Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Share
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6102
    Points : 6206
    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 : 2230
    Points : 2246
    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 : 6102
    Points : 6206
    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 : 2230
    Points : 2246
    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 : 6102
    Points : 6206
    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 : 2230
    Points : 2246
    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.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6102
    Points : 6206
    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 : 1204
    Points : 1202
    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    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 : 2264
    Points : 2431
    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 : 5702
    Points : 5743
    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 : 587
    Points : 583
    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 : 3280
    Points : 3366
    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 : 5702
    Points : 5743
    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 : 17213
    Points : 17819
    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.



    _________________
    “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

    kumbor

    Posts : 1
    Points : 1
    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:12 pm