Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share

    Azi

    Posts : 212
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Azi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:09 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:'
    It's not about the price, it's about the fact that Russia simply doesn't need supercarriers.
    Exact!!!

    Russia needs new frigate, destroyers and/or cruisers. For me the new "Lider Class" and "Super-Gorshkov" is 1000 times more important than every carrier. A carrier is only needed for military operations against third world countries, for intimidation and power projection.

    A few small carrier makes sense for Russia, but NO super carrier.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 10:32 pm

    Azi wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:'
    It's not about the price, it's about the fact that Russia simply doesn't need supercarriers.
    Exact!!!

    Russia needs new frigate, destroyers and/or cruisers. For me the new "Lider Class" and "Super-Gorshkov" is 1000 times more important than every carrier. A carrier is only needed for military operations against third world countries, for intimidation and power projection.

    A few small carrier makes sense for Russia, but NO super carrier.


    This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.


    BTW
    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons and vertical takeoff aircraft


    https://iz.ru/674713/2017-11-23/rossiia-razrabatyvaet-giperzvukovoe-oruzhie-i-samolet-vertikalnogo-vzleta

    Russia is developing hypersonic weapons, this issue was discussed at meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Also, work is underway to create a vertical takeoff aircraft.

    This was reported by Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov, noting that these developments are taken into account in the draft new state arms program.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Peŕrier on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:36 pm

    A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

    The british won at the Falkland mainly because of the Hermes, a true carrier with large technical facilities for fixed wing aircrafts.

    Hermes was far more instrumental to their defeat of argentinean air force than the Invincible, even if using the very same Harriers.

    And they fully recognized their error in designing relatively small STOVL carriers, aiming to acquire two large aircraft carrier when the Invincible class was to be replaced.

    By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

    Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

    VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

    About what Russian Navy needs, of course first and foremost it needs frigates and destroyers.

    But building pocket carriers and designing STOVL aircrafts, or worst case at all VTOL aircrafts, wouldn't save them a ruble nor ease anyway building the needed frigates and destroyers.

    If they are serious at looking to a replacement for Mig-29/35, and want to use them easily on flat tops as well, the best they could do will be designing a combat aircraft capable of really short take off and SHORT landing.

    It would be anyway a source for technical compromises, costs and performances wise, but still far better than aiming at something able to land vertically.

    Even the british are developing the rolling landing tecnique with their F-35B, to avoid most of the troubles  coming with vertical ones.

    Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 10:42 pm

    Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

    []

    Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

    so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty? Smile

    Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

    Azi

    Posts : 212
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Azi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:52 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.

    This? "Shtorm" is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser?

    There is a reason why the Kuz is called a aircraft carrying heavy cruiser...the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits". Aircraft carriers are a problem.

    wikipedia - Treaty of Montreux wrote:Although the Montreux Convention is cited by the Turkish government as prohibiting aircraft carriers in the straits,[16] the treaty actually contains no explicit prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, modern aircraft carriers are heavier than the 15,000 ton limit, making it impossible for non-Black Sea powers to transit modern aircraft carriers through the Straits.
    They are not explicit forbidden, but a "real carrier" could lead to problems with Turkey. There is simply no need for P-700 onboard!? The AD systems makes sense for me, but I'm not a naval specialist.

    But a small carrier makes sense! The costs explode not only from sheer size, think about the crew. The Ford Class has 4600 crew members and they don't work for free! The same problem with Russian supercarriers, so better to have a few small, or let's call them "aircraft carrying heavy carriers". I don't care about the name and classification, I care about the size and abilities.

    By the way...
    I love the thought Russsia having a vertical take-off fighter and something like America Class. But there is no official announcement Suspect
    EDIT: Ok, this sounds a bit official with vertical take-off plane. What a Face

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Peŕrier on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:35 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

    []

    Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

    so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty? Smile

    Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

    No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

    16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

    Something only aircrafts could provide for.

    So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wiped out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.

    Moskva and Kiev classes were not some smart vessels, they were the most Soviet Navy could convince the Politburo to fund at first.

    Having demonstrated their limited capabilities, they got the required funds and switched to the Kuznetsov class, and then designed the 1143.7  class, a full fledged CVN.

    While a modern 1143.7 could prove itself to be too expensive and to be exceeding the needs of today's Russian Navy, a modern Kiev would be a waste of money.

    A modern Kuznetsov could be the sweet spot for russian navy, maybe getting rid of all the hype about having long range ASh missiles.

    Give it aircrafts only, and top notch sensors and command facilities.

    All the attack roles should be performed by aircrafts only, and to a lesser degree by the escorts, not by the aircraft carrier on its own.

    In turn, if the only need is ASW capabilities, just design an helicopter carrier able to keep pace with frigates and destroyers.

    Then you will actually save lots of money to build the required frigates and destroyers, avoiding to design and build VTOL junk.


    Last edited by Peŕrier on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 11:40 pm

    Azi wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    This is not small carrier. This is an aircraft carrying cruiser. I.e. heavily armed flattop. Thus no need for large escort, can protect small ship groupings(22800 or 20386) with AAD ASW.

    This? "Shtorm" is a heavy aircraft carrying cruiser?

    There is a reason why the Kuz is called a aircraft carrying heavy cruiser...the "Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits". Aircraft carriers are a problem.

    nope. This refers only to Black Sea basin. Not far north. Russian aircraft cruisers had different tasks then American ACs. First priority is anti sub and air defense of SSBNs dwelling areas.





    Azi wrote:

    But a small carrier makes sense! The costs explode not only from sheer size, think about the crew. The Ford Class has 4600 crew members and they don't work for free! The same problem with Russian supercarriers, so better to have a few small, or let's call them "aircraft carrying heavy carriers". I don't care about the name and classification, I care about the size and abilities.

    By the way...
    I love the thought Russsia having a vertical take-off fighter and something like America Class. But there is no official announcement Suspect
    EDIT: Ok, this sounds a bit official with vertical take-off plane. What a Face

    Shtorm? no,no aircraft cruiser but aircraft carrier.


    US AC have always task group with them and are used for force projection around the world.Russia does need such stuff. AKA no need for massive aggression about nations who dont want to be enslaved by democracy.,

    1) Russia does not have enough large ships to to create couple of CVBG + landing forces
    2) first priority is not those
    3) imagine Aircraft Cruiser can act as main ship in task force to protect ocean area or SSBNs dwelling terrain. If you add some even 22160 (long range patrol boats with missile containers) or even 22800 calibers then couple of them and 16x zircons can be A2/AD for enemy's CVBG

    4) Aircraft carrier can be used to support blue water humanitarian or low insensitivity operations



    That's the way I can see it. It is only my speculation though.


    Azi

    Posts : 212
    Points : 208
    Join date : 2016-04-05

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Azi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:50 pm

    I know the advantage of a aircraft cruiser comapered with a heavy cruiser. And as you correct wrote, if you want to enslave third world countries and bring them "democracy" a cruiser is a disadvantage? But would you really let a aircraft cruiser acting alone with no battle group? I personally wouldn't! Ok, you are more flexible, the group could be much smaller...

    By the way...
    Talking about sensors and detection of enemy ships. Are there any plans to upgrade bigger Russian ships with drones acting as a flying eye and ear for a ship? I mean no small 5 cm drone, something bigger but smaller as the smallest aircraft with pilot. I know there are many problems with this kind of technology, but could be a good addition to Kuz or a amphibious warship.


    Last edited by Azi on Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:56 pm; edited 3 times in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 11:51 pm

    [quote="Peŕrier"]
    No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

    16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

    Something only aircrafts could provide for.

    {/quote] or helos or drones


    Peŕrier wrote:


    So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wipe out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.


    Zircon has range 1000kms  so you have suddenly F-18 with 1000 km combat range instead of 600 km? ? BTW if it would be so then Peter The great would not been built - no air wing but still build to fight carrier groups.  There also long range AAD missiles (S-300/S-400 or even S-500)


    Peŕrier wrote:

    Kiev classes were not some smart vessels, they were the most Soviet Navy could convince the Politburo to fund at first.

    All the attack roles should be performed by aircrafts only, and to a lesser degree by the escorts, not by the aircraft carrier on its own.

    Aircraft carrier for different role than aircraft cruiser.  Long range grants kept US grous at bay. No need to using air wing then. To fight planes drones or cruise missiles attack you got limited air wing + AAD missiles.





    Peŕrier wrote:

    In turn, if the only need is ASW capabilities, just design an helicopter carrier able to keep pace with frigates and destroyers.

    Then you will actually save lots of money to build the required frigates and destroyers, avoiding to design and build VTOL junk

    .


    Tell it to Bondarev he says something else,  do you think Russians top brass knows less?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3415
    Points : 3455
    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 11:59 pm

    Azi wrote:But would you really let a aircraft cruiser acting alone with no battle group? I personally wouldn't! Ok, you are more flexible, the group could be much smaller...

    that's the idea IMHO

    Azi wrote:
    By the way...
    Talking about sensors and detecting of enemy ships. Are there any plans to upgrade Russian ships with drones acting as a flying eye and ear for a ship? I mean no small 5 cm drone, something bigger but smaller as the smallest aircraft.

    N

    [/quote]

    for last year discussion both underwater and flying drones will be en masse used. Besides there is still Ka-31R AWACS maybe also Ka-52K in such role?

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 288
    Points : 288
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:06 am

    So Helos have, let's say, 800 km range to detect enemy ships that are barely within Zircon range?

    And such Helos (or even drones) could stay undetected and survive enemy's CAP?

    As a matter of fact, in the Cold War the Soviet Navy assumed to deploy dozens of SSNs and of Tu-142, providing the much needed detction and targeting capabilities.

    In today's russian force structure, the very same assets are in far lower numbers, so they could not be used with the same prodigality.

    In turn, it put much more weight on the surface fleet shoulders.

    So if you want to deploy a surface task force anywhere farther than a few dozen miles from its base, such a task force needs to have its own long range suirveillance capability if not willing to fight like a blind with big fistfuls.

    It's not a matter of power projection, it's just a matter of survival.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:36 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

    []

    Just developing a similar capability without any try to get a vertical landing capability, would be a more reasonable approach.

    so you know better what Russians fleet needs then Russia's admiralty? Smile

    Russian aircraft cruisers are nothing like small aircraft. Air wing is just add-on. Offensive capabilities can be 16x zircons which no British AC cannot handle.

    Where did you read the Russian admilalty or some Russian official source rejecting big aircraft carriers?

    I never readed it. Do you have some link?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:03 am

    Firebird wrote:When people say "save money, build smaller carriers", I can't help but think they've lost the key to what its all about.

    Russia estimated the cost of a new supercarrier at between 3 and 9bn USD before the Ruble sank. But the big cost isn't size. Its how advanced the carrier is. Does it allow for satellite launches? Large planes? Super advanced electronics? Act as a base for drones and underwater drones?

    The US actually looked at building more smaller carriers - the "don't have all your eggs in one basket" argument. But it decided it was too expesnive.

    If  a 5th rate power like Britain can have 2 large carriers, as can France, China and India, there is no reason why Russia can't.

    ...

    PS I had a look to see the largest plane ever to land on a carrier. It was a C130 Hercules in the early 1960s (on many occasions).
    ...


    Peŕrier wrote:A few small carriers would be just a little nuisance to any real carrier, the more so if equipped with an handful of  subpar aircrafts.

    The british won at the Falkland mainly because of the Hermes, a true carrier with large technical facilities for fixed wing aircrafts.

    Hermes was far more instrumental to their defeat of argentinean air force than the Invincible, even if using the very same Harriers.

    And they fully recognized their error in designing relatively small STOVL carriers, aiming to acquire two large aircraft carrier when the Invincible class was to be replaced.

    By the way, the correct term is STOVL, i.e. Short Take Off Vertical Landing.

    Yak-38 was a VTOL aircraft, i.e. Vertical Take Off and Landing.

    VSTOL as reported by some, is simply meaningless.

    ...

    But building pocket carriers and designing STOVL aircrafts, or worst case at all VTOL aircrafts, wouldn't save them a ruble

    ...

    Peŕrier wrote:No, I know pretty well history of naval warfare, and cheap ships have always been severely defeated by even just a few serious ships.

    16 or even 100 Zirkon would not hit anything but water without detection and targeting capabilities at very long range.

    Something only aircrafts could provide for.

    So a bunch of small flat tops equipped with aircrafts not able to hold their ground against their opponent's aircrafts, will see their own aircrafts wiped out without even knowing where the enemy's aircraft carriers are, then they will become just targets.

    ...

    Good comments from the previous page. Basically right.

    On VTOL technologies, I think they are not usefull for fighters today. The smartest application that I see for them is for maritime patrol roles. It would be likely unmanned, and would not be bigger than a combat helicopter. This can be enough to make them of long range.
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 2344
    Points : 2501
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:46 am

    The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

    https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2308
    Points : 2302
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:57 am

    Cyberspec wrote:The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

    https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html

    Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

    Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

    Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

    Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:04 pm

    Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

    Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

    Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

    Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

    The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

    A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2308
    Points : 2302
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:01 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

    Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

    Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

    Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

    The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

    A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.

    If it is the reason why, they should just build the frigates and destroyers that they really need so they will have modern ships they could use and make work for shipyards.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:06 pm

    Isos wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    Isos wrote:Are they stupid ? They should know the capabilities of VSTOL and stupid carrier with VSTOL fighters more than anyone else and they keep saying they want to use that shit.

    Seriously even the indian carrier is better than any future carrier with only VSTOL fighters ...

    Why put them on helicopter carrier ? It can't do as good as an helicopter in the field of helicopter missions (actually it can do anything) and can't do as good as normal fighter in missions for fighters.

    Why the f*ck are they even thinking about that ?

    The explanation is simple, they prefer a seemingly doable, lucrative project (aka jobs program) for the industry, rather than give the industry a hard target to achieve like a proper CTOL or hybrid carrier to build (> 60,000 t). They also seem to be running out of cash, if indeed they end up with no carrier but rather an LHD.

    A huge downgrade to what Russia used to possess back in 1992-1995.

    If it is the reason why, they should just build the frigates and destroyers that they really need so they will have modern ships they could use and make work for shipyards.

    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2282
    Points : 2301
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:37 pm

    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

    Cyberspec wrote:The aircraft carriers will have a conventional fighter with STOVL capability...the VTOL aircraft is envisaged as equipping helicopter carriers

    It is expected that the number of aircraft carriers 1 - 2 units by the mid 2030s. Therefore, the striking power of carrier-based aviation is planned to add a vertical takeoff aircraft, which is likely going to be placed on the prospective helicopter being developed instead of "Mistral".

    https://warfiles.ru/168777-krutoy-virazh-mo-rf-sdelalo-vybor-v-polzu-avianesuschih-kreyserov-i-vertoletonoscev.html

    Note that the quote of Borisov would be only this:

    Если говорить конкретно про авианесущие крейсера, то конец программы.

    The rest is added by others.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7103
    Points : 7197
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm

    '
    One thing everyone is forgetting: single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    Starting whole new fighter jet program with so many of them (and damn good ones) already in existence make no sense. But starting fighter jet program that solves more than one problem is whole other thing.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    Several useful ships are better than single useless one. Especially one that will cost half the defense budget to maintain and operate.

    And what exact limitations do STOVL jets have that are such hindrance for Russia? They would not fit into US Naval doctrine but this is not USN, this is Russian Navy. Different priorities, different tasks, different purpose.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:31 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:'
    One thing everyone is forgetting: single engine STOVL fighter jet can easily be converted into much simpler and cheaper standard light​ fighter jet which is another item on MoD wishlist.

    As for not building supercarriers, again explanation is simple: they don't need them. They do need LHDs and anti-sub cruisers. And they need more than one of them which is number of supercarriers they would build if they went full retard and decided to have another white elephant.

    But lets get something straight. Russia has already two types of advanced, fixed-wing carrier-borne fighters, MiG-29K and Su-33. So the fast-jet part has already paid for itself. Nobody's talking super-carriers, just something in the size/tonnage of the Kuz, just more modern (engine and sensor-wise) and with at least one cat for the heavy stuff. Building two 60,000 ton ships is not particularly  difficult.

    All they have to develop is a twin-engined AEW&C platform and build 4-6 of them max.

    Done.

    All this pussyfooting is rather retarded on RuN's behalf. Year after year, they get screwed by bad planning and wrong priorities. Concerning LHDs, I'm not against them at all, I'm just not in favor of promoting LHDs as a solution to their lack of proper CVs.


    Last edited by KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7103
    Points : 7197
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:40 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:'
    .

    But lets get some things straight. Russia has already two types of advanced, fixed-wing carrier-borne fighters, MiG-29K and Su-33. So the plane part has already paid for itself. Nobody's talking super-carriers, just something in the size/tonnage of the Kuz, just more modern and with at least one cat for the heavy stuff.

    All they have to develop is a twin-engined AEW&C platform and build 4-6 of them max.

    Done.

    Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    Wasp/Izumo/America-class sized LHD that can be converted into nuclear carrier and built in numbers is more than sufficient.

    And there is nothing stopping them from installing catapults. In fact with nuclear propulsion I'd say that catapults will come standard. I have no idea why anyone thinks that they will omit catapults no matter the ship's size.

    Reactor = catapult


    Last edited by PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:42 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7103
    Points : 7197
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:48 pm

    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

    Individual airplanes yes they are in very good condition but as airplane model overall they are past their prime.

    They do have well over a decade left like you said, maybe more but that's pretty much the amount of time before new carrier will be built at best.
    avatar
    KiloGolf

    Posts : 2534
    Points : 2532
    Join date : 2015-09-01
    Location : Macedonia, Hellas

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  KiloGolf on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:50 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    KiloGolf wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:Correct and if this was 1990 they should definitely do that. Problem is it's three decades past 1990 and those airplanes don't have that much mileage left in them.

    I think the Su-33s hardly flew any missions in the 90s and 00s (most were built between 1991-1993 iirc). I'd think they got well over a decade ahead of them. If not more.

    Individual airplanes yes they are in very good condition but as airplane model overall they are past their prime.

    They do have well over a decade left like you said, maybe more but that's pretty much the amount of time before new carrier will be built at best.

    I'm sure they can re-build some of the better airframes and possibly go for a newer batch to complement the fleet. Or ditch the Flankers and build some 12-24 more naval Fulcrums, right now. They have options on the aircraft side of things, comfortable options. Their major problem is lack of shipbuilding vision.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:22 pm