

    Let’s now discuss in more detail the Doctrine’s key provisions. Mr Rogozin, you have the floor.

    Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin: Thank you.

    Mr President,

    This new draft of the Russian Federation Marine Doctrine is a fundamental document of key importance, setting out our country’s naval policy. In other words, it is one of our country’s strategic planning documents.

    The Russian Government’s Marine Board undertook the document’s drafting, with the navy playing the leading role in this work. In all, 15 federal executive agencies and organisations took part in drafting the new Doctrine.

    We proposed making changes to the Marine Doctrine adopted back in 2001 for the period through to 2020 for two reasons: above all, the changing international situation; and, of course, strengthening Russia’s position as a sea power.

    The Marine Doctrine covers four functional areas and six regional areas. The four functional areas are naval activity, marine transport, marine science, and mineral resources development. The six regional areas are the Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, Caspian, and Indian Ocean, and we have added Antarctica, as a fair number of events involving Antarctica have taken place of late and this region is of considerable interest to Russia.

    The main focus is on two areas: the Arctic and the Atlantic. The reasons for this are the following. We emphasise the Atlantic because NATO has been developing actively of late and coming closer to our borders, and Russia is of course responding to these developments.

    The second reason is that Crimea and Sevastopol have been reunited with Russia and we need to take measures for their rapid integration into the national economy. Of course, we are also restoring Russia’s naval presence in the Mediterranean.

    As for the Arctic, several events motivate our decision. One is the growing importance of the North Sea Route. Mr President, I reported to you that we have begun work on building a new fleet of atomic-powered icebreakers. Three new atomic icebreakers will be ready for work accompanying ships along the northern route in 2017, 2019, and 2020. Furthermore, the Arctic also assures us free and unhindered access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Then there are the riches of the continental shelf, the development of which calls for an attentive approach.

    The Marine Doctrine pays particular attention to environmental issues too, because it is important for us not only to develop these riches, but also to preserve them for future generations.

    The Marine Doctrine contains a new section on shipbuilding. This is to a large extent linked to the fact that over these last 10–15 years, we have developed a shipbuilding industry that in terms of naval shipbuilding is doing work on a scale comparable to what was happening during the Soviet period. As for civilian and commercial shipbuilding, we are taking measures to encourage the establishment of private shipbuilding companies, which have demonstrated successful results.

    State management of marine activities is an important part of the Marine Doctrine. This section stresses the role of the Government’s Marine Board and clarifies the powers of the other state agencies. Essentially, once you approved the Marine Doctrine, we will be able to start drafting the whole list of planning documents for our country’s marine activities in the short, medium and long term.

    That concludes my report.

    Vladimir Putin: Are there any comments or questions?

    Commander of the Navy Viktor Chirkov: Mr President,

    Let me thank you for this Marine Doctrine’s timely drafting and approval. This is a timely document. It places responsibility on us for its future implementation, and we have already begun this process.

    Vladimir Putin: Mr Sidorov, what is the situation with coordination between the army and the navy?

    Commander of the Western Military District Anatoly Sidorov: Mr President, it is hard to talk about coordination when everything works as single whole and unified command. As far as the tasks before us are concerned, the Baltic Fleet is resolving everything together with the Western Military District’s forces.

    Regarding the delimitation of certain powers between the naval chief command and the Western Military District’s command, there is full coordination in this area.

    Vladimir Putin: Good, thank you.

    I see weakening in your comment, papadragon, more than a strenghtening.

    And more concretely about shipbuilding:

    https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/russias-new-maritime-doctrine.391893/

    Shipbuilding strategy

    The 2015 doctrine adds a new section to the mix: shipbuilding. This, the doctrine states, is due to the re-emergence of the Russian shipbuilding sector over the past 10-15 years.

    Admiral Victor Chirkov, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy states that the navy's priority is to develop and deploy advanced equipment to enable Russia to make up for lost ground (against rivals) and to become superior to them in certain areas. In addition to refitting the fleets, the navy is looking to build up stocks of weaponry and materiel; improve naval command and control (C2); integrate joint force C2 into the various theatres; and improve the navy's basing and support systems.

    Among these, priority will be given to supporting Russia's ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and nuclear attack submarines (SSNs) within the Northern and Pacific fleets.

    Additionally, the doctrine seeks to create a general-purpose marine force armed with long-range and high-precision strike systems capable of providing a non-nuclear deterrent.

    The navy's future surface fleet is to be divided between long-range multirole vessels and short-range vessels with modular capabilities. Looking ahead, the service intends to field a multi-service naval strike force capable of quick relocation to threatened areas.

    The doctrine also foresees the introduction of new and innovative technologies such as: artificial intelligence systems, unmanned aerial, surface and underwater vehicles (UAVs, USVs, UUVs), non-lethal weapon systems, and new weapon types such as directed-energy weapons.

    Russia will now look to create a single, integrated, and jam-proof fleet-wide C2 system for use at all levels from the strategic to the tactical. This is intended to be adaptable and to form a single information control complex to enable network-centric command of diverse naval and joint-service assets in any theatre of operations.

    In connection with the maritime doctrine, and amendments in some aspects of force development, the Russian Navy is expected to gain some additional resources because the creation of a well-balanced and equipped naval force is a long-term effort of 30-40 years. Considering this and the duration of ship design/construction work, the conceptual approach to the development of the navy will be an ongoing issue for 45-50 years.

    To take account of the implementation time and existing/forecast resource and technology restrictions, the creation of the new-model navy has been divided into three phases: up to 2020; 2021-2030; and 2031-2050. The content of each phase was outlined by Adm Chirkov for the various elements of the navy.

    Strategic nuclear forces

    Up until 2020 the maritime strategic nuclear force will focus on completing the development and launching of its fourth-generation Borey-class (Project 955/955A) SSBNs, while maintaining its remaining Delta III/IV-class (Project 667BDR/667BDRM) SSBNs in operational service.

    During the 2021-2030 phase work will proceed on replacing the Delta class with fourth-generation SSBNs. Within this second phase Russia will also work on developing a new ship-based (in fact submarine-based) strategic missile system and a fifth-generation SSBN class. The doctrine sets out that series production of the fifth-generation SSBN will then commence in the final 2031-2050 phase.

    General-purpose force

    The general-purpose marine force inventory will include in its first phase the creation of a strategic non-nuclear deterrent force, enhancements to its SSN and diesel-electric submarines (SSKs), the build-up of the inventory and capability of its surface forces, and the creation of the new marine rapid-response force. In the mid term the non-nuclear deterrent will be provided by Yasen-class (Project 885M) SSNs and Oscar-class (Project 885M) nuclear-powered guided missile submarines (SSGNs). Meanwhile, the capability of Russia's non-strategic submarines will be ensured by upgrading its third-generation SSNs and building a new generation of SSKs.

    During the 2021-2030 phase Russia's existing SSN/SSK fleet is planned to be improved by adding unmanned technologies, while construction of a new-generation SSN class is also planned.

    Surface fleet

    In the first phase Russia's Admiral Gorshkov-class (Project 22350) frigates and Steregushchy-class (Project 20380) corvettes and their variants will become the core of the surface force for long- and short-range operations.

    In the mid term a new-generation destroyer featuring advanced strike, air defence and missile defence capabilities will become the navy's main oceangoing ship. Between 2021 and 2030 a new class of modular multirole surface combat ship will be designed and enter series production as the successor to the Project 22350/20380 classes. It is envisaged that these will be armed with novel weapon systems and will carry unmanned vehicles of various sorts.

    The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability, along with multirole landing ships. Work to design a new class of Russian aircraft carrier is to be completed before 2020, with construction and entry into service planned for the second phase of the doctrine (2021-2030).

    Unlike the heavy aircraft cruisers of the previous generation of Russian aircraft carriers, the new carrier design will be multirole. It is envisaged to be equipped with manned and unmanned combat systems operating in the air, at sea, underwater and possibly in space. The carrier's air groups will include radar surveillance and C2 aircraft, alongside reconnaissance and strike UAVs.

    Naval Aviation

    For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

    Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

    The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft. During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

    Coastal forces

    The first phase of the doctrine concerning Russia's coastal troops and marine force aims to achieve: the completion of development of advance coastal-defence missiles and the issuing of them; and the enhancement of the marine brigade's ability to operate in different climates, including extreme Arctic conditions.

    Between 2021 and 2030 the doctrine plans the introduction of a highly mobile amphibious combat vehicle for the coastal troops so that they can support the marines' operations. The marines are also earmarked to begin receiving unmanned platforms during this period, possibly armed with directed-energy weapons or powered by alternative energy sources.

    Long term

    The direction of the final 2031-2050 phase is currently being analysed, according to Adm Chirkov. However, it is envisaged that during this final phase the following will be undertaken: series production of new-generation submarines; ongoing series production of the new aircraft carrier class; the start of series production of the new multirole ship class; the creation of a new generation of multirole unmanned systems; and the arming of coastal defence troops with new-generation unmanned missile systems capable of striking air, surface, sub-surface and space targets.

    Long-term plans (by 2050) also call for a transition to modular combat platforms for both surface ships and submarines.

    Nikolai Novichkov is a JDW Correspondent, reporting from Moscow

    And the project being designed is the Project 23000 that full agrees with the doctrine.

    Note that the doctrine explicitly mentions more than one aircraft carrier and serial production of aircraft carriers.
    avatar
    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16069
    Points : 16760
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:08 am

    As a military concept an Aircraft Carrier is only a sea airfield, with its oun military protection inside (air defense, anti-ship, anti-submarine,...).

    Few modern militaries would operate without air power or air cover... even the Russian Military uses Army Aviation with CAS aircraft and attack helos.

    Air power is useful for support (ie transport), for detection and early warning (AWACS), and for rapid strike at short, medium and long ranges, as well as an extra ring layer of defence.

    It is just as important for a Navy as it is for an Army.

    On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.

    Not really. Carriers are made as small as practical to keep costs down.

    In the future UAVs and UCAVs will significantly effect the size of modern carriers.

    OK, first...
    {snip}
    Second...
    {snip}

    And Il-96s modified with AAMs and laser guided bombs with inflight refuelling could do the job of dozens of Flankers from one or two bases in Russia.

    Tu-160s could replace all Russian submarines.

    The reality is that coast based aircraft can't support Russian Naval operations anywhere in the world... even with inflight refuelling.

    And they will have plenty of anti ship and land attack cruise missiles with them so they don't need any land attack capability as much as they need the ability to protect the fleet from enemy air power and anti ship and anti sub weapons.

    As you can see, the only reason why Uncle Sam keeps 10 supercarriers plus 8 smaller carriers in his fleet is to support its constantly warfighting land/marine forces around the globe.

    It is not about projecting power, though it can do that.

    If you look at the air defence of Russia... you look at all the radar and other sensors and the integrated airdefence network with fighters and interceptors and SAMs of all sorts and even space based sensors all working together.

    The dangers to surface and subsurface vessels is no less potent and air craft contribute quite a lot in terms of detection of attacks as they happen in real time and the ability to deal with mass attacks.

    An extra layer of defensive missiles, but more importantly a much larger view of the whole battlefield extending enormous distances and giving much better warning times.

    Modern naval fleets are going to be expensive so why not spend a little more to make them much much strong in both defence and attack.

    I don't understand how some people here came to a conclusion that Russia has money to develop, build at then maintain full-scale AC.

    The cost of a 60K ton carrier is peanuts to what they are spending on Nukes and air defences.

    And in this situation you expect them to throw in billions in developing and building ACs + air wings + helos? Not to mention that we currently have technological and professional (workers, engineers) problems with building much smaller, less complex ships.

    They have already spent the money developing the MiG-29K2 and the Ka-52K.

    Do you think they will only build Corvettes?

    They have plans for producing Cruisers... a carrier will compliment and make rather more effective and more powerful any surface action group.

    From USSR era carriers were considered vulnerable. I think this is the factor that they are referred as costly. Too much money for sth vulnerable during war. Unless Russia wants to assume a role as a global policeman like US, thus participating in enabling by force UN resolutions for example

    Their anti missile capabilities have vastly improved... and the best defence from a sophisticated missile attack is with air power detecting the attack early and the ability to fire both surface and air launched missiles.

    Note that the doctrine explicitly mentions more than one aircraft carrier and serial production of aircraft carriers.

    They are not going to build ten 100Kt super carriers, but they are going to make the navy strong.

    The superpowers of recent history have become superpowers because of their strong navies... they did not become strong and then build a strong navy... they build strong navies first and that made them global powers.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 16069
    Points : 16760
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:31 am

    The mods can go ahead and do what they want. If I cannot point out the obvious about scum posters who make wild accusations, then this forum isn't worth much effort.

    Where is all this hostility coming from Mike?

    You could have made the points and comments you made without making it personal... please tone it down a little.

    I came to this forum to have sensible, respectful discussion. I don't know where you got an idea you can address me in this manner, but it's absolutely unacceptable. I'm not interested to continue this talk with you and I'm gonna report your post to moderators.

    I have to say that the first time I read your post I thought you were trolling.

    You said Russia has no money... yet it is building billion dollar SSBNs and SSNs and upgrading its military across the board.

    You claim we will not see many PAK FAs or Armatas... but with no figures to support that assertion.

    You even suggest they can't build large ships anymore... despite their building half of the Mistral carriers, a carrier for India, several ice breakers.

    Their new design philosophy involves modular components and system... the UKSK launcher in a corvette is just the same as the UKSK launcher in a 25,000 ton Cruiser... the difference is that the Corvette will have one launcher and the cruiser will have ten or more.

    Obviously such new systems need to be tested and they are also having problems with engines... ironically for their bigger boats they have the nuclear propulsion systems developed already so for larger vessels there are actually few problems in that regard.

    Of course there is no point building 6 carriers when there are no support vessels to operate with them...

    There is no point is building air defence fleet carriers when there are no carrier groups to defend.

    Once they start to build those cruisers they have planned then it makes sense to build some carriers.


    _________________
    “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
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:48 pm

    The main focus is on two areas: the Arctic and the Atlantic.........

    Even if you could get AC to ram a path trough the Arctic it is redundant because it is basically one giant frozen littoral zone from Russia's standpoint. Coastal units can cover that part without a problem.

    As for Atlantic, that part is where nuke subs operate. Everything else is tertiary compared to that.

    ...The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability......

    What politicians say and what actually happens with military projects in real life are two very different things.

    And since you are so sensitive to Russia being mentioned in any negative context I will instead offer you example of F-35 fighter jet. That thing was officially several years away from combat readiness back when I was in highschool.

    I was in highschool so long ago.

    Any future Russian aircraft carrier will either be very small or will not exist.
    avatar
    Isos
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 525
    Points : 529
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Isos on Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:13 pm

    The thing is that a carrier needs escort with him. Specially for anti subs missions. The Ka-27 on the carrier won't be enough without the frigates doing a 1st line of defence at some km from it and the SSN operating near them too. So if you want 1 carrier ( lets say 5 billion $) you need at least 2 SSN (3 billion$) and 3 Frigates (1 billion $) with it, even if you put some missiles on the carrier. With the cost of a min of 24 Aircraft + lets say 20 Ka-27 on it, the cost will be around 15 billion $ for the group and the number will rapidely grow up in reallity as they will need to start from the beggining with a new design.

    Moreover, Russian navy can't operate far from its bases today. That just impossible. Their goal is to secure theire economic zones.

    China in the other hand needs carrier because they will need to fight on open sea if US starts a war. Operating from Mainland won't be that good as they can't Attack US bases in the pacifique from there. Their fighters don't have the range to do that and the small numbers of Tu-16 they have are totally useless as they will be shoot down easily without escort.
    avatar
    A1RMAN
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  A1RMAN on Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:26 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:

    Nicely said.  No need to hold the hands of the Russia-haters in this forum, or tolerate their agitprop BS.   Facts are a great disinfectant for such pathogenic agents.

    Aren't you too fast to jump to conclusions? I will say again, my desire is to have discussion on topics I'm interested in. Not to agitate or trash anything. And there's no problem for me to be wrong in some cases, I just expect a calm answer instead of insult.

    You've laughed at me in K thread, when I made an assumption that K could be ready earlier than Redut. A bit of a stretch from me, of course. But there were numerous reports about Redut problems, some of which questioned if we ever see Redut.

    NPO "Almaz" chief was probably fired for a reason.

    And Redut still isn't ready.

    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2508759.html

    According to Borisov the reason for this "low level of organization, supply delays, lack of manufacturing equipment and lack of qualified personnel".

    Is Borisov also Russia-hater? This is as official as you can get.


    Last edited by A1RMAN on Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    A1RMAN
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  A1RMAN on Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:06 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I have to say that the first time I read your post I thought you were trolling.

    You said Russia has no money... yet it is building billion dollar SSBNs and SSNs and upgrading its military across the board.


    Garry, where did I say that Russia has no money? My idea is that Russia is very unlikely to afford ACs in the near future on top of everything they are building now. The earliest that I think they could start AC project would be 2025-2030.

    GarryB wrote:
    You claim we will not see many PAK FAs or Armatas... but with no figures to support that assertion.

    After 2015 parade Putin said that new weaponry that was shown should be delivered to army as fast as possible.

    Right now 12 PAK-FAs are ordered.

    I don't remember any initial numbers on PAK-FAs. But for me, when they started talking about delaying PAK-FAs and buying Su-35s instead, sounded like a financial choice.

    MOD is thinking about reviewing PAK-FA procurement plans.
    https://vz.ru/news/2016/10/20/839198.html

    PAK-FA program shifts again.
    https://vpk.name/news/174321_yurii_borisov_programma_pak_fa_snova_sdvigaetsya.html?new

    100 Armatas are ordered. including the parade ones iirc.

    What was the number they mentioned? 2100 armatas until 2020? Maybe that was a mistake by official and he meant to say "until 2025". Maybe it was over the top, but officials added that UVZ is building assembly line to handle this line of work. Also Magnitogorsk build additional line to provide metal for this task.

    With current order, I don't see it coming even close to these numbers even until 2025.

    GarryB wrote:
    You even suggest they can't build large ships anymore... despite their building half of the Mistral carriers, a carrier for India, several ice breakers.

    Their new design philosophy involves modular components and system... the UKSK launcher in a corvette is just the same as the UKSK launcher in a 25,000 ton Cruiser... the difference is that the Corvette will have one launcher and the cruiser will have ten or more.

    Obviously such new systems need to be tested and they are also having problems with engines... ironically for their bigger boats they have the nuclear propulsion systems developed already so for larger vessels there are actually few problems in that regard.

    Of course there is no point building 6 carriers when there are no support vessels to operate with them...

    There is no point is building air defence fleet carriers when there are no carrier groups to defend.

    Once they start to build those cruisers they have planned then it makes sense to build some carriers.

    I never said that they can't build new ships. I said that they have difficulties building new ships. Of course, part of it is unexpected Ukraine supply problem. But there's also a professional problem - lack of specialists. I placed a link in my previous post with Borisov quote about professional problems in NPO Almaz. Same problems go in every industry.

    On the bright side, I think Zvezdochka is performing great right now. We hear mostly positive news from them. I hope situation changes for other shipyards.

    Also, I think there's a big difference between building SSBNs and ACs.

    Doesn't matter if they have money or not, they have to build SSBNs - vital part of nuclear triad. Otherwise they are screwed. Not having a single AC (at least for testing) is not a good thing, but they definitely can live with that.
    avatar
    Kimppis
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 230
    Points : 236
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Kimppis on Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:19 pm

    Garry, where did I say that Russia has no money? My idea is that Russia is very unlikely to afford ACs in the near future on top of everything they are building now. The earliest that I think they could start AC project would be 2025-2030.

    I think most people agree with you on that and that has always been the plan. So how are the current "budget cuts" (which indeed, never really happened or rather, they were always part of the plan) relevant?

    After 2015 parade Putin said that new weaponry that was shown should be delivered to army as fast as possible.

    Right now 12 PAK-FAs are ordered.

    I don't remember any initial numbers on PAK-FAs. But for me, when they started talking about delaying PAK-FAs and buying Su-35s instead, sounded like a financial choice.

    I think they were originally planning for around 50-60 by 2020. But to me it's still not entirely clear whether those 12 are the only ones to be delivered by 2020. It's just the initial order, whatever that means. Also, they have ordered around 100 Su-35s in total by 2020. It seems to me that was always the plan and they didn't increase the order due to PAK-FA.

    100 Armatas are ordered. including the parade ones iirc.

    What was the number they mentioned? 2100 armatas until 2020? Maybe that was a mistake by official and he meant to say "until 2025". Maybe it was over the top, but officials added that UVZ is building assembly line to handle this line of work. Also Magnitogorsk build additional line to provide metal for this task.

    With current order, I don't see it coming even close to these numbers even until 2025.

    That was never the case, obviously. Mistranslations, etc. The plan is to have around 2500 "modern" tanks by 2020, not only Armatas. So that includes upgraded T-72s and T-80s, operational T-90s and Armatas. They are obviously going to keep producing Armatas until the early 2030s, atleast. They have been upgrading hundreds and even thousands of T-72s for a reason.

    Militarov wrote:50%? Not even close, even if you use an actual purchace power of the rub on Russian market its nowhere even remotely close to US military spending.

    True. I'd say it's around 25% of the US spending and overall capability, so something like $150 billion in comparable terms.
    avatar
    A1RMAN
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 58
    Points : 60
    Join date : 2016-10-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  A1RMAN on Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:48 pm

    Kimppis wrote:

    I think most people agree with you on that and that has always been the plan. So how are the current "budget cuts" (which indeed, never really happened or rather, they were always part of the plan) relevant?

    If it's true that military budget of 2017 wasn't cut, then I'm sorry. Probably missed some news. I remember MOD official stating that they will have 5 or 6% decrease of 2017's budget.

    Kimppis wrote:
    That was never the case, obviously. Mistranslations, etc. The plan is to have around 2500 "modern" tanks by 2020, not only Armatas. So that includes upgraded T-72s and T-80s, operational T-90s and Armatas. They are obviously going to keep producing Armatas until the early 2030s, atleast. They have been upgrading hundreds and even thousands of T-72s for a reason.

    Российская армия получит 2300 танков на базе бронеплатформы «Армата». Об этом рассказал в понедельник, 14 сентября, в эфире радио «Эхо Москвы» генеральный директор научно-производственной корпорации «Уралвагонзавод» Олег Сиенко.

    По словам Сиенко, государственная программа вооружений предполагает поставку армии 2300 единиц «Арматы» до 2020 года, однако, вероятнее всего, она будет скорректирована по срокам: «Объемы, наверное, останутся, а вот период сдвинется к 2025 году». Сиенко также сообщил, что предприятие по заказу Минобороны разрабатывает технику для работы в арктических условиях: тягачи и вооружение, способные действовать при экстремально низких температурах.

    2300 armatas until 2020 or 2025.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:34 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    eehnie wrote:On sea, the philosophy must be the same. Is the aircraft what determines the lenght of the airfield, and as consecuence the lenght and size of the Aircraft Carriers.

    Not really. Carriers are made as small as practical to keep costs down.

    In the future UAVs and UCAVs will significantly effect the size of modern carriers.

    eehnie wrote:Note that the doctrine explicitly mentions more than one aircraft carrier and serial production of aircraft carriers.

    They are not going to build ten 100Kt super carriers, but they are going to make the navy strong.

    The superpowers of recent history have become superpowers because of their strong navies... they did not become strong and then build a strong navy... they build strong navies first and that made them global powers.

    Your answer to the first quote is missing the real reasons of why the aircraft carriers where done as small as possible in the past. The main reasons were technical, not economical.

    1.- In the 1960s or the 1970s it was out of question to operate in aircraft carriers, aircrafts of 30 tons, even aircrafts of 20 tons.
    2.- But then most of the combat aircrafts used were significantly smaller. As example the MiG-21 is an aircraft of 10 tons.
    3.- As consequence, at the time, the difference between a bigger or a smaller aircraft carrier was not in the firepower of the aircrafts carried. Aircrafts of similar firepower were available for both.
    4.- Then the technical fight was about to reduce the lenght of the runway needed by the aircrafts, but the aircrafts used were of about the same firepower. At the time small aircraft carriers, and the aircrafts (VTOL) that were able to use them was considered an advantage in costs without a significant lose of firepower. We can compare the size of the Yak-38 with the sice of the MiG-21, and we see how is about the same.
    5.- But it was a mistake to include not in the economical balance of the smaller aircraft carriers to include not the costs of development and production of the specific aircrafts for aircraft carriers.

    This philosophy of specific aircrafts for aircraft carriers was ruled out time ago. Even in the 1980s The Sovietic Union designer ist last aircraft carriers in a transition toward the standardization. While the Yak-38 was a totally different aircraft the Su-33 shared the same basis than the Su-27.

    Today the picture for the design of aircraft carriers is different:

    1.- Bigger aircrafts are in the mix for aircraft carriers of the current size.
    2.- To find the limits on size of the aircraft carriers is not considered positive because it has an effect over the safety of the operations with aircrafts that leads to some expensive loses with the time.

    ---

    About the second quote, it is obvious that the reference to serial production includes the units to export, but not only. The doctrine says clearly that Russia plans to have more than one aircraft carrier in the future (likely 2). And after an official presentation of the Project 23000 of aircraft carrier, this seems the model that is going forward under the plan.
    avatar
    eehnie
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 936
    Points : 961
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:45 pm


    I do not see Russia following the way of the US, using its Navy, its Aircraft Carriers to impose their military power over the adversaries.

    But if Russia wants to have friends outside of the continental platform of Asia, must be able to defend them. Today, everyone that appears as friend of Russia outside of Asia is heavily attacked.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 297
    Points : 299
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:21 pm

    As it seems russia needs the carriers to protect the arctic routes.

    So the most probable is the nextac will be based on the super icebreaker, with ice capability, and to work on all year long in the arcitv with icebreaker help.
    avatar
    Militarov
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5364
    Points : 5409
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Militarov on Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:11 am

    miketheterrible wrote:
    A1RMAN wrote:I don't understand how some people here came to a conclusion that Russia has money to develop, build at then maintain full-scale AC.

    Current military budget is being cut. New types of weaponry are delayed and purchasing numbers are decreasing. We are gonna see comparably low numbers of T-50, Armata and other new systems in upcoming years. Officials stated many times that the reason for this is financing.

    And in this situation you expect them to throw in billions in developing and building ACs + air wings + helos? Not to mention that we currently have technological and professional (workers, engineers) problems with building much smaller, less complex ships.

    Because you know about fuck all about budget.

    Take a look at SAP2020 and SAP2025.  Cutting budget isn't even happening with procurement idiot.  SAP2020 is only 40% used of over 20T rubles.  But I figure you are too dumb to do math.

    "Only 40% used".

    Its not like they piled up the money in some room. That money is being allocated though fiscal year. Percentage of how much of it was used has no value whatsoever, it might as well end up being halved in final score, we do not know atm what will happen. Might get increased, halved... we dont know.
    avatar
    PapaDragon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4125
    Points : 4235
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:46 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:As it seems russia needs the carriers to protect the arctic routes.

    So the most probable is the nextac will be based on the super icebreaker, with ice capability, and to work on all year long in the arcitv with icebreaker help.


    No they don't.

    They already have bases up there.

    There will be no ACs in the Arctic.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:25 pm