Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7067
    Points : 7163
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:57 pm

    Correct, they definitely need to figure out what ship they want to build and finally commit
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2127
    Points : 2121
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Isos on Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:21 pm

    Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.

    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 681
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:33 pm

    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.


    Russia shores are not the Pacific ocean.

    The US had a lot of actions with ships in the II WW, but did you heard any Germany Vs Russia big naval battle during that period ?

    So, that is the reason why Russia has not so much naval ambitions.


    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 10:47 pm

    We don't know anything about this proposed VTOL aircraft. Whether it will be a further development of the 1990's projects or something else...it's silly to write pages of analysis based on something unknown
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5962
    Points : 5991
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Militarov on Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:16 am

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Isos wrote:Russian navy isn't US navy for sure but they do need Something Worth the money. US doesn't give a shit about the money they will just make other pay like for the F-35.

    VSTOL are more than limited in terms of capacities.even if you make them multirole they will be able to take one or two bombs/missile like the yak-141 or the f-35.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    Mig-29K is not mature and will have the same problem as Su-33 but it has some advantages.

    What they need is a either a naval pak fa or a new light Mig. If they want to start a new program they should try with a new mig.

    For the ship I would definitly go for Something like a modern nuk Kuznetsov. With new technology it can be almost a supercarier. Even french CdG is smaller but actually more capable.
    Helicopter carrier would be good too but if you want to use nuk, it is wasting money.


    Russia shores are not the Pacific ocean.

    The US had a lot of actions with ships in the II WW, but did you heard any Germany Vs Russia big naval battle  during that period ?

    So, that is the reason why Russia has not so much naval ambitions.



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 681
    Points : 675
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Singular_Transform on Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:59 pm

    Militarov wrote:



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

    So ,summarise it : Germany has limited naval asses, but it used this nt on the main front ( CCCP ) but on a secondary /tercier fronts to.

    Means that the ships had little use to concuer Russia.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3347
    Points : 3431
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:05 pm

    We must not compare US NAVY with RuNAVY as they have different priorities. US priority is global empire and their Navy is created for it with large number of big super carriers. Also they have open warn exit in both pacific and Atlantic oceans. Russia doesn't have global interests and navy is mirroring it. They have smaller ships to protect near seas and they are also closed in closed seas like Baltic, Black Sea and Caspian sea. Northern fleet is in Arctic region and only Pacific fleet is with open exit to warm Pacific. Big super carriers are suitable only for Northern and Pacific fleets with exit to open oceans. Smaller carriers like carrier cruisers or something like Izumo carrier destroyer is more suitable for close sea fleet like Black Sea fleet. They are more easy to make with ice protection, what is also important for Arctic region. Smaller carrier easier follow big icebreakers like Arctica nuclerar icebreaker and bring aviation group where needed. VSTOL jets are also not to be underestimated. After all US also developed VSTOL F-35. Don't think about it from Yak-38 perspective. It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5962
    Points : 5991
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Militarov on Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:41 pm

    Singular_Transform wrote:
    Militarov wrote:



    Germany had very limited surface naval assets during WW2, hence they had no major naval engagements during the war with anyone, let alone USSR. You are bringing up things that make no sense whatsoever. Whole Kriegsmarine had 4 battleships and in total had less than half dozen worth mentioning surface naval battles with British navy.

    So ,summarise it : Germany has limited naval asses, but it used this nt on the main front ( CCCP ) but on a secondary /tercier fronts to.

    Means that the ships had little use to concuer Russia.

    Atlantic was primary frontline for Kriegsmarine, same as US navy fought on Pacific and not in Berlin. You know... cutting supply routes from the States and colonies... trying to soften Kings navy as preparation for landing over canal. British Navy was the ruler of the seas at the start of war not USSR. USSR had no capabilities to field its navy in offensive roles hence it was never a threat to Germany.

    Capabilities of naval assets changed since then also fyi. Not sure if you spotted the difference...but guns were replaced by far more potent things called cruise missiles, naval fighters...

    Kriegsmarine was struggling to keep its own shores secured.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18068
    Points : 18628
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:25 pm

    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.

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.

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

    So the new VTOL aircraft could be a high speed helicopter.... or the Ka-52K.


    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    Yes, he is full of the sky is falling.... they can't afford anything but have invested in development of a nuclear power plant for heavy vessels and an EM cat and a naval model of PAK FA, but they don't know how to build large ships despite spending a small fortune to get South Korea to upgrade their Zvezda plant in the far east to build ships up to 350K ton... Of course they wont build big ships, that is just silly.

    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.

    The only STOVL single engined aircraft was the Harrier and I don't remember any cheap simple version of that...

    The Sea Harrier was a potent aircraft but fit its radar and comparable fixed engine in a conventional plane and it would be a superior aircraft.

    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.

    A super carrier is a strike carrier, which is not what the Russians need or want.
    An air defence carrier on the other hand greatly improves the performance of a fleet of vessels in terms of vision and reach.

    In terms of attack performance a hypersonic cruise missile can penetrate enemy defences much better than any carrier aircraft.

    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.

    The US Marines want VSTOL F-35s for their little carriers.

    The Russians are better off with better performance aircraft like Su-33 adn MiG-35 and a PAK FA naval model and perhaps a new light 5th gen fighter.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    The Su-33 in the air will offer much better radar coverage than a ships radar set a few metres above the water... and AEW aircraft will also boost the vision of the fleet... if the threat is F-35s then long wave radar on the ships should be able to detect F-35s are rather large distances and the Su-33s can monitor the S-400 missiles as they destroy F-35s 400km from the ship that launched the missile...

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.


    kumbor

    Posts : 76
    Points : 74
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  kumbor on Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.

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

    So the new VTOL aircraft could be a high speed helicopter.... or the Ka-52K.


    He knows nothing about what he is talking about.
    Yes, he is full of the sky is falling.... they can't afford anything but have invested in development of a nuclear power plant for heavy vessels and an EM cat and a naval model of PAK FA, but they don't know how to build large ships despite spending a small fortune to get South Korea to upgrade their Zvezda plant in the far east to build ships up to 350K ton... Of course they wont build big ships, that is just silly.

    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.

    The only STOVL single engined aircraft was the Harrier and I don't remember any cheap simple version of that...

    The Sea Harrier was a potent aircraft but fit its radar and comparable fixed engine in a conventional plane and it would be a superior aircraft.

    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.

    A super carrier is a strike carrier, which is not what the Russians need or want.
    An air defence carrier on the other hand greatly improves the performance of a fleet of vessels in terms of vision and reach.

    In terms of attack performance a hypersonic cruise missile can penetrate enemy defences much better than any carrier aircraft.

    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.

    The US Marines want VSTOL F-35s for their little carriers.

    The Russians are better off with better performance aircraft like Su-33 adn MiG-35 and a PAK FA naval model and perhaps a new light 5th gen fighter.

    Su-33 will be useless when F-35 will be flown by most of the countries around russia. In terms of BVR they lack long range missiles like last AMRAAM and their RCS make them very difficult to hide with jaming.

    The Su-33 in the air will offer much better radar coverage than a ships radar set a few metres above the water... and AEW aircraft will also boost the vision of the fleet... if the threat is F-35s then long wave radar on the ships should be able to detect F-35s are rather large distances and the Su-33s can monitor the S-400 missiles as they destroy F-35s 400km from the ship that launched the missile...

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.


    Nevertheless, the technical documentation for Yak-141 was eagerly bought by Americans and substantially eased the development of the F-35! Many technical solutions of Yak-141 were used in F-35.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3098
    Points : 3140
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Nov 30, 2017 12:37 am

    GarryB wrote:

    It Will be developped from Yak-141, which was quite decent fighter. At to it modern electronics, weapons and engine from Su-57 and you get a jet, which could do its job to protect the fleet and make strikes where needed.

    No. The Yak-141 was not a decent fighter.... it had a small weak radar and four wing hardpoints and could only carry AAMs... normally two R-77s and two-R-73s and a single barrel cannon... it was mediocre.

    Anything you could put in the Yak-141 you could put in the MiG-29K but it would be faster and longer ranged and much more capable and robust and cheaper.

    Anything besides MiG-29 is first same old air frame as Yak was,  second F-35 has 8,000kg payload thus "new" Yak-141 could have.  There are hundrets of F-35B (STOVL) ordered BTW.



    Weak radar? are you sure?

    Radar "Zhuk"

    The Yak-141 uses the C-41M armament management system (M is "modernized"), which is the development of the early SUV projects for Yak-41 - C-41 and S-41D (D - "modified"). The system is built around a multimodal on - board radar "Beetle" with a slit antenna array (modification M002). This radar station is similar to the MiG-29M fighter radar , but has smaller overall dimensions. The range of detection of air targets with EPR of 3 m² is 80 km, small surface vessels - 110 km. The station is capable of escorting up to 10 targets, and also provides firing of 4 targets simultaneously. The radar weight is 250 kg. All incoming information is processed by an onboard digital computerand is provided to the pilot using the information display system. Means of display - indicator on the windshield and multifunction indicators . The latter were not used in the experimental "Yaks", although they were installed in one of the full-size mock-ups of the Yak-41 cockpit. In the cockpit of the second flight sample, which is located in the museum of Vadim Zadorozhny , a line-of-sight (IPV) indicator is installed. It was also planned to use a helmet-mounted target designation system [44] .



    Yefim Gordon. Yakovlev Yak-36, Yak-38 & Yak-41: The Soviet 'Jump Jets' / Translation by Dmitriy Komissarov. - Hinckley, England, UK: Midland Publishing, 2008. - P. 101-131, 139-141. - 145 p. - ISBN 978-1-85780-287-0 .




    Last but not least Smile
    Well you do not have to disagree with me or anybody else on this topic. just have to disagree with Russian Top Brass who repeated it couple of times.

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 291
    Points : 291
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Peŕrier on Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:01 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Actually that STOVL applies to conventional aircraft like the Storch or An-72 or An-2 that have short takeoff and landing.

    The correct term for the Harrier and Yak-38M is V/STOL which stands for Vertical or Short Takeoff or landing... ie vertical takeoff or vertical landing or short take off or short landing.... any aircraft that can take off vertically can also do a rolling take off and any aircraft that can land vertically can use a rolling landing to use wing lift to offset some engine requirements.

    It would make more sense to use arrested landings using a high speed landing with arrestor wires, which when they are working properly are a very efficient way to stop an aircraft in a small area.



    No, STOVL means exactly the ability to perform short take offs and vertical landings. Storch and An-2 are STOL aircrafts, i.e. Short take off and landing.

    Yak-38 and Harrier were VTOL aircrafts, being both able to perform both vertical take offs and landings.


    Obviously being VTOL doesn't forbid to perform conventional take offs and/or short take offs, it stipulate only that the aircraft can perform vertical take offs too.

    Anyway, the matter that counts is what use could have a fixed wing aircraft able to perform vertical take offs.

    About vertical landings it could be argued that it opens the chance to deploy the aircrafts on board of flat tops not suited for high speed landings, as fr LHDs.

    But vertical take offs have proved again and again to be far too demanding on the aircraft, exacting a huge penalty on any other performance.

    In my humble opinion, if Russia is really heading toward the development of a VTOL aircraft, it could be only something like the V-22, or any similar configuration, and it won't be a fast combat aircraft.

    It would maybe evolve in several roles like AEW, ASW or air assault, but it won't be a fighter aircraft or anything close to it.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18068
    Points : 18628
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:59 am

    Anything besides MiG-29 is first same old air frame as Yak was

    Even with new upgraded air frame the Yak will always have the dead weight of the lifting engines and internal high pressure air piping to the nose, tail, and wing tips to allow control in the hover... weight and fragility to damage. Weak points the conventional aircraft does not have.

    second F-35 has 8,000kg payload thus "new" Yak-141 could have.

    The B model STOVL F-35 has nothing like an 8 ton payload capacity and has 1/3 less fuel than the already short ranged F-35s and if it wants to be stealthy we are talking about a couple of bombs internally and maybe a couple of AAMs... 120kgs for each AMRAAM and 500kgs per bomb and you are likely looking at what the Yak-141 would carry... except of course it would not carry bombs.. an anti ship missile is a far more efficient way of delivering HE to targets.. Onyx at mach 2 from a ship or sub makes rather more sense than an expensive and fragile aircraft.

    There are hundrets of F-35B (STOVL) ordered BTW.

    Yeah, the US is a model of financial efficiency and fiscal control....

    It is supposed to operate at forward air bases so the lack of range is less of an issue, but it needs special heat resistant tiles to operate from or it destroys its own engines with FOD. So you will have dozens of transport helos following it around with heat resistant tiles for these white elephants to operate from....

    Weak radar? are you sure?

    It was smaller than the unit fitted to the MiG-29M and of lower performance.

    Any radar you could put into it, you could put a better radar in a fixed wing conventional aircraft because weight and balance were not nearly as critical.

    just have to disagree with Russian Top Brass who repeated it couple of times.

    They have also talked about hypersonic bombers and supersonic transport aircraft... for every technology there is a group of people wanting money spent in their area.... fixed wing VSTOL is dead.. tried and failed.

    Yak-38 and Harrier were VTOL aircrafts, being both able to perform both vertical take offs and landings.

    Both were able to perform rolling takeoffs to reduce the load on the engine by taking some of the lifting load on the wings and were therefore called VSTOL aircraft.

    But vertical take offs have proved again and again to be far too demanding on the aircraft, exacting a huge penalty on any other performance.

    A rolling takeoff greatly increases the fuel load and payload and reduces the strain on the engine without requiring a full runway takeoff.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:28 am

    Good to read finally things making sense.

    VTOL configurations today make not sense for fighters. They lead to subpar fighters. Nothing VTOL can tie the potential of a naval Su-57, like GarryB said. And makes not sense to spend a lot of money in the development of a new aircraft that does not tie the naval Su-57. Russia only needs to do some aircraft carrier that allows a comfortable use of the naval Su-57 in the needed amounts.

    VTOL configurations would be useful and make sense as example for for unmanned shipborne maritime patrol (including long range). And the V-22 configuration is advanced and useful for it. Some UAV with this configuration of rotating engines, with the size of an helicopter or even less, empty of human related equipment and features, and full of sensors and fuel would reach long ranges, being able of keeping a position if necessary, and being easily shipborne at same time in every ship that has some helipad (not only in aircraft carriers).

    And also the VTOL technology is useful in helicopter configurations (a helicopter is a VTOL aircraft too) for the roles that the helicopters habitually do, combat roles and auxiliary roles (transport, training,...), but in the case of the use in combat roles likely becoming unmanned too.

    Then, is likely, very likely, that Russia can talk about the development of VTOL aircrafts to be used from aircraft carriers (and from other smaller ships), but this does not mean that it will be a VTOL fighter.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 819
    Points : 819
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers.

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:14 pm

    I disagree- now it became @ least as important as the AF, which has mostly tactical nukes & some anti-ship capability, while the Navy has  tactical nukes, strategic SLBMs, & substantial anti-ship/ASW aviation.
    Why Russia does not need aircraft carriers
    http://nvo.ng.ru/armament/2017-12-01/1_975_aircraft.html

    He means "supercarriers" & has a point. But China & France r also continental powers; unlike the RF, they have only W. Pacific & Atlantic/Med.Sea "waterfronts", respectively; while the former has the Pacific, Arctic & Black Sea "waterfronts" adjacent to N. Atlantic, Med.& Red Seas, respectively; & those r dominated by NATO members.
    Once small CVs r built, 2-4 CVNs- 1-2 in the NF & 1-2 in the PF won't do much harm, if any!
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2261
    Points : 2282
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  eehnie on Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:56 pm

    The introduction of the most modern missiles like the Kalibr is expectable for many of the current ships. Very likely will higher impact in the adaptation of the current ships to the modern armament than in the procurement of new ships.

    Russia launched recently, since 2015, a new naval doctrine that includes important references to aircraft carriers that changed not until now and are not expected to change.

    The alone Russian modern project of aircraft carrier presented until now is the Project 23000. And we know Russia will have shipyards that can begin the production of this ship in the short term. This is the reality today.

    We know that according to the US and according to US citizens Russia does not need aircraft carriers, specially big aircraft carriers. We know also that basically they want to keep the monopoly on them, specially the current monopoly in the big aircraft carriers. They love to send one aircraft carrier where they want and to see it unopposed. Well. this is not only about the wishes of the US.

    -------

    http://www.russiadefence.net/viewtopic.forum?t=7630

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:19 pm