Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1470
    Points : 1469
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 3280
    Points : 3366
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 1470
    Points : 1469
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 1470
    Points : 1469
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 212
    Points : 216
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 57
    Points : 65
    Join date : 2017-08-20

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 1977
    Points : 2019
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 6102
    Points : 6206
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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 : 1843
    Points : 1841
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6102
    Points : 6206
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:37 am

    miketheterrible wrote: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.

    Given the pricetag I would say 'fortunately'

    And yes I know they are looking into VTOLs just that we should wait for some official material
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1843
    Points : 1841
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:48 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote: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.

    Given the pricetag I would say 'fortunately'

    And yes I know they are looking into VTOLs just that we should wait for some official material

    I say there is more of a chance for vtol and pocket jump jet carriers.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:30 am

    The problem really with that is that people think a smaller carrier is possible with VSTOL fighters on board and that somehow that will make the carrier cheaper.


    The fact of the matter is that a VSTOL fighter will be a whole level of magnitude more expensive than a conventional takeoff and arrested landing equivalent, so the money you save on a slightly smaller carrier, you spend on a much more expensive but also much less capable aircraft.

    The British won in the Falklands by the skin of their teeth.... if they had Phantoms and Buccaneers on the Ark Royal it would have been 100 times easier.... they could have operated much further out, had better warning and control and much better ground support and would not have had to waste time sending semi strategic bombers to hit the airfields before the ships got in range.

    Saving space on the carrier is a misnomer... the space you save means a smaller, less capable air group, made up of smaller less capable aircraft.

    If you take the Yak-141 and the MiG-29 in the Mid-1980s and compare them the MiG cleans up.... much cheaper, faster, longer range, better payload, bigger better radar. The engine on the Yak was enormous but its lift jets were dead weight except on take off and landing... it couldn't even operate from conventional runways because the engine damaged them on takeoff.

    I can't emphasise this enough a VSTOL aircraft is not just a plane with engine nozzles that can turn straight down to take off like a helicopter.

    It is seriously weight limited. It needs pipes to carry dangerous high pressure air to the nose, to each wing tip, and to the tail of the aircraft in addition to the air flow from the engines to be able to control the aircraft in the hover.

    The engines need to generate lift at the front and middle of the aircraft to balance it... which means a 360 degree IR signature the most primitive Strela would hit.... let alone modern thermal systems.

    All this high pressure hot air piping means terrible weight penalties and fragility... minor battle damage anywhere and it wont be able to land.

    There are books about the worlds most useless weapons... nunchucks and things... VSTOL fighters should be included... and that is all of them.

    The best bang for buck is a capable fixed wing fighter and a ship big enough to carry plenty and the fuel and resources to keep them operating for a while a good distance from home...


    Without the Hermes the British could not have contested the territory of the Falklands Islands... With the Ark Royal they probably would never have had to... but if they did they would have been rather more effective and efficient.


    _________________
    “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
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1977
    Points : 2019
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Dude we already get enough anime from Krylov, we don't need extra material...  Suspect  

    I thought you're more kawaii Surprised  as for Yaks lets assume 201 was int in design stadium we still have actual prototype Yak-141. And Borisov was talking about Yak V/STOL in context-of future A/C.  

    Ну что ж поживем увидим Razz



    GarryB wrote:The problem really with that is that people think a smaller carrier is possible with VSTOL fighters on board and that somehow that will make the carrier cheaper.


    The fact of the matter is that a VSTOL fighter will be a whole level of magnitude more expensive than a conventional takeoff and arrested landing equivalent, so the money you save on a slightly smaller carrier, you spend on a much more expensive but also much less capable aircraft.


    Saving space on the carrier is a misnomer... the space you save means a smaller, less capable air group, made up of smaller less capable aircraft.

    If you take the Yak-141 and the MiG-29 in the Mid-1980s and compare them the MiG cleans up.... much cheaper, faster, longer range, better payload, bigger better radar. The engine on the Yak was enormous but its lift jets were dead weight except on take off and landing... it couldn't even operate from conventional runways because the engine damaged them on takeoff.

    I can't emphasise this enough a VSTOL aircraft is not just a plane with engine nozzles that can turn straight down to take off like a helicopter.

    It is seriously weight limited. It needs pipes to carry dangerous high pressure air to the nose, to each wing tip, and to the tail of the aircraft in addition to the air flow from the engines to

    Not sure if cheaper, otherwise  Russian military leadership does  not see what authors of those books can see. This is a bit like criticism of  aircraft cruiser. Aircraft Cruiser is not optimal with large fleet, many bases and for sea control strategy.  For sea denial  where you have little bases, small amount of heavy vessel not necessairly.  Russia does not need for massive  air-air battles long range from deck - why if you have S-500 and S-400 and bunch of Zircons?  

    Besides you can achieve versatility.  With same budget you can build more "cruiser LHD" thne 1 or 2 large ones. Thyy can move marines and support landing or ASW role or air-wing support of own fleet in Arctic.  Of course i am speculating.   Me thinks that Russian MoD is considering series of smaller ships (smaller hulls 30-40kT)  which can be universal  and do not require enormous support groups as US flat-tops.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1204
    Points : 1202
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:52 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    Dude we already get enough anime from Krylov, we don't need extra material...  Suspect  

    I thought you're more kawaii Surprised  as for Yaks lets assume 201 was int in design stadium we still have actual prototype Yak-141. And Borisov was talking about Yak V/STOL in context-of future A/C.  

    поживём увидим

    Russian have much more skills at building powerfull fighters able to operate from ski jump deck than VSTOL. In terms of capabilities a mig-29k is like 100 times better than a yak 141. In terms of cost a ski jump is just piece of metal nothing more ... they just need a modern carrier with more space on the deck and nuc propulsion. French charles de gaulles has smaller size but is optimized to be a true carrier and does de job better than K because K design is too heavy. Its modernization should be removing some stuff and adding nuc engines.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17213
    Points : 17819
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Sep 26, 2017 7:50 am

    Russia does not need for massive air-air battles long range from deck - why if you have S-500 and S-400 and bunch of Zircons?

    Yeah, and modern fighters like Phantoms don't need guns any more because in this day and age the day of the AAM is dead.

    The reality is that you need to be able to fight in close as well as at arms length.

    Obviously it is nicer if you can sit 200km off shore and launch long range cruise missiles and defend yourself with 400 and 600km range SAMs, but as shown in the Iranian airbus shootdown if you are a ship... even with long range cruise missiles and long range SAMs when you spot a blip on the radar you can't tell really what is happening so you need to decide to shoot it down or not.... in this case they decided to shoot and ended up murdering over 200 people.

    With aircraft they could have sent an interceptor to investigate something suspicious in the air or on the water or on land.

    With just missiles you must just guess.

    Russians traditionally don't rely on aircraft alone so any future Russian carrier will have UKSK launchers which will give them the ability to deal with land targets and ships and subs... they will also be able to deal with aircraft as well with a proper air defence system.
    Future iterations of Zircon in an air launched model will mean an even more potent air attack capability but like its Army ti wont rely completely on aircraft for defence.

    The PAK FA is fully multirole which means as a naval aircraft it will be vastly more useful for a range of roles.

    Me thinks that Russian MoD is considering series of smaller ships (smaller hulls 30-40kT) which can be universal and do not require enormous support groups as US flat-tops.

    I agree, I don't think the US concept of super carrier... regime change special is what they are thinking.

    They are making their anti ship missiles multipurpose land attack missiles and the whole purpose of the universal launcher UKSK is to enhance the flexibility and multirole performance of their new vessels.


    _________________
    “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
    eehnie

    Posts : 1932
    Points : 1957
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:18 am

    It is not easy to say what the Russian Armed Forces will do, but is a lot easier to say what will not do.

    The Russian Armed Forces will not order an aircraft carrier without the best available missiles or without the best available aircrafts. It means they will not order an aircraft carrier where the Su-57 can not operate comfortably. Neither will order an aircraft carrier that can not defeat aircraft carriers of other countries in 1 vs 1 situations.

    As consequence, today the Project 23000 is the alone option with a real chance.

    Technologically the design and development of a fighter aircraft is significantly more difficult and expensive than the design and development of an aircraft carrier. The option of small aircraft carrier + new fighter, being weaker militarily, is not viable economically vs the option of a big aircraft carrier compatible with aircrafts used by the Russian Aerospace Force.

    And for the type of missions the people is talking about here, Russia will continue having and sending the A Kuznetsov aircraft carrier.
    avatar
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 313
    Points : 343
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Soviet Interdimentional Command

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:40 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    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


    What is this image some kind of fake milatery news magazine? Why post it here?

    rrob

    Posts : 34
    Points : 38
    Join date : 2017-10-30

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  rrob on Fri Nov 03, 2017 10:08 am

    T
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 1977
    Points : 2019
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:40 am

    The Ministry of Defense told about the development of aircraft-carrying cruisers



    The draft of the new state armament program of the Russian Federation envisages the development and laying of aircraft-carrying cruisers, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told reporters.
    "Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, (their development and laying are scheduled for) the end of the program," Borisov said.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171123/1509477278.html

    So

    1) now light V/STOL fighter plans start to make sense

    2)  looks like new cruisers will have similar tasks as in Soviet items:  to chase US subs and protect ship grouping from enemy fighters/bombers (vide Arctic/Pacific near Kamchatka

    3) tke me guess universal VLS systems can carry both ZIrcon and AAD missiles.

    Sweet. Hate to repeat but didnt I tell ya lads? Razz Razz Razz
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 831
    Points : 835
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Fri Nov 24, 2017 3:45 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:The Ministry of Defense told about the development of aircraft-carrying cruisers



    The draft of the new state armament program of the Russian Federation envisages the development and laying of aircraft-carrying cruisers, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov told reporters.
    "Speaking specifically about aircraft-carrying cruisers, (their development and laying are scheduled for) the end of the program," Borisov said.

    РИА Новости https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20171123/1509477278.html

    So

    1) now light V/STOL fighter plans start to make sense

    2)  looks like new cruisers will have similar tasks as in Soviet items:  to chase US subs and protect ship grouping from enemy fighters/bombers (vide Arctic/Pacific near Kamchatka

    3) tke me guess universal VLS systems can carry both ZIrcon and AAD missiles.

    Sweet. Hate to repeat but didnt I tell ya lads? Razz Razz Razz

    If this is true then it means they intend to go with more Kuz style warships, a move. I do support and think makes good sense.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:04 pm