Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Share
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  runaway on Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:40 pm

    "Northern Fleet (NF) aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov heading the NF task force in Nov 2011 will be deployed in the Mediterranean Sea and Northeast Atlantic, reported ITAR-TASS referring to Russian Navy Main HQ.

    "Admiral Kuznetsov will head for the Barents Sea on Nov 13 and anchor to take air wing on board - 8 fighters Su-33, several MiG-29K, and two ASW helicopters Ka-27PL. Through one week the air wing will practice takeoff and landing techniques on board the carrier. On Nov 19 Admiral Kuznetsov will start a 3-month cruise to the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic. NF large ASW ship Admiral Chabanenko will be among other ships of carrier group to provide coverage and combat support", said the interviewee.

    At present, the list of call ports is being drawn with regard to recent events at the Middle East and North Africa. Participation of Russian warships in exercises jointly with regional navies is being considered as well, said the spokesman for Navy Main HQ."



    So, they will make a show of strengh in the Mediterranean Sea, thats wise, as its turning quickly to a hotspot.
    But dont you think one SSN should accompanie the task force?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:46 am

    It is also said this will be the last sortie of the Admiral K. I don't know if they will follow through with the refit to CATOBAR or end up writing it off.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:47 am

    Carriers are not cheap, but in terms of performance it is like saying... we have an army... what do we need that expensive air force for?

    At the end of the day air power gives speed and reach in terms of both vision and ability to attack at distance.

    A carrier on its own is useless, much as an air force on its own would be a very limited tool.

    Together with an Army or Navy however they result in a much more effective and more complete force.

    Right now Russian shipyards are in a wide range of conditions, from OK to poor, and the possibility of producing new carriers right now is simply not realistic... either from an economic perspective, or from the perspective of production capacity.

    Carriers can't operate alone, they need large ships to support them with SAMs and sensors in a vessel that can operate for months rather than weeks.

    It is much easier and cheaper to retain a capability than it is to lose that capability for 10 years and then try to re-establish it again.

    Of course carriers are not cheap, and one is OK if all you want to do is retain skills, but to have an operationally significant carrier force, you need at least three carriers for every carrier you want in service.

    If you want one carrier in the Pacific and one in the Northern Fleet that means 6 carriers are a bare minimum, because of those 6 carriers at any one time two will be in refit, 2 will be in training, and two will be fully operational and at sea... at a stretch you could get 4 carriers operational if it was necessary, but if you want two operational carriers the bare minimum is 6.

    These carriers don't need to be 100K ton Nimitz class 6 billion dollar vessels, Russia has no empire to manage, or small countries to bully out of resources, but it does have allies it would like to help defend if it could.

    Ignore the big US super carriers and design much smaller but still capable carriers that meet your needs and cost a fraction of the US vessels.

    Putting a nuclear power plant in the Kuznetsov and adding EM cats will have the major effect of allowing it to carry a large AWACS type aircraft like the Yak-44... perhaps with two of the propfan engines the An-70 uses if the Russian AF buys the An-70 of course.
    The interesting thing is that AWACs aircraft are excellent for smaller countries, but the full sized models are very expensive, so a mini carrier borne AWACs would actually sell rather better to smaller countries and offer capabilities they have never had before.... though obviously they would be land based.

    A simplified land based model would be cheaper and simpler and have a much longer operational life due to operating from a proper runway instead of slamming into a deck and being dragged to a stop by a hook.

    Ideally the radar could be integrated into the wing itself to reduce weight and drag... Russian radar makers have shown folding antenna arrays for SAMs, so a folding wing array should be possible... perhaps a 3 faced triangular array combined in a delta wing aircraft?
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  runaway on Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:02 pm

    About Awacs, we swedes have a little saab airplane called Saab 340 AEW&C, maybe that would something for the Kuznetsov.
    More planes, the MiG29k is said to be part of the airwing. Well, just recently it was said the navy wouldnt buy the 29k, so many different answers, typical russians. As i understand, it was a 29KUB that crashed, so why stop 29k? Also the MiG is saying they go bancrupt if they dont get the order.

    Kuznetsov are in schedule to begin modernization in 2012, lasting to 2017. In that time, i guess the 29k`s or SU-33`s will have to use the mockup in crimea, pretending its a flatop. Boring for them.
    I have no worries about the future of K, of course they will rebuild her, they all say so, and have done for long.

    It will be interesting to follow K in Mediterranean, maybe Egypt will break free from US dominance, and Tunis, Libya, Syria.. It will for sure be an important and historical journey.
    Maybe they also can sail past Cyprus, giving the Turks a bloody nose, they seem to be asking for it.

    Is it only the Chabanenko wich will accompany, why not Peter the great also?



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:59 am

    The problem with the Mig-29K is the price... contracts are now negotiated by accountants rather than the users of the equipment.
    The accountants don't see performance or technology they see dollars and cents... well the Russian equivalent...

    They see their job as saving the military money even at the expense of crippling the MIC that develops weapons and technology for them...

    They chose the Mig-29K because it was in production for India and is a very good aircraft.

    Mig have produced and delivered the 16 from the original order and are now gearing up for the remaining 29 odd planes the Indians ordered as a follow on order, and this second order will be delivered in the next 2 years.

    If the Russian Navy wants some then they will need to complete the order in the next two years so Mig can keep the production facilities available for the purpose.

    Mig will never go bankrupt, they are a department of UAC... if they have no military aircraft fighter orders they can be directed to focus on other programs of course.

    Kuznetsov are in schedule to begin modernization in 2012, lasting to 2017. In that time, i guess the 29k`s or SU-33`s will have to use the mockup in crimea, pretending its a flatop. Boring for them.
    I have no worries about the future of K, of course they will rebuild her, they all say so, and have done for long.

    I agree, I think that after a full upgrade and overhaul that K will be in service well into the 2030s... I do think that this overhaul will mean there will be no plans for other carriers till 2025 and hopefully when they are built they will not cost the earth to buy and operate.
    It is critical that the Russian Navy has aircraft and facilities it can continue practising with so that when the K comes back into service there is no gap with no qualified pilots to operate from her deck.
    AFAIK they were building two new land based carrier simulators, one for India and one for themselves for training, in the mean time they can hire the facilities in the Ukraine.

    I found this BLOG interesting:

    An update on naval construction, part 1: large combat ships

    October 4, 2011 by Dmitry Gorenburg

    It’s been awhile since I wrote about developments in Russian naval shipbuilding. Spurred on by a recent article in NVO, the following is the first installment of an update on recent developments and future plans in this area.
    Return of the Nuclear Cruisers?

    In recent weeks, the Project 1144 (Kiev class) nuclear cruisers have once again been in the news because of reports that all three ships of this class currently in reserve will be refurbished and restored to the active fleet by 2020. Modernization of the Admiral Nakhimov is slated to begin this year and it is scheduled to return to active service in 2015. As part of the modernization, these ships are to be equipped with “modern radio electronics, radar, control and communication systems, and means of electronic warfare. In addition, the body frames and nuclear power units will be repaired.” The ships’ armaments will also be modernized — the older Granit missiles will be replaced with universal ship-based firing systems that could be loaded with a variety of different armaments depending on the ship’s specific mission. The ships would also be armed with S-400 long-range and unspecified short-range air defense systems.

    While it seems that the Admiral Nakhimov actually will be modernized and returned to the fleet in the next five years or so, to be followed by a refit for the currently active Peter the Great, I have grave doubts that modernization of the Admiral Lazarev and Admiral Ushakov will ever move beyond mere talk. The Ushakov in particular suffered a reactor accident back in 1990, which was never repaired. It may also have been cannibalized for spare parts to some extent. The Lazarev had its nuclear fuel unloaded back in 2005. Both would thus need essentially new reactors, as well as significant hull repairs.

    While this type of modernization is certainly possible, it doesn’t seem to be cost-effective, especially given the uncertainty surrounding these ships potential missions. As noted by Konstantin Makienko of CAST, these ships do not fit into any existing scenarios for using battleships: ”This type of ship cannot be involved in the possible conflicts that we may have in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and in the case of a hypothetical war with NATO or Japan, it will still be destroyed as the enemy has a much greater numerical superiority at sea.” While I can see the desire to have at least some large ships for showing the flag around the world, I can’t imagine that it would be worth the expense to rehabilitate a rusty, radioactive old hulk such as the Ushakov (former Kirov), just to get 10-15 years of life out of it. In the end, I imagine the Russian Navy will be satisfied with having the Nakhimov and the Peter the Great for showing the flag.
    No new aircraft carriers, but a much improved old one

    Back in June, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation stated that Russia will begin to design new aircraft carriers in 2016, with construction on the first ship to start in 2018, followed by commissioning in 2023. This statement was quickly rejected by the defense minister, who noted that while research on a future aircraft carrier is continuing, no decisions about design and construction have been made. Nor will they be made until the research is complete. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

    At the same time, the Navy’s one existing aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, will be undergoing a complete modernization over the next several years. When it is relaunched (sometime between 2017 and 2020, depending on which report you believe), it will in many ways be a new ship. The following description of planned changes comes from Ilya Kramnik:

    First of all, the defective propulsion unit comprising steam turbines and turbo-pressurized boilers will be replaced either with a gas-turbine or nuclear propulsion unit. The ship’s 3M45 P-700 Granit (SS-N-19 Shipwreck) anti-ship cruise-missile launchers will be dismantled, and her internal layout changed. Consequently, the hangar area will be expanded to 4,500-5,000 sq. m. for storing additional fixed-wing aircraft. The Admiral Kuznetsov’s air defenses will be strengthened by replacing 3K95 Kinzhal (SA-N-9 Gauntlet) missiles with a multi-role naval system featuring 80-120 new-generation and medium-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). Moreover, 4-6 Pantsir-S1 (SA-22 Greyhound) combined short to medium-range SAM and anti-aircraft artillery weapons systems will be installed.

    The new weapons systems will feature state-of-the-art radio-electronic equipment, probably including the standard Sigma combat information and control system, due to be installed on all new generation Russian warships. The system facilitates unprecedentedly effective cooperation between task force elements. The carrier will also receive aircraft catapults, a logical option. Considering the fact that her ski-jump will remain intact, one or two catapults can be located on the angled flight deck.

    The carrier’s air wing is to comprise 26 new Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29K Fulcrum-D multi-role fighter aircraft, helicopters and navalized Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (Future Frontline Aircraft System) fifth-generation fighters, currently under development. It appears that 15-20 of these aircraft will be built pending the ship’s re-launching, which is likely to take place in 2020 rather than 2017.

    In other words, when the Kuznetsov returns to active status, it will be a substantially different ship, with a new propulsion system, new aircraft, new armaments, and new electronics.
    Moving towards a new destroyer

    Finally, plans for building a new destroyer seem to be progressing, though for the moment it is still in the design stage. What is known so far is that design plans call for a 9000 ton ship with a nuclear power plant that would make extensive use of stealth technology. It would be armed with the usual assorted Klub missiles and would have space for two helicopters.

    If all goes according to plan, construction on the first ship will start in 2016. There have not been any reports so far about how many ships would be ordered or how long they would take to build, though my guess is that it will take at least six years to build the first ship and that the total order may reach 8-10 ships.

    I’ll cover frigates and corvettes in the next installment.

    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Vladimir79 on Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:08 am

    runaway wrote:About Awacs, we swedes have a little saab airplane called Saab 340 AEW&C, maybe that would something for the Kuznetsov.

    It would never get off the deck without a catapult. That is why we never developed the Antonova AWACs.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:27 pm



    Yes, interesting idea that Antonov... but I preferred the Yak-44:



    Though to be honest the amount of progress in design and electronics it might be best to start from scratch.

    With the PAK FA using AESA antenna arrays in its nose front and nose sides and in the wing leading edges it makes you think there is no need to make the radar a separate thing on top, that perhaps in terms of drag it would be best to make it an integral part of a thick subsonic wing structure that gives constant 360 degree coverage but with no moving parts...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:30 pm

    An added bonus would be that you could also operate it as a land based aircraft and while the Kuznetsov is operating in its vicinity the land based AEW aircraft could use the carrier to extend their flights.

    Ground based radar is good, but in rugged country airborne radar is much better, but big AWACS planes are very expensive like the A-50 and soon A-100 to build in large numbers.

    A much smaller aircraft that is cheaper to buy and operate makes rather more sense, and would likely be a very exportable aircraft as most smaller air forces would benefit from good radar coverage.
    avatar
    TheArmenian

    Posts : 1702
    Points : 1863
    Join date : 2011-09-14

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  TheArmenian on Wed Oct 05, 2011 5:06 pm

    For lack of a larger AWACS platform, the radar carrying version of the KA-27/29/31 should be the obvious choice.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:39 am

    The Kuznetsov will carry all three variants of the Kamov... the 27 is the ASW and pilot rescue model, the 29 is the troop transport assault model, and the 31 is the AEW radio relay aircraft.

    Ideally however for AEW you want something that can operate a good distance from the carrier group so as not to give away its position, but it doesn't have to be a copy of a US or British AEW aircraft... an airship might even do a better job, or a UAV of some sort.

    They are talking about adding a catapult to the K, which means existing aircraft will be able to operate at higher weights, and heavier aircraft can be taken on board.

    In practical terms that means a AEW aircraft has good potential and aircraft can perform strike oriented missions as strike payloads are usually much heavier than air to air payloads and often require much more fuel etc.


    Of course for all we know the new cat might be optimised for UAVs only and the primary purpose of the K could be global launching of HALE and MALE type UAVs.

    Pervius

    Posts : 249
    Points : 271
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Pervius on Wed Oct 12, 2011 1:24 pm

    Admiral Kuznetsov can't be decommissioned.

    If Russia doesn't keep it and build 2 more, Russia will cease being a sovereign country. Europe and China need fuel, at some point they might decide taking is easier than buying.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:58 am

    Europe and China need fuel, at some point they might decide taking is easier than buying.

    With Russia... taking has NEVER been easier than buying.

    I do agree that the Russian Navy needs to retain air power that can operate where it operates.

    I have read that the Russian Army has even bought some Ka-31s to help manage the air situation over its ground forces... I would like to see a dedicated fixed wing AEW aircraft that could be carrier based developed as the improved flight range and increased operating altitude and increased time on station would be a significant improvement.

    A Yak-44 with two engines from the An-70 (if the Russian military are going to buy that aircraft then they might as well use the engines in other projects as well), and a new AESA phased array antenna
    avatar
    runaway

    Posts : 348
    Points : 369
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  runaway on Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:54 pm

    Crew of Northern Fleet (NF) aircraft-carrying cruiser Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov headed by Capt 1 rank Sergei Artamonov is completing preparation for deployment. The carrier is going to start long-range cruise in the second half of Nov 2011.

    Through summer training period, the crew of Admiral Kuznetsov has performed a number of training activities jointly with NF Shipborne Fighter Wing and conducted aircraft control drills; the ship's commanding staff improved control skills over subordinate units and services.

    For many crewmembers, that will be the first long-range cruise in their lives. Out of 2,000-men crew, 800 seamen and young officers will accomplish assigned tasks in distant ocean zones for the first time.

    The coming deployment will be the fifth long-range cruise for Admiral Kuznetsov. Previously, the Russian aircraft carrier was deployed in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Mediterranean Sea, paid formal calls at Syrian port Tartus, Crete Island and Malta.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:05 am

    Good news.

    I feel rather sorry for the Kuznetsov because being an only carrier the normal life cycle makes it look bad.

    Most carriers go through a cycle of three states, as I mentioned above in an earlier post.

    This means to guarantee having one carrier operational all the time you really need three of them.

    If you only have two you can at least not put them both into refit at once so you can hurriedly take one out of training if you need it in a hurry, but once in refit it will simply not be available for a period of time.

    This is why the UK ordered 2 new carriers... trying to save money.

    Now it seems they will only take one carrier and try to sell the other...

    The irony is that one carrier is not cheap, and for the times when you need it, if it happens to be in refit then you are spending the money and not getting the benefits.

    For lack of a larger AWACS platform, the radar carrying version of the KA-27/29/31 should be the obvious choice.

    To be clear, right now the Ka-31 is the only choice for AWACS on the Kuznetsov because it lacks a catapult to operate a heavier aircraft.

    If, and only if they have plans to add a cat to the Kuznetsov during this upgrade then I rather doubt it is to make the vessel a strike carrier by allowing strike aircraft to be used. The most likely use for a cat is to allow heavier aircraft to operate, like an AWACS plane and perhaps a cargo plane based on the same airframe that can land people or supplies in the middle of the ocean.

    The Yak-44 was the original design for a ship based AWACS aircraft, but technology has moved on so simply reactivating that design doesn't make a huge amount of sense, however a more modern aircraft design with all new electronics makes a lot of sense both for the K and for land operations.

    I mentioned the Russian Army has bought a couple of Ka-31s for land operations... this is the Army... not the AF. Keep in mind that the Ka-52s and Mi-28Ns in service are not part of Army Aviation, they are part of the Air Force, so these Ka-31s in Army service are fairly unusual.

    A fixed wing AEW aircraft that is much smaller than an A-50U would be even more desirable to the Army as they don't normally operate Kamovs anyway and a fixed wing aircraft should be able to fly further and faster and longer than a helo.

    The Ka-31 can fly to 5,000m and it can stay on station for up to 5 hours so it isn't a bad platform, but a fixed wing aircraft could fly higher and see further and stay airborne for much longer periods.

    Perhaps this is an opportunity for the ZOND unmanned AEW system?

    Landing on a carrier would be rather difficult however.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:39 am

    As I said, it will be very interesting to see what upgrades and changes they apply to the K when it comes out of its big upgrade in 2017-2018. Nuclear propulsion, removal of Granits, and other changes like adoption of smaller and more compact SAM vertical launcher bins and a serious electronic upgrade should redistribute the use of space on board the vessel from propulsion and fuel for the ship and anti ship attack capability, to more planes and more storage for fuel for those aircraft plus more sophisticated electronics and communications equipment... but most importantly EM catapults should allow heavier aircraft to operate from the vessel. I would love to see an AWACs type fixed wing aircraft for two critical reasons.

    First... it extends the vision range of the fleet and greatly improves early warning from high altitudes it allows sea skimming missiles to be detected very early which is critical in stopping them.

    Second it creates a small compact AWACS that Russia could sell to many of its allies and customers as a cheaper alternative to a big full sized AWACS aircraft. Not every country can afford an A-50U or soon A-100... they are big expensive aircraft... though very useful. (just like most NATO countries can't afford their own Sentrys).

    A smaller, lighter, cheaper option that still offers airborne warning and control features that can improve the performance of a small air force, and would be particularly useful over mountainous areas where ground radar has problems, or for use over vast expanses of empty territory or sparsely populated territory... Iran, Australia, Canada, Russia, India, China, Brazil, South Africa all might be interested...


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:14 am

    I think yakovlev started working on a carrier based AWACS called the yak-22but it was cancelled because the Ulyanovsk carrier stopped being constructed.

    Do you think it would be reasonable to add a UKSK launcher on the modernised kuznetsov and/or future russian carriers just like you suggest on the mistral?

    My main concern is without a somewhat larger carrier force it will be hard to assist Cuba or Venezuela if USA starts bothering or even invading them and also as you said a single carrier might not be in full readiness when its needed and its good to have a backup.

    PS
    I'm a bulgarian teenager and and unlike most people in my country I'm a supporter of russia and I'm very interested and respect russian weapons and dont view russian political policy as "evil" and "occupational". I also dont view NATO as the good guy. Unlike most people my age(and very often above my age) I dont go trolling and insulting anyone who points out an advantage in russian weapons and I get annoyed when I see someone do.

    I've always wanted to see the truth about russian military and weapons without western propaganda and russian advertisements getting in the way. I've wanted to have the most complete info about future plans and developments of the russian MIC and here some experts which are not available in other sites.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 2:45 am

    I think yakovlev started working on a carrier based AWACS called the yak-22but it was cancelled because the Ulyanovsk carrier stopped being constructed.

    That would be the Yak-44, and it is fairly logical to stop funding and development for an aircraft that required catapult launch from an aircraft carrier when the only carrier they were planning to have a catapult launch system was cancelled.

    Now, however, if they are planning to fit catapults to the Kuznetsov then it is equally logical to look at aircraft that could use that catapult launch system to add effective AWACS capabilities.

    It is possible they might revisit the Yak-44, or perhaps they might look at more exotic solutions like an Aerostat, or airship, or perhaps even a UAV based system.

    Here are some pics of the Yak-44 BTW:





    Of course new design solutions are possible and likely... current aircraft design of 5th gen fighters seems to include the integration of radar antenna arrays within the structure of the aircraft, with fixed antennas covering 360 degrees using electronic scanning rather than moving antennas. By having the antennas as part of the air craft structure it removes the need for an external antenna with all the drag and extra weight that incurs. A low drag design should allow higher flight operations for longer periods.

    Regarding UKSK launchers in carriers... they have space for them, but most of the vessels they will be operating with will also have them too, so I rather doubt there will be any shortage.

    In my personal opinion I would say yes, but don't over do it... one 8 cell UKSK launcher per carrier so that no matter what they will always have the capacity to deal with enemy subs (using the ASW Klub) or enemy ships (using Klub or Onyx) or land targets (Kalibre). They were talking about 160 missiles in the SAM system tubes to be fitted to the Mistral, so I would expect 6 Pantsir-S1s, which would be 196 missiles in Pantsir-S1 alone and the 160 vertical launch tubes being the vertical launch Redut systems... lets say 14 tube Redut, which means 10-11 launchers and 140-154 actual tubes.
    A lot of missiles, plus 12 30mm gatling guns... though I would also expect Duet turrets as well, but this is a large vessel, and British experience in the Falklands was that vessels with defences tended to defend themselves, whereas undefended targets were sitting ducks. Missile attacks on Frigates that were successfully jammed or decoyed often acquired targets like ex civilian transports that were very vulnerable to hits.

    Having air defence systems on all military vessels is important, though you don't want it to reduce performance or change the role of the ship.

    It is of course possible that what they actually meant was 160 missile tubes for the smaller Vityaz missiles, which will be like the smaller S-400 missiles, which means instead of 10-11 Redut launchers that sort of number could be accommodated in 3 Redut launchers with 4 missiles in each of the 14 launch tubes, which would mean 168 missiles of the 40km and 120km flight range. In fact you would probably use a couple of tubes for the larger missiles, perhaps 4 S-400 large missiles with a range of 250km to deal with enemy force multipliers like AWACS, or JSTARs, or even troop transports or tankers that might stray into your airspace.
    Having 4 large missiles means the launcher they are in can fit only 40 small missiles, and the other two redut launchers with 56 small missiles each would result in a load of 56 + 56 + 40 small missiles, or 152 small missiles plus 4 big missiles or a total load of 156 missiles. Of course the Pantsir-S1 systems each have 32 more missiles each, so 6 systems would be 196 missiles more, plus 12 guns.

    PS
    I'm a bulgarian teenager and and unlike most people in my country I'm a supporter of russia and I'm very interested and respect russian weapons and dont view russian political policy as "evil" and "occupational". I also dont view NATO as the good guy. Unlike most people my age(and very often above my age) I dont go trolling and insulting anyone who points out an advantage in russian weapons and I get annoyed when I see someone do.

    I am very much the same... except I am not Bulgarian of course. I had one Bulgarian lecturer at University, and quite enjoyed his lectures on artifical intelligence. Didn't hurt that his daughter was also doing the course and was stunning... if I was 10 years younger I would have asked her out. Embarassed

    I've always wanted to see the truth about russian military and weapons without western propaganda and russian advertisements getting in the way. I've wanted to have the most complete info about future plans and developments of the russian MIC and here some experts which are not available in other sites.

    Often beliefs that Russia and Soviet equipment is rubbish is based on ignorance or misinformation. Other times the real problem is that it was being used for something it was never designed for in the first place. A good example would be the T-72. Fine for Iraq to invade Kuwaite with, or Iran. Not so good for taking on the US and most of the rest of the world on a flat open desert without air superiority.
    Another example is the AK-47. Derided in the west as being inaccurate, yet it is effective enough in combat. In fact combat statistics seem to show that most soldiers can reliably hit targets out to about 75 metres most of the time and that at ranges beyond 200m the number of hits on target is actually rather low, yet the west demands sniper level accuracy out to 400m or more... ranges at which the 5.56mm round is not even effective.


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Fri Aug 10, 2012 8:54 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Regarding UKSK launchers in carriers... they have space for them, but most of the vessels they will be operating with will also have them too, so I rather doubt there will be any shortage.

    Good enough is the enemy of better...

    What bad would do a few more onyx or klubs in a russian naval group? After all most ships the russians might fight against have a very large amount of SMs that could easily(in my knowledge) shoot any russian SSM out of the sky so it wouldnt hurt to have a few more AshMs for saturation or self defence.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 10, 2012 1:11 pm

    Well I agree, but it becomes a problem when making your vessels carry everything and being too multi role makes them less useful in their primary roles.

    For instance if they had to reduce the number of helos to 12 to make room for the UKSK launchers, then I would say it was a problem, because the Mistral class is a helicopter carrier and its job is to bring helos and landing forces to where they are needed. The more helos it can carry, the more capable it will be as a helicopter carrier.

    Having said that any ship that can't defend itself is a problem... even when it is surrounded by other ships it still needs to be able to protect itself, and the information I have read suggests that it will be much better protected than the french models, which pretty much have MANPADS launchers and 50 cal HMG positions. Even just fitting 6-8 Pantsir-S1 turrets would be an enormous step upwards in firepower and self protection capability with each Pantsir-S1 system having a turret with Thermal and digital optics and MMW radar and CM wave radar plus two 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns and 8 ready to launch two stage hypersonic missiles that can engage targets from 2m above the water to 15km up in the air from about 1.5km from the ship out to about 18-20km from the ship, plus each turret has a below deck reloading system with a further 24 missiles per mount. Fitting 6-8 of these on a large Russian vessel is standard but extremely extravagant on a western vessel where even large vessels might get 4 Phalanx systems in comparison.

    To be clear I think the addition of Pantsir-S1 and Redut (the vertical SAM launcher system) will take up a lot of extra space, and they might mount a couple of Duet systems which are cheap and simple and don't take up a lot of space but combine two more 30mm gatling guns. Adding one UKSK system for up to 8 missiles for land attack or anti ship or anti sub use will likely be all they can fit and all they should fit as it will give anti sub protection, which would mean there is less need for an ASW helicopter to be carried for that purpose.

    In 5 years time when all these carriers are operational the Mach 6-8 Brahmos II/Onyx II should be operational, as will the new hypersonic missile (Zirconium)? they are also working on.


    _________________
    “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
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1170
    Points : 1329
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:51 pm

    I think the kashtan or palma is much better than the pantsir for mistral...

    Yak-44 is too big for a kuznetsov sized carrier. A small radar carrying drone wouldtake up less space and would be stealthier.

    I think antiship capability on almost all ships just is mandatory as AT capability is for almost any land combat unit.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    As I said, it will be very interesting to see what upgrades and changes they apply to the K

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:28 am

    I think the kashtan or palma is much better than the pantsir for mistral...

    The Palma is the cheap and low cost alternative to Kashtan... it has two 30mm gatling guns and 8 missiles ready to launch, but its sensors are EO and thermal only.

    The Kashtan has EO and thermal plus MMW radar and CM wave radar and it has below deck magazines for a further 24 missiles (total-32), plus it has two 30mm gatling guns.

    The Palma has longer barrel guns than Kashtan, but Kashtan-M has the same longer barrel gun and improved systems and electronics to speed up and improve accuracy of the laying and stabilisation systems.

    The Pantsir-S1 in its naval model is the replacement for the Kashtan-M and differs mainly because it has missiles that reach twice as far (18-20km) and much higher (15km vs 5km) and can engage targets flying lower (2m above the water vs 5m above the water).

    Note the naval Pantsir-S1 uses two long barrelled 30mm 6 barrel gatling guns the same as Kashtan-M and Palma.

    Yak-44 is too big for a kuznetsov sized carrier. A small radar carrying drone wouldtake up less space and would be stealthier.

    Would take up less space and be stealthier are the two worst reasons to pick an AWACS aircraft for an aircraft carrier.

    Right now they have no AWACS fixed wing aircraft on the K and you can't get much stealthier or compact than that... Smile

    Stealthier is not a consideration for an AWACS aircraft, as it will spend much of its time transmitting radar signals to find targets.

    Big means big antenna (long vision) and long endurance (more fuel).

    The whole purpose of a catapult system is to allow heavier aircraft that would otherwise be too big for the vessel to operate safely.

    I think antiship capability on almost all ships just is mandatory as AT capability is for almost any land combat unit.

    I agree, but an aircraft carrier generally relies on its air power to provide that anti ship capability... its purpose is in its name... it is a carrier of aircraft. I agree it needs to defend itself so it needs lots of SAMs and AD systems...

    I would probably go with one UKSK launcher each carrier, but most of the time I would load a mix of anti sub missiles, land attack, and anti ship weapons.


    _________________
    “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 : 1334
    Points : 1341
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  AlfaT8 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:50 am

    Been wanting to ask this for a while, but what are the export potential for the Kuznetsov class carrier to costumer other than China and India.Neutral 
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Been wanting to ask this for a while, but what are the export potential for the Kuznetsov class carrier to costumer other than China and India.

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:51 am

    AlfaT8 wrote:Been wanting to ask this for a while, but what are the export potential for the Kuznetsov class carrier to costumer other than China and India.Neutral 

    Zero.

    India did not buy a Kuznetsov, and China bought a hulk from Ukraine.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Been wanting to ask this for a while, but what are the export potential for the Kuznetsov class carrier to costumer other than China and India.

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jul 31, 2013 8:27 am

    Been wanting to ask this for a while, but what are the export potential for the Kuznetsov class carrier to costumer other than China and India.

    Would be zero... the Russian Navy likely would not sell it as they have no replacement ready to go.

    Another point is that the infrastructure and shipyards that built the K don't exist any more in the same sense and so carrier building facilities need to be recreated.

    Very simply aircraft carriers are as useful to the Navy as they are to the Army... in fact even more so as the environment the Navy operates in is like a flat open desert that is hard to hide in.

    The advantage of aircraft is an enormous increase in vision and reach with weapons, along with the flexibility of aircraft..

    A case in point could be given regarding the US Navy shooting down of an Iranian Airbus... the AEGIS cruiser involved had state of the art radar and electronics yet could not tell the difference between a climbing Airbus on a marked civilian air route and a descending F-14 on an attack run which they perceived it to be.

    A group of ships with no fixed wing aircraft could not get identification information till the aircraft got too close... so it would be radio warnings on frequencies that civilian airliners are not equipped to receive, and then opening fire with long range SAMs.

    For a group of ships with an aircraft carrier... even a not so amazing/state of the art fighter can be sent out to investigate and would quickly realise that the single attacker was in fact an Airbus rather than an F-14 on a suicide mission.

    I think it would be interesting for the Russians to experiment with a new aircraft carrier concept for UCAVs where the ship is 10-20K tons so it is not too big and expensive but has a flat deck to recover aircraft. It could store hundreds of medium and small UCAVs and also have long range cruise missiles for the land attack role. Most of the UCAVs could be highly manouverable fighter UCAVs equipped with AAMs of a range of types in an airframe able to pull 20-30g to enable it to out turn any manned aircraft.


    ...vertical launch with horizontal recovery so large numbers can be launched rapidly when needed and recovered as appropriate.


    _________________
    “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
    Flyingdutchman

    Posts : 543
    Points : 561
    Join date : 2013-07-30
    Location : The Netherlands

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Flyingdutchman on Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:39 am

    Will the russian navy fitt the kuznetsov with catapults?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Aircraft Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: News

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Aug 19, 2017 9:20 am