Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Share
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:59 am

    kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
    as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
    do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

    If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
    for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
    destroyers.  

    No mission? I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid. Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons. That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

    Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept. Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5611
    Points : 5715
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:02 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships  Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

    VSTOL?  Pfffttt...  that ship has sailed in the 80s.  I can't imagine todays Russia spending resources to develop a modern multi-role VSTOL fighter.  The US has done so, but only because they had already a massive investment in small assault carriers for the USMC and they needed a replacement for the near-obsolete Harrier derivatives.

    Russia no. 

    UAE? Definitely...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1690
    Points : 1730
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:32 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:More smaller ships? yes. Striking capabilities? yes. But IMHO It will be rather more 30-40kT ships  Universal. I.e. either AC role with VSTOL fighters -/ ASW helos or peacekeeping /landing support with helos drones.

    VSTOL?  Pfffttt...  that ship has sailed in the 80s.  I can't imagine todays Russia spending resources to develop a modern multi-role VSTOL fighter.  The US has done so, but only because they had already a massive investment in small assault carriers for the USMC and they needed a replacement for the near-obsolete Harrier derivatives.

    The Russian Navy earlier stated it intended to get a perspective aircraft carrier with a nuclear-powered propulsion unit by late 2030. The deputy defense minister earlier said the contract for building the aircraft carrier might be signed by late 2025.
    The same deputy defense minister said at the recent MAKS airshow outside Moscow that the Defense Ministry was discussing plans with aircraft-building industry contractors to develop an aircraft with vertical take-off and landing for a future aircraft carrier. The fighter jet is expected to further develop the family of vertical take-off planes made by the Yakovlev Company.
    According to Head of Russia’s United Aircraft Corporation (UAC) Yuri Slyusar, the company has not yet received any technical assignment for such aircraft.

    But Russian MoD can imagine this Smile check my post up on this page for details pls. Yup VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR Smile
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3204
    Points : 3327
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  kvs on Sun Sep 10, 2017 3:13 pm

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
    as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
    do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

    If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
    for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
    destroyers.  

    No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship? The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
    to defend it. No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases. How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
    the Kuznetsov have in tow? None. Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets. In this role they make sense
    and remain relevant. In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.


    Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

    Asymmetry has become a buzzword. The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation. Expanding this capability to the point of almost
    making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go. A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Sep 11, 2017 4:34 am

    kvs wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
    as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
    do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

    If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
    for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
    destroyers.  

    No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
    to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
    the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
    and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  


    Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

    Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
    making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

    Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:31 am

    kvs wrote:
    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?  
    No, but as an air-superiority & ASW platform operating with other surface units to protect Russia's SSBN bastions, (a) interdiction of HATO ASW aircraft and any escort fighters, and (b) carrying out helo-based ASW against HATO SSNs.

    IIRC it was this mission for which the Kuznetsov (and her Pr 1143 predecessors) were originally designed, and for which an absolute need is still required today. This mission requires 3 carriers - one for the Northern Fleet (ie Barents sea), one for Pacific (Sea of Okhotsk), and a 3rd as a swing to account for repairs, training. For this reason, 100kT+ behemoths are not feasible and 65kT Kuznetsov Mk II will be ideal.

    kvs wrote:
    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go
    That's why I think the upcoming upgrade of the K must include deletion of P-700 Granits and their replacement with as many 3C-14 modules as can be made to fit.  For defense of SSBN bastions, the new ASW munitions will be ideal.  Carry a 50/50 mix of AShM & ASW.
    avatar
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 838
    Points : 856
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Big_Gazza on Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:56 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR Smile

    With all due respect, i'll disagree. VSTOL imposes strict performance liabilities on the aircraft design - if you doubt this, look at what a total bag of shit the F-35 has turned out to be due to the need to operate off USMC assault carriers.... STOBAR is likely a better solution, but it depends on your mission type.

    For the mission of Kuznetsov (ie not including any long-range strikes with heavy bomb-load) a STOBAR configuration works fine, regardless of the BS shit-posting from Western "commentators" who routinely disparage the Kuz use of ski-jump. Local AA doesn't require heavy ordnance load-outs or full fuel loads, so having two aircraft available for launch on the 1/2 length ski-jump launch points is fine. For the odd time when they need something heavier, use the full length launch point (though you will need to suspend recovery operations while its in use).
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:11 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?  
    No, but as an air-superiority & ASW platform operating with other surface units to protect Russia's SSBN bastions, (a) interdiction of HATO ASW aircraft and any escort fighters, and (b) carrying out helo-based ASW against HATO SSNs.

    IIRC it was this mission for which the Kuznetsov (and her Pr 1143 predecessors) were originally designed, and for which an absolute need is still required today.  

    I agree.

    In fact an Aircraft Carrier and its scort is an advanced mobile military base:

    - To provide air superiority in an important area.
    - To provide advanced air defense in an important area.
    - To provide advanced anti-ship armament in an important area.
    - To provide advanced anti-submarine armament in an important area.
    - To provide advanced maritime patrol in an important area.

    All that is very useful specially in the Artic Ocean.

    The question about the size of the Aircraft Carrier, is in reality a question about the strenght of this mobile military base:

    - Which types of aircrafts are allowed. Weaker aircrafts means lower capacity of air superiority.
    - Which types of air defense systems are carried
    - Which types of anti-ship armament are carried.
    - Which types of anti-submarine armament are carried.
    - Which types of maritime patrol tools are carried
    - Which kind of aircraft carriers of the adversary can face without a need to retire. In fact is military base vs military base by strentght.

    The main question is. With haw many of its current Aircraft Carriers (including scort) Russia will allow the domination of the Arctic Ocean to the US?

    In other words:

    Which type of aircraft carrier and of what size needs Russia to deny to the US the domination of the Arctic Ocean with 1 of its big Aircraft Carriers deployed in the Arctic?
    Which type of aircraft carrier and of what size needs Russia to deny to the US the domination of the Arctic Ocean with 2 of its big Aircraft Carriers deployed in the Arctic?
    How many of its big aircraft carriers can afford the US to deploy in the Arctic Ocean in peace time without seeing damaged its domination in other oceans?

    PS: The argument of Russia lack of scort for a big Aricraft Carrier is not right. The entire Nothern Fleet is basically a battle group designed to work under the command of its Aircraft Carrier. Obviously the scort of the A Kutznesov aircraft carrier moved not to the Mediterraneum with the ship, but this is because the scort of the A Kutznetsov is not designed to be mobile, and neither the mission of the A Kutznesov is mobile. The campaign of Syria was more a test than of the ship than a model to operate Aircraft Carriers.

    T-47

    Posts : 211
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  T-47 on Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:04 pm

    Just two key points:

    1. VSTOL fixed wings are proved shit in air-to-air fight
    2. If you want your carrier in Arctic, you need a ice-class hull. Doesn't matter what is the tonnage. Ice will love you if the hull is not ice-classed. Or you need a bunch of icebreakers as escort (not scort).
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1690
    Points : 1730
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:30 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:VSTOL is the logical way if you have small carriers and want us use both helos and fighters on small displacement. We are back to USSR Smile

    With all due respect, i'll disagree.  VSTOL imposes strict performance liabilities on the aircraft design - if you doubt this, look at what a total bag of shit the F-35 has turned out to be due to the need to operate off USMC assault carriers....  STOBAR is likely a better solution, but it depends on your mission type.

    For the mission of Kuznetsov (ie not including any long-range strikes with heavy bomb-load) a STOBAR configuration works fine, regardless of the BS shit-posting from Western "commentators" who routinely disparage the Kuz use of ski-jump.   Local AA doesn't require heavy ordnance load-outs or full fuel loads, so having two aircraft available for launch on the 1/2 length ski-jump launch points is fine.  For the odd time when they need something heavier, use the full length launch point (though you will need to suspend recovery operations while its in use).


    Lets' agree to disagree Smile F-35 is not bad because of VTOL capabilities but manufacturer tried to incorporate 3 different planes in one machine. The result is known. Yak-141 was not a bad fighter it just was born in wrong time. For ships called "heavy aviation cruiser" those kind of airwing is best IMHO. Fighters to point protect fleet group. with up to even with 700 radius you have π*(700)2 square km of possible space for own SSBN subs.

    As for size Kiev Class (40kT) was chosen in USSR not by accident. It turned out this is optimum for cost/mission pair.
    avatar
    kvs

    Posts : 3204
    Points : 3327
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  kvs on Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:55 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
    as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
    do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

    If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
    for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
    destroyers.  

    No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
    to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
    the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
    and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  


    Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

    Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
    making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

    Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.

    You are describing a US colonial enforcement mission and nothing that is relevant for Russia. Russia does not need aircraft carriers to defend itself. Aircraft can be fielded from land bases on its territory. The need for carriers to support ships is by definition a remote operation. Does the Russian navy have any interest in such operations? I would like to see some evidence of any such interest.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:12 am

    kvs wrote:
    AlfaT8 wrote:
    kvs wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:
    kvs wrote:Unlike the USA, Russia does not have defenseless 3rd world governments it needs to keep in line.   Syria was an anomaly and
    as mentioned repeatedly, there was no actual need for an aircraft carrier.    So what is the "pulling of the weight" here?   What mission
    do Russian aircraft carriers have?   To spread taxpayer money to the shipbuilders?    No mission means no use.  

    If Russia thinks it needs aircraft carriers then it should build a couple of nuclear powered, missile stacked Kuznetsov variants.   One
    for the Atlantic/Mediterranean and one for the Pacific.   At least the missiles can basically convert these carriers into modern
    destroyers.  

    No mission?  I think the original Soviet-era mission is still valid.  Project sea-based air superiority over Russias littorial areas and near-abroad to complement land-based aviation and help shield her surface fleet elements from US carrier-based aviation carrying stand-off weapons.  That is still their primary mission brief AFAIK.

    An air craft carrier as a littoral combat ship?   The USSR had a very long coastline but did not have anywhere near the number of such "littoral combat ships"
    to defend it.    No, the only rational use of aircraft to defend the USSR's and Russia's borders would be from land bases.    How many S-400 or S-500 complexes does
    the Kuznetsov have in tow?   None.   Aircraft carriers are WWII dinosaurs retasked by the USA as colonial enforcement assets.   In this role they make sense
    and remain relevant.   In any other role they are nothing more than very expensive scrap metal waiting to hit the seabed.  


    Agree however that any future Russian "carrier" should continue the "aircraft-carrying heavy missile cruiser" concept.  Its still an unproved concept, but against the USN, Russia needs to adopt asymmetric force design to counter the USN huge numerical superiority, and I think the concept will work for them.

    Asymmetry has become a buzzword.    The Kuznetsov's missile capability is an actual innovation.    Expanding this capability to the point of almost
    making the aircraft component irrelevant is the only way to go.    A pure aircraft carrier is, for Russia, a useless item.  

    Well no matter how you slice it or dice it, ships need air-support and those ships aren't always around the homeland, so carriers are a must, the only questions left are how many and how big.

    You are describing a US colonial enforcement mission and nothing that is relevant for Russia.  Russia does not need aircraft carriers to defend itself.  Aircraft can be fielded from land bases on its territory.   The need for carriers to support ships is by definition a remote operation.   Does the Russian navy have any interest in such operations?   I would like to see some evidence of any such interest.

    Ships go to Sea and air-support is needed, nothing colonial about it.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1552
    Points : 1577
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  eehnie on Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:31 am

    T-47 wrote:escort (not scort).

    I hope you be not one of those English monolinguals that think that everyone without a perfect English knows less than them.

    There is a world that can live perfectly without the English language.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:20 am

    The UK is a tiny rather uninteresting group of islands off the coast or europe.

    The UK,Spain, Portugal, France, the US... all pretty insignificant until they deployed powerful navies.

    Before aircraft the capital ship was king.

    Now the aircraft and sub fought for supremacy in attack... but now missiles are becoming more important.

    Of course defending from an attack of dozens or hundreds of missiles is made easier with AWACS and AAM armed fighter interceptors.


    _________________
    “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
    medo

    Posts : 3231
    Points : 3317
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  medo on Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:27 pm

    T-47 wrote:Just two key points:

    1. VSTOL fixed wings are proved shit in air-to-air fight
    2. If you want your carrier in Arctic, you need a ice-class hull. Doesn't matter what is the tonnage. Ice will love you if the hull is not ice-classed. Or you need a bunch of icebreakers as escort (not scort).

    1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
    2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:48 pm

    medo wrote:1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
    2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.

    The Mistral had ice capabilities??
    you got a source for that?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16741
    Points : 17349
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:06 am

    1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.

    The British dominated because they had Lima and Mike model Sidewinders with much better head on engagement capabilities.

    If the Argentines had bought MiG-23s with BVR missiles and modern radar the British would haver been in serious trouble.

    Extending the runway on the islands and basing their aircraft there would also have made things much harder.


    The Mistral had ice capabilities??
    you got a source for that?

    Russian Mistrals had ice strengthened hulls and taller roofs for operating in ice and for kamovs with coaxial main rotors.


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

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1420
    Points : 1421
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Sep 13, 2017 5:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The Mistral had ice capabilities??
    you got a source for that?

    Russian Mistrals had ice strengthened hulls and taller roofs for operating in ice and for kamovs with coaxial main rotors.

    I see, so any future carrier will most likely have an ice strengthened hull as well, good to know.

    T-47

    Posts : 211
    Points : 215
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  T-47 on Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:47 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    T-47 wrote:escort (not scort).

    I hope you be not one of those English monolinguals that think that everyone without a perfect English knows less than them.

    There is a world that can live perfectly without the English language.

    *Evil laughter* Huehuehue

    medo wrote:

    1. Tell this to Argentineans in Falkland war. They will not agree with you about Sea Harrier to be a shit in AA fight.
    2. Kuznetsov is in Northern fleet and Russia ordered Mistralsn with ice capabilities. Russian new carriers will have ice capabilities. They will not be icebreakers, but good enough tom operate in Arctic sea.

    1. Garry already wrote enough. Just add another point of quality and training of Argentine AF.
    2. You misunderstood my comment. Being in Northern fleet doesn't mean anything about Arctic capable ship. Sea around Murmasnk don't freeze due to the gulf stream. But around Dikson and beyond they do. Everytime Northern fleet ship had to go to Arctic they had ice breaker escorts (except in summer). If you want your ships (A/C or not doesn't matter) around Dikson or Franz Josef Island anytime around the year you need serious ice capabilities or ice breakers (also big ones).
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Sep 24, 2017 12:17 pm

    Compare the Chinese Type 075 vs the project 22220 icebreaker.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_075_landing_helicopter_dock
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK-60Ya-class_icebreaker


    I think it is quite obivous the icebreaker is more complex and expensive than the similar sized landing dock.

    Additionally, the US carriers are simple floating airports, there is no sonar/radar systems ( the radars on the Nimitz ships are salvaged from decommissioned destroyers), there is minimal air defence, and no attack capability.The hull is not reinforced , and not ice class.


    Other side the icebreakers has special double hull, with reinforcement on the front sections, all propulsion needs special arrangements, the full hull needs to be reinforced and ice capable ( the normal steel can snap in cold).
    avatar
    ZoA

    Posts : 36
    Points : 42
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  ZoA on Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:01 pm

    To paraphrase Tolstoy all simple ships are alike, but each complex ships is complex in it's own way.

    Carriers / landing ships are complex in their own way as they require specially design deck and command and control facilities with specialist experiment for dealing with arresting and lunching aircraft. On another hand icebreaker has specially designed hull, ballast systems and propulsion to facilitate navigation true ice covered water surface. So as areas that need to be specially designed to perform their specific task are quite different there can not be direct comparison in complexity between the two. Icebreaker will have more complicated hull, ballast tanks and propulsion, carrier will have more complicated deck, superstructure and cargo (aircraft) manipulation equipment.

    If you want something more complicated then either imagine ice braking carriers. clown


    Last edited by ZoA on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:34 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : basalt -> ballast)
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 510
    Points : 506
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Sep 24, 2017 10:27 pm

    ZoA wrote:To paraphrase Tolstoy all simple ships are alike, but each complex ships is complex in it's own way.

    Carriers / landing ships are complex in their own way as they require specially design deck and command and control facilities with specialist experiment for dealing with arresting and lunching aircraft. On another hand icebreaker has specially designed hull, basalt systems and propulsion to facilitate navigation true ice covered water surface. So as areas that need to be specially designed to perform their specific task are quite different there can not be direct comparison in complexity between the two. icebreaker will have more complicated hull, basalt tanks and propulsion, carrier will have more complicated deck, superstructure and cargo (aircraft) manipulation equipment.

    If you want something more complicated then either imagine ice braking carriers. clown

    The carrier requiring more sophisticated maintenance and aircraft handling organisation.
    As I see the main cost driver is NOT the deck/lift gears and equipment, but the accumulated skill of arresting/landing aircraft, moving them and as important to maintain all equipment to the required minimum level.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1690
    Points : 1730
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:08 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    ZoA wrote:To paraphrase Tolstoy all simple ships are alike, but each complex ships is complex in it's own way.

    Carriers / landing ships are complex in their own way as they require specially design deck and command and control facilities with specialist experiment for dealing with arresting and lunching aircraft. On another hand icebreaker has specially designed hull, basalt systems and propulsion to facilitate navigation true ice covered water surface. So as areas that need to be specially designed to perform their specific task are quite different there can not be direct comparison in complexity between the two. icebreaker will have more complicated hull, basalt tanks and propulsion, carrier will have more complicated deck, superstructure and cargo (aircraft) manipulation equipment.

    If you want something more complicated then either imagine ice braking carriers. clown

    The carrier requiring more sophisticated maintenance and aircraft handling organisation.
    As I see the main cost driver is NOT the deck/lift gears and equipment, but the accumulated skill of arresting/landing aircraft, moving them and as important to maintain all equipment to the required minimum level.

    If so then the question is do you need catapult? maybe not. Couple moths ago Borisov said about possible V/STOL fighter based on  YAK fighters.
    What about updated Yak-201?

    http://en.avia.pro/blog/yak-201

    https://plus.google.com/+%D0%92%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%88%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8/posts/Q8Ady1taZyP

    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 5611
    Points : 5715
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:10 pm


    Dude we already get enough anime from Krylov, we don't need extra material... Suspect
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1505
    Points : 1505
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:25 pm

    Actually papa, the Russian mod hinted at possible brining back vtol depending if it works for them or not. And regardless what you think, yakovlev still designs and comes out with products (Yak-130, Yak-152). They provided technical knowledge for F-35 development unfortunately.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:12 am