Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 629
    Points : 629
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat May 19, 2018 7:44 pm

    Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.
    Russia/USSR (land lease, war prizes) been buying & using foreign built ships since the Peter I, while also building her own. For decades & until recently, China, India, Iran, Vietnam, both Koreas, Australia, & S. Americans did the same. As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner. France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?
    Go ahead, send ur sling shot proposal & patent it in Russia!
    Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years! Ethnic Russians travel to/from Russia all the time ever since USSR breakup & have close family & business ties with it; Putin said that Russia won't allow a bloodbath in Donbass- watch what'll happen soon when Ukraine tries to retake it again. The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.
    SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
    A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.
    Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2693
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 11:31 pm

    Isos wrote: They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    only the first contract was 48 second 50 units for RuAF


    don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

    Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.

    True but Russia has a choice : either navalize Su-57 what is not necessarily the best idea (by sheer surface is like more 1,5 of F-35) or use new light fighter worked by  MiG now.




    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

    They surely will be. But B-52 and An-2 still will rule the skies Razz Razz Razz As for CVNs true but their role will change. They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships Razz Razz Razz
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sat May 19, 2018 11:40 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote: They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    only the first contract was 48 second 50 units for RuAF


    don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

    Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.

    True but Russia has a choice : either navalize Su-57 what is not necessarily the best idea (by sheer surface is like more 1,5 of F-35) or use new light fighter worked by  MiG now.

    Yes they have another contract of 50 su-35 BUT it happened many years after the first one and naval su-57 would be more expensive. If you want a carrier you need to buy all the planes before the end of the construction of the carrier to exploit it from the begining at its max capacity.

    It's the same story with the mig. Mig-35 is the best cost-effective solution for now. But 70 plane per cariier makes it very expensive even with only mig-35.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat May 19, 2018 11:50 pm


    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2693
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 20, 2018 12:02 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    ait 2 more years and we get back for LHD/with VSTOL fighters Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil as budget reality wakes them up.






    George1 wrote:

    Five questions about the new aircraft carrier



    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html


    Thanks for interesting blog.  I;ve read thsi stuff and after finding authors opinions:

    commnets:
    Six? At least one such as you described, it would already be megakruto, but they torment me with doubts ...
    ( Reply ) ( Thread )

    navy_korabel
    2018-05-19 10:27 am (UTC)
    One will not give much.
    Six is ​​the maximum program.



    +

    T
    he new aircraft carrier can not be smaller than Kuznetsov and more Nimitsa. Less it can not be for a number of reasons:1) we will not be able to surpass the potential enemy by the number - only by quality (TTX), therefore, there must be a competitive air group on AB, for which there is a lot of space to accommodate; 2) the Kuznetsov hangar is already small - no more than 70% of the air group is located in it, and the new AB will have to operate in the Arctic; 3) the school of Russian carrier pilots was formed on the "Kuznetsov" (there were simply no other options), the dimensions of its flight deck (305x70 m) - a kind of standard (like the size of a football field); 4) from considerations of prestige, we can not afford to yield to the Chinese or the British. To build AB more than American would be diligence not on reason and not afford, therefore, most likely, the full displacement of the aircraft carrier of the new project will fit into the range of 60,000-100,000 tons.



    This shows that author lives in realm just sporadically crossing with the real world. What doe she maen maximum 6 CVNs (hare AB (shuld be AV - avianosec CV)  or size because pilots used to land on Kuz lol1 lol1 lol1  this is beyond economy and any logic I am aware off.

    Author somehow forgets that China is economy by almost order of magnitude bigger then Russia.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 12:05 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    +1.

    But russian carrier should be able to fight alone because it will have uksk, anti sub weapons and air defences. Escort should not be as big as in the us navy. But still they lack it too.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 629
    Points : 629
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 12:08 am

    That's my point: getting 8 FFGs from China will help- while waiting for them, they can locally build a few FFGs/DDGs. In that article 5-6 CVNs r mentioned; with 2-3 FFGs/DDGs per group, that's at least 10-18 FFGs/DDGs. The more numerous LHA/LHDs will also need 2-3 escorts each. Earlier I calculated the total ships needed is around 50. I don't think they can build them all by themselves in time before the 5th CVN is ready to sail, unless the new CVNs "r moved farther to the right".
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 2693
    Points : 2733
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 20, 2018 12:28 am


    Tsavo Lion wrote:That's my point: getting 8 FFGs from China will help- while waiting for them, they can locally build a few FFGs/DDGs. In that article 5-6 CVNs r mentioned; with 2-3 FFGs/DDGs per group, that's at least 10-18 FFGs/DDGs. The more numerous LHA/LHDs will also need 2-3 escorts each. Earlier I calculated the total ships needed is around 50. I don't think they can build them all by themselves in time before the 5th CVN is ready to sail, unless the new CVNs "r moved farther to the right".  

    Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS. From time to market or economy perhaps you have right but her comes political risk management into play.




    GarryB wrote:
    Currently Russia showed most interest in Silk Road II  and Northern Route, Asia and Africa and for this  current fleet is more then enough. Will economy grow? no problem with CVNs.

    Being the country products from Asia travel across by rail, or past by sea to get to Europe wont make Russia rich...

    Pumping gas and oil into the machine in Asia that makes the products will help but helping them get to europe cheaper wont fill Russian pockets.

    and what makes Russia so rich trading with poorest stares of Africa and Latin America over seas? buying bananas and exchanging coffee for  Renault Ladas? Northern route is like all routes money, political leverage, investments, new enterprises (along easy logistics to anyone to half or worlds population?)

    India alone has population close to Africa and Latin America together. Chine like wise and their economies grow 6-8% per annum.



    Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

    Nuclear powerplants generate electricity by producing steam... it is perfectly normal to then propel the ship with electric motors...


    Not to mention easier to use (gearboxes, turbines for extra power and additional fuel installations... but not bes tiwll be refurbished sovied design :-)))

    like this Very Happy:D:D



    GarryB wrote:
    BTW do you see how much V gen MiG with canards is similar to Yak VSTOL

    In the sense both are still drawings... yes.   Twisted Evil

    still more advanced drawings then future ACs so no worry . MiG-35 will be 70 in 2040s. US fleet with 6 gen fighter F/A-XX. Borysov (current dept prime minister) in 2017 said that MiG is great fighter but getting obsolete also in moral sense.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 629
    Points : 629
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 2:26 am

    "Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS." True, but I meant & they reportedly mull buying Chinese FFGs which r not strategic by any stretch. Much bigger Mistrals was more of a lo$$ to France than to Russia after that deal was cancelled under US pressure after more strategically valuable Crimea (essentially an unsinkable CV) slipped out of Kiev & NATO grasp. So much for "French independent foreign policy". Now Egypt has them; later they may even be re-sold to Russia or some other 3rd country. Recall that Napoleon army raped Egypt ~200 years ago. In their 4K year history, it was like yesterday.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 376
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 3:50 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...
    Pretty straight to the point. Costs of all that fun are prohibitive unless smart optimizations are taken, and even then it will be a "poor's man approach" in the eyes of many.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 376
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 6:03 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But the size of the fleet can be kept contained at the same time
    And that is important... they can't afford an enormous fleet... every ship needs to be able to defend itself... poliment redut and UKSK launchers for everyone.... including carriers.
    Exactly. Some call this "distributed lethality (TM)", others common sense, but the idea is clear...
    GarryB wrote:
    Afghanistan was a failure because it was not.
    That was in the 1980s... I would expect a new intervention would be rather more successful but would likely be coordinated with Iran and Pakistan this time around.
    Just an example of interventionist (AFAIK), bloated super-power policy. Wrong policies are exceedingly expensive to make succeed.
    GarryB wrote:
    Whatever you want to see it, cost is THE essential issue.
    I disagree... there is a saying... throwing the baby out with the bath water... if 10 billion is too much spending 5 billion on something that most of the time wont do the job is just stupid... if you don't want to spend 10 billion then don't spend any at all... but remember in 20 years time when you lose some very expensive ships and miss out on trillions of dollars in deals because the US or UK or even French navy stopped you... you could have had a say... without a strong navy you don't get a say, and how could you have a strong navy with no AWACS or air power?
    Not saying you have to do it dirt cheap if it cannot be done reasonably effective. Russian military can offer literally tons of examples were simple yet effective approaches save billions and billions with the same or better military results than certain American extravagances, just because the approaches are less ambitious and more reasonable. But in the end of the day cost determines, within a certain technological state of things, what you get. Of course Russia could have 100.000 ton carriers with 90 aircraft and what not, but they do not do it since it is of no use to bankrupt the country just to have the best military solution available for one particular type of event. Of course I agree spending 5 billion just to get them sunk is stupid, pretty much!
    GarryB wrote:
    Defending is cheap, attacking with impunity is expensive, it is a matter of life. And innovation is the key. Known standards need to be constantly reviewed in light of new technical possibilities.
    I am not talking about invasion carriers... I am actually talking about AWACS aircraft... NATO has them and therefore can go to different countries and operate an airforce with full command and control and intel... Russia with mostly defensive ground based radar network can't move like NATO has... the use of A-50s in Syria is new and is paying dividends, but their navy does not have that luxury.

    Hell if you want to be bloody cheap how about a big container ship with multiple tethers on it and an enormous airship that sits on top of the deck. The airship gets its power through the tether cables and the airship itself has enormous antenna arrays down each side, front and back... the new type of radar they are talking about that can take photo like images of distant targets... when you send out a Russian surface action group you send this ship too and raise the airship to 20-30km altitude and with its radar it can spot any and all targets and threats for thousands of kms in every direction 24/7. The cargo ship can have its deck covered in UKSK and redut/poliment launch tubes... thousands of each... Air to air Missile packs can also be part of the airship so it can defend itself.

    You don't need fighters... as long as you are sure all your missiles will work and the enemy has no way to defeat them... because that airship will not dogfight... and it can certainly see cruise missiles but it can't chase them down.
    lol1 lol1
    Man, I had thought of something like that airship as AWACS for my proposed ship but many issues were not clear in my mind as to the practical feasibility. But I think this may be a potential solution, so now you mention it... Very Happy
    You need a light payload (500 kg weight would AFAIK reasonable for an airship like 5 m radius), all equipment and structure would need to be very light. You need power and some engines to keep up with the speed of the ship and winds, this may be a limiting factor. The power could maybe (not completely sure this is feasible) transmitted from the ship as microwave, in case the operating height of the airship is very high and cables cannot be used. During the day solar cells over a dish of 5 m radius could generate some 40 kW but batteries for the whole night is a no-go. So power needs to come from somewhere. The radar horizon for 10 km height is like 400 km if I am not wrong, so not bad.

    One additional advantage with this solution is you could have multistatic detection based on other planes in your fleet, which even VLO targets cannot easily escape.

    Other options are:

    > Place radar arrays in the side bays of a 5th gen fighter (of the F-22 or J-20 type). These could be ca. 4 x 1 m arrays, so the power aperture could be reasonable (cooling issues aside of course...). they would not cover the whole 360 degrees but you may have several planes circling around the carrier and covering each other's blind spots. Obvious advantage is that you don't develop an additional plane for the AWACS role and don't have to service it on board. If the radar system was modular, maybe planes could be even converted on board for this role according to the needs. BTW, the same could be applied, with the proper equipment, for reconnaissance and EW missions. The solution could complement the airship for the multistatic detection. Of course no operators on board, just transmitting of the radar data to the ship in this case... This goes way beyond "omni-role" fighter doesn't it? Razz

    > Could it be possible to use structural or placed on purpose elements of the ship or group of ships / aircraft as antennae of a OTH radar? This would be an even more powerful early warning solution than any of the existing, even when it cannot provide a firing solution against any threat... Maybe a compact and downgraded version of Podsolnukh-E? dunno
    GarryB wrote:You don't mention it but I am assuming you mean a double hull vessel.

    Dare I ask if you have ever been on one?

    When there is anything but very flat water multi hull boats really rock... and I mean that literally... the hull on one side goes down and the hull on the other side goes up a wave... from a passenger perspective one second you are looking at sea, and the next blue sky... sure it was not a big ship, but it was not even a rough sea either...
    Actually I was thinking of a huuge trimaran. From the limited research I have made they are remarkably stable in rough seas and remarkably fast but if anybody can comment on that I would appreciate.
    GarryB wrote:
    > Increased internal volume allows to dedicate more space to ASW, AD, land attack, ordnance, fuel etc., reducing the need for support of additional ships and increasing endurance.
    Hang on... increased internal volume means bigger mass, which means more expensive to operate and move around...
    Only to a limited extent, since most of the volume means "air" in this case! The form factor in such a vessel is quite different to that of a single hull, the form is much more "boxy". Equally the height is not that limited by stability as in a conventional ship. Nevertheless this would not be smaller than 60-70 T tons by a very very rough estimation. Since you would spare the LHDs altogether you would have economies even having a relatively big ship.
    GarryB wrote:Sorry, but I don't think the rocket sled idea has wheels... EMALS ticks all the boxes, and includes technologies like super magnets and super conductors and power generation and storage that has enormous potential in other areas... even potentially for rail guns and electric power propulsion systems... for land, sea, and aircraft.
    No rocket but almost a sled Very Happy
    Like said, if the EMALS are so super expensive and difficult it would be an option. If they can be implemented at reasonable costs (which I don't see as fundamentally infeasible to achieve) then use EMALS!
    GarryB wrote:Small carriers are limiting... when a Russian surface action group is in the South Atlantic or south pacific you don't want to need 50 supply ships running constantly to keep the carrier in aviation fuel and bombs, not to mention replacement aircraft... if you are only going to make two then why make two piddling little ones with pathetic performance VSTOL fighters and VTOL Ka-31 AWACS because you can't operate anything bigger... hell they can already operate Ka-31s from destroyers if they want to give up capability against subs...
    See above. Additional volume means more endurance. Optimized deck operations means less aircraft doing more, so again more space available and more endurance.
    No STOVL please!
    Air control radars / Early Warning is part of the kit as well.
    GarryB wrote:A fighter probably could match the range and endurance, but can it carry a 360 degree radar and the 2-6 people needed to turn the flying radar from AEW to AWACS... it is not just supposed to see targets but to coordinate the defence using fighters and ships missiles.
    See above. Why cannot seat that operators at the ship were space, weight and power/cooling are not a premium? Just an innocent question...
    GarryB wrote:The AWACS is important, but a Tanker perhaps based on the same airframe is just as useful for extending the operational time of all aircraft operating from the carrier too.
    Nothing against it, if it can be paid. Otherwise, buddy refuelling...
    GarryB wrote:With a cat you can operate tanker aircraft so fighters with full weapon load for air to air could take off with a quarter fuel load and top up after launch on the way to the targets...
    Why would the fighters take-off with quarter tank if you have catapult?
    GarryB wrote:EM cats are much more forgiving....
    In other words it does not apply constant fixed level of force.
    Yes I know, this is great.
    GarryB wrote:Except it can't lift the aircraft vertically... these aircraft are not VTOL... if you lift them up 5m into the air they are in the air, but you have just created a problem not solved one... the problem is moving them horizontally in the space available to get the air flowing over their wings fast enough to support their own weight... with their engines running to maintain and increase that horizontal speed.

    If you just use force to lift them then all that is holding them in the air is the engine on your lift device... now what are you going to do?

    If that engine shuts down or stalls then the plane it was lifting drops like a rock and will be destroyed in a fireball.

    If you try to move the aircraft it will have to be forward to generate any wing lift.... and be careful where you point those very powerful engines because exhaust blast kills deck crew...

    Like I said... it would be easier and simpler and cheaper to use a catapult.

    What you are suggesting is pretty much just JATO bottles... which has been tried... they are expensive and pretty soon you end up spending more money on expensive and dangerous solid rocket fuel than cats would have cost.
    I used the F135 as reference of thrust to weight ratio. Imagine two small turbojets, each moving two lift fans on each side of the plane. The turbojets propel the plane horizontally (though just marginally maybe) and the fans provide the needed lift for the operation. The aircraft takes off normally at full AB and when it reaches the end of the deck it does not fall because of the additional lift provided by the "sled" (or even because it goes also faster horizontally). Some hundred meters later it reaches enough speed for independent flight, the UAV detaches and returns to the ship.

    Not seen any sky-jump carrier with catapult. Since the rotation of the plane is done by the sky jump itself, I think it is a superior way of taking off, less reliant on complex systems and with less drop or fall of the plane from the deck. Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question)Very Happy
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17873
    Points : 18435
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 20, 2018 12:41 pm

    My point as: there is the whole asia and Europe reachable via land.

    No it isn't.

    If the EU bans Russian exports to itself it is hardly going to let such deliveries travel over its territories... any country can be strong armed into stopping transfers across their country... was Kosovo reachable for Russian deliveries?

    You know better than anyone we are talking about spineless bastards who jump when Washington says jump... except for the ones that ask how high to jump...

    This is enough big market to grow.

    It is a non existent market... the west sanctions Russia and blocks sales of high tech western stuff... do you think they will buy your stuff?

    Hardly a Russian product friendly market to begin with... heard the term pissing in the wind?

    Not tomention growing Russian level of life to say Germany makes Russia GDP like 8trillions nominative

    Of course... the only way for Russia to improve quality of life it buying and selling shit to rich people... I am sure that is what the rich people want you to think... How about picking a poor country and trading with them... you both make money... you both develop... you don't need to sell your Soul... you both grow and benefit and make money... without the west.

    So you had mines and steel mills on NZ? I've found a documentary about it

    Yes, that is the video from the Wellington site... Smile

    Very true, times changed though. In vital places Husky/Yasen or Belgorods/Poseidon will be around not ot mention PAK-DA or Avangards from Russia. Time of mega carriers is gone I believe. Small one with 20-30 airwing is as good fo colonial war or and costs 1/4 of mega . Her fighters still can use GZUR rockets with 1500kms range to keep enemy ships at bay.

    If carriers wont survive then smaller carriers will be even easier to take out and of rather less use... is a corvette better able to survive where an AEGIS cruiser it too expensive? Any attack against either and I would put my money on the cruiser to survive better than the Corvette...

    A ship of the size of the old Gorshkov (Baku), which they sold to India. With nuclear propulsion.

    If you can only have 2-4 SSBNs would they be armed with 4-6 SLBM launchers each, or 50?

    4-6 SLBMs would be so much cheaper... and with new technology SSBNs are dead anyway...

    Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.

    But ability is not the same actual production rate... plus you ignore the fact that there are vastly more factors involved.. big economy does not mean big navy...

    As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner.

    They don't know what they want... if they were really desperate for large ships they could easily apply a minor overhaul to cold war destroyers they have and use them... who is going to fire on them anyway?

    France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?

    You ask why they should not buy Chinese ships... they have plenty of shipyards of their own... why would they not just build their own?

    If they don't think they need them at the moment then there is no problem anyway.

    If they think they need them but their shipyards can't build them then they have a problem with their shipyards... that wont be fixed by buying ships from Chinese shipyards.

    Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years!

    Ethnic Russians are non citizens in the Baltic states and most of the rest of eastern europe and have even less power than the blacks do in the US... the only difference is that European police don't use them for target practise.

    The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.

    Hahahaha... short of making them wear pink stars on their shirts I don't know what else the Baltic states could do to further alienate their Russian minorities... they make them non citizens... not eligible for benefits or positions within government... would not be accepted against any other group except Russians in Europe... everyone else has support... homos, blacks, I rather suspect child molesters would probably be better protected as a group than Russians sadly.

    Not a reflection of Russian, but of superior european values and morals...

    SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982:

    Even an SSK could fire a torpedo that way and sink a ship, but what are the rest of the ships going to be doing when you launch torpedos... fire depth charges?

    A carrier group will likely end the embargo without firing a shot and escalating to stupid directions.

    A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.

    A warning will only alert them to the threat and they might try to sink your sub before it can attack...

    By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

    They are already working on railguns able to accelerate 100 gramme projectiles to over 7km/s... with such a gun you could shoot down satellites in orbit... and the best way to deal with hypersonic threats will likely be weapons with enormous muzzle velocities... ie lasers... which need enormous supplies of energy... like a carrier?

    They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    The MiG-35 is fully carrier capable now... there is no reason why they could not do the same to the new 5th gen small fighter...

    New Zealand operated the A-4 skyhawk without a carrier... so did Argentina... the USAF also used the F-4 phantom too...

    They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships

    And yet a bigger CVN offers more flexibility to change roles or adopt new ones...

    If you want a carrier you need to buy all the planes before the end of the construction of the carrier to exploit it from the begining at its max capacity.

    Why?

    Most carriers during fitting out don't have anything like a full aircraft compliment for the first few years... it would only be in combat you would use them and as you say they are expensive items to just have sitting there in the salt air... at risk of damage, but not at risk of being used...

    It's the same story with the mig. Mig-35 is the best cost-effective solution for now. But 70 plane per cariier makes it very expensive even with only mig-35.

    More expensive planes have better chances of survival... you going to spend 10 billion on a carrier and another 20 billion on the support and infrastructure and other capital and support ships and then pike on the aircraft component?

    When the carrier is not at sea those MiG-35s can operate from land... those MiG-35s are full dual capable land and sea based aircraft so it would make sense to have a few of them anyway...

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    Gonna take 15 years to built a carrier and get her fitted out to become operational... plenty of time to finish upgrading the Kirovs and build a dozen or so destroyers and start construction of some new cruisers...

    Author somehow forgets that China is economy by almost order of magnitude bigger then Russia.

    Not to mention that China does not have Russia under economic sanction...

    But russian carrier should be able to fight alone because it will have uksk, anti sub weapons and air defences. Escort should not be as big as in the us navy. But still they lack it too.

    It would be nice if every ship could hold its own in a fight but they should never be actually put in that situation...

    Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS. From time to market or economy perhaps you have right but her comes political risk management into play.

    They have spent a small fortune to upgrade their shipyards... why would they then give major ship building contracts to another country?

    2008 was a shock and they realised they needed a helicopter carrier as fast as possible, so France was selected because the Mistral is a mature design... with a few minor modifications it would have been a good choice for Russia.

    Problem is that they didn't realise how big a cowards the French are... I wasn't happy having a NATO country source for the Mistrals, but they are good ships that are mature designs... no 10 years planning and a bit of hit and miss in the design choices and then 4-5 years to decide how to make the damn things... in terms of urgency the Mistrals were an excellent choice... they probably would have had all four in service... two in the northern fleet and two in the Pacific fleet.

    Of the NATO countries I thought the French could get the job done... they often pretend to follow their own interests first, but it turns out honour means nothing in France and you clearly can't trust them in anything.

    and what makes Russia so rich trading with poorest stares of Africa and Latin America over seas? buying bananas and exchanging coffee for Renault Ladas?

    Because I think most non western countries see what the west does and really want an alternative.

    I think Russia is not rich and powerful and super perfect... there are plenty of areas they need to work on... that are very similar problems and issues for any non western country... I think they can help each other and both grow from the experience.

    What banana republic doesn't want a publicity stunt where one of their people goes into space to a space station?

    India alone has population close to Africa and Latin America together. Chine like wise and their economies grow 6-8% per annum.

    Both those countries should also be engaged, but Russia needs to look at countries that will benefit from trade... good relations with China will generally mean them selling you lots of cheap products which generally immediately turns your domestic clothing industry into a fashion design industry... we design but made in China with Chinese fabrics...

    That is the dead end for the west... Russia should try to avoid importing everything from countries with cheap labour and no labour laws to protect workers.

    MiG-35 will be 70 in 2040s

    Current systems will be placeholders... when the CVN hits the water, whatever is new and shiny will likely star on her deck.

    The Kuznetsov model I remember seeing in the 90s had MiG-23s on it...

    Just because it is in the model or artwork it is not set in stone... just like IOC dates for that matter.... Twisted Evil

    True, but I meant & they reportedly mull buying Chinese FFGs which r not strategic by any stretch.

    They are not going to pay China to make anything they can make themselves... there is no urgency... when they decide to make a CVN and lay it down there will be 12-15 years before it gets anything like operational... plenty of time to lay down larger ships or upgrade existing models.

    Paying money to Chinese shipyards to build boats does not help Russian shipyards or the Russian Navy.

    Ironically spending almost 1.5 billion on the Mistrals gave them intimate access to the mature design of a ship they wanted, and then they got most of their money back and sales to Egypt for the air group and electronics they produced for the vessels, so that turned out OK... except they didn't get the ships they wanted very fast.

    Of course full access to the design and production of the Mistrals means they can make some more serious upgrades and changes and still get a pretty good vessel much much faster than would be possible by making it from scratch.

    Now Egypt has them; later they may even be re-sold to Russia or some other 3rd country. Recall that Napoleon army raped Egypt ~200 years ago. In their 4K year history, it was like yesterday.

    I suspect Russia will just build some new designs with Mistral origins... and Egypt should be happy... they probably got some very good ships at reduced price...

    It is the French that came out smelling of shit.

    Pretty straight to the point. Costs of all that fun are prohibitive unless smart optimizations are taken, and even then it will be a "poor's man approach" in the eyes of many.

    The planning for the support infrastructure needed to operate these ships will already have started, and support ships... they will come anyway... they want a carrier because they want a blue water fleet... if they want a blue water fleet then they will need destroyers and cruisers anyway.

    Just an example of interventionist (AFAIK), bloated super-power policy. Wrong policies are exceedingly expensive to make succeed.

    You can have all the tools you like, but the result depends more on preparation and skill in the use of the tools than in anything else...

    The skilful use of limited resources in Syria shows the Russians know what they are doing... a force a fraction of the size and cost of the western forces in the region turned a losing war into a win... for costs that would probably be rather less than your average NATO exercise...

    Of course Russia could have 100.000 ton carriers with 90 aircraft and what not, but they do not do it since it is of no use to bankrupt the country just to have the best military solution available for one particular type of event.

    A 100K ton carrier is a strike carrier... an invasion support carrier... Russia has no need for such a thing... it would be used to bully little countries... like carriers off the coast of Korea or Vietnam... Russia needs to defend its ships, if it needs to blow up a terrorist camp or weapon lab or CIA HQ in the middle of some poor african country then a cruise missile makes rather more sense than any air group...

    You need a light payload (500 kg weight would AFAIK reasonable for an airship like 5 m radius), all equipment and structure would need to be very light. You need power and some engines to keep up with the speed of the ship and winds, this may be a limiting factor. The power could maybe (not completely sure this is feasible) transmitted from the ship as microwave, in case the operating height of the airship is very high and cables cannot be used. During the day solar cells over a dish of 5 m radius could generate some 40 kW but batteries for the whole night is a no-go. So power needs to come from somewhere. The radar horizon for 10 km height is like 400 km if I am not wrong, so not bad.

    Russia already sold to china blimps intended for use in mountains... radar antennas that are also used for communications and navigation, but also looking for low flying threats... they operate for like 3 months at a time... at 5-10km altitude and are tethered to the ground station that provides power and processing etc.

    A modern airship would benefit enormously from fuel cells.

    Normally on an airship you use helium because it is "safer", but with modern fire proof materials it should be possible to not use any helium.

    Hydrogen fuel cell plus a small NPP... the fuel cell allows you to turn hydrogen into water ballast and back... to go up run a current from the NPP to the fuel cell to turn the water into hydrogen and the whole thing rises... no need to vent... if you need to descend then run the fuel cell and use up some hydrogen and create water ballast and you descend.

    Normal airships are expensive because venting helium is horribly expensive, but how do you go back up after venting lifting gas?

    You drop more ballast... eventually you will run out of ballast/lifting gas... this new method is a closed system that can continue indefinitely... you could fly low and turn on a dehumidifier if you need to take on more water/hydrogen fuel cell fuel.

    More importantly an airship has a structure with an outer cover and inner bags holding the lifting gas... with modern strong light materials that are fire resistent, you could pump nitrogen between the bags of hydrogen to eliminate any risk of fire... hydrogen needs oxygen to burn... that means even if you get hit by an air to air missile how many hydrogen bags will it damage?

    A really big airship will have enormous numbers of lifting bags spread over a large area, so even a direct hit will likely not burst all the bags... all ballast could be dropped and it would likely slowly descend to the water... where it could be picked up and repaired or have the bags replaced.

    Electric motors for station control or manouvering the radar to focus the full length of antenna on something of interest... perhaps even have two... one tethered from each end of the large ship pointing in different directions at different altitudes...

    In fact have 10 backups on board...

    Try that with an AWACs aircraft....

    Actually I was thinking of a huuge trimaran. From the limited research I have made they are remarkably stable in rough seas and remarkably fast but if anybody can comment on that I would appreciate.

    Went on a big cat to Stewart Island... smooth and very fast on the way over, but a little choppy on the way back... just lots of small waves... there was not even a roll on and the thing jumped and bucked like we had Spurs on and weren't afraid to use them... my friend spent the trip face down in the toilet... Smile

    Only to a limited extent, since most of the volume means "air" in this case!

    So unused space... tell me again why that is useful?

    The form factor in such a vessel is quite different to that of a single hull, the form is much more "boxy".

    But if you were selling the idea instead of boxy you would say compact right? Smile

    Nevertheless this would not be smaller than 60-70 T tons by a very very rough estimation. Since you would spare the LHDs altogether you would have economies even having a relatively big ship.

    So I thought the idea was a unified LHD and a CVN, so you buy, say, 6 platforms for 2 CVN and 4 LHD, and save money by buying 6 similar platforms.

    I think that would be more like making the LHDs as expensive as CVN, which is sort of the opposite of what we want...

    If they can be implemented at reasonable costs (which I don't see as fundamentally infeasible to achieve) then use EMALS!

    they are not going to be cheap, but they will be the most sensible and efficient way of getting planes airborne on ships... and improvements in technology that are developed can be applied in many other areas... including space etc.

    Why cannot seat that operators at the ship were space, weight and power/cooling are not a premium? Just an innocent question...

    the main difference is that a Ka-31, which pretty much just captures raw data and transmits it all to a ship for processing... the ship then sends commands to the aircraft and other ships in the group to deal with threats or targets detected.

    In other words it is really just an AEW aircraft.

    An AWACS aircraft gathers data, but then processes it, and then this information is processed by operators who likely pass digital information and commands to aircraft and ships and even satellites for HQs to look at. The difference is that the aircraft does all the processing and therefore also much less data is transmitted.

    Continuously transmitting data to a ship means the Ka-31 is not hard to spot... it is using its radar anyway so that is a given, but the ship it transmits data to then has to process that information and then send commands to other aircraft and platforms including the Ka-31... so the surface ships location will be compromised.

    An enemy might be able to intercept the datalinks but they will likely be heavily encrypted so they wont benefit... for processing it will likely be a cruiser or a carrier that is receiving and processing the information.

    With a well designed system the AWACS aircraft could largely do its job independent of the ships and aircraft so it can detect targets and pass information to aircraft and ships without those ships having to reveal their presence or location...

    Of course an airship could pass the data down the tether and operate active and passive radar scanning...

    Nothing against it, if it can be paid. Otherwise, buddy refuelling...

    Launching one big aircraft to fuel 10 fighters makes more sense to launch 11 aircraft instead of 20... especially when the 10 fighters you launch to transfer fuel will have to take off unarmed to maximise fuel... so you have a take off and landing cycle with no weapons use...

    Why would the fighters take-off with quarter tank if you have catapult?

    Because you have one catapult and two ski jump take off positions... your priority is to get the AWACS up and operating for the first cat launch... and the next launch might be a fully fuelled an armed fighter, but while it is getting ready on the cat you have two fighters taking off from the ski jump... by the time the fully armed and fuelled fighter has taken off there will be at least four half fuel aircraft airborne, so next you launch a tanker to top up those four and the two taking off when the tanker is launched... the first guy is approaching the threat but the rest can catch up because they were fuelled in the air and can take more fuel on so they can go AB all the way... as they start to blunt the attack more aircraft are getting airborne... fighters and tankers... planes getting airborne from the cat can be fully armed and fuelled and can go engage the enemy straight away, planes from the ski jump might still be able to engage incoming threats... even operating at 5,000m they can see low flying anti ship missiles from huge ranges and engage them... when they run out of missiles they can return and land and rearm...

    A tanker near the carrier to refuel aircraft as they take off that need it, plus another tanker flying towards the threat to refuel aircraft nearer the target so they can hang around there longer...

    If the threat includes enemy aircraft then don't operate the tanker so far forward...

    Hell a tanker would be a large aircraft put a couple of quad MANPADS launchers... it could take on low flying subsonic anti ship missiles, without too much weight or drag penalty.

    Most subsonic anti ship missile attacks will be swarm mass attacks so the more platforms that can help the better.

    I used the F135 as reference of thrust to weight ratio. Imagine two small turbojets, each moving two lift fans on each side of the plane. The turbojets propel the plane horizontally (though just marginally maybe) and the fans provide the needed lift for the operation. The aircraft takes off normally at full AB and when it reaches the end of the deck it does not fall because of the additional lift provided by the "sled" (or even because it goes also faster horizontally). Some hundred meters later it reaches enough speed for independent flight, the UAV detaches and returns to the ship.

    Two things really... when it goes off the end of the deck if it does not have enough speed to fly when the deck drops away to the sea the entire aircraft and supporting UAV will also drop, because the lifting force near a surface is greater than the same force higher up.... it is called surface effect... WIG and hovercraft use it... so when the two platforms reach the end of the deck they will drop rapidly to a similar height above the water that they had above the deck... lets say 3 metres above the deck would be 3m above the water... but suddenly losing the support of the deck means it will drop 10-20 metres which means it will probably hit the water with its downwards momentum.

    With such an explanation it is clear to me your idea would work best using small hovercraft like UAVs.

    Think a large container ship with these hovercraft and aircraft... hovercraft attached to the aircraft... big crane picks up both and places them in the water beside the ship... hovercraft starts up and moves forward... aircraft starts up engines and deploys flaps etc for take off.... you have unlimited sea to get to takeoff speed... in any direction you want... when plane gets airborne hovercraft can turn around back to ship to have another plane put on its back.

    Bigger hovercraft would allow more aircraft types to be launched.

    Still need a carrier for recovery, though large container ship with half deck flat with arrester gear would do.

    Not so good in rough seas though but really big hovercraft might solve that.

    Not seen any sky-jump carrier with catapult. Since the rotation of the plane is done by the sky jump itself, I think it is a superior way of taking off, less reliant on complex systems and with less drop or fall of the plane from the deck. Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question

    Ski jump is a way of giving aircraft an impulse upwards... works best with vectored thrust aircraft like Harrier, but can be used by conventional aircraft like Su-33 and mig-29, but could be further taken advantage of with vectored thrust engines which would help control yaw and and pitch angle on take off to prevent stalls or not enough lift angle.

    AFAIK the cat system on the new carrier is intended to not go up the ski jump.

    On the current K there are two short take off runs in line with the ski jump, but also a very long take off run near the waist of the carrier... it would be in the way of landing aircraft so cannot be used while landing planes but offers a much longer run up to the ski jump so fully loaded Su-33s can take off. (note they don't do ground attack so I am taking about full AA missile load and full internal fuel... they can't carry external fuel tanks)

    On the new carrier I expect that waist launch position will go straight out over the deck where the landing aircraft take off again if they miss a cable... with the boost of a cat that should be plenty of length to get to speed...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17873
    Points : 18435
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 20, 2018 12:42 pm

    Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question)

    Hahahaahaha... it is OK... I don't do traps... or do I? Twisted Evil

    Have I told my Deja Vu joke yet?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2169
    Points : 2192
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun May 20, 2018 1:39 pm

    George1 wrote:

    Five questions about the new aircraft carrier


    ...

    The little-aesthetic (two-edged) giant concept-project of the Krylov Scientific Center (23,000 "Storm"), widely known for publications of the media, should not be taken seriously because of wide popularity (the development approved by the military would be kept strictly confidential) and conceptual (the design of aircraft carriers is a specialization not of KGNC, but exclusively of the NPKB).

    ...

    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html

    There are many things to comment in the article, this one is likely the most remarkable because is wrong.

    The last preliminary design of combat ship approved by the Russian Ministry of Defense was the Project 23560 Lider, in April 2017. This project was presented previously, at least in its export variant, just like the Project 23000 of aircraft carrier.
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 376
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 2:28 pm

    George1 wrote:Five questions about the new aircraft carrier
    Thanks for posting!

    I tend to agree with the analysis of this article. Even when the logic behind the calculation is clear, I find difficult to believe that Russia is going to have 6 full-fledged carriers in the next 20 years.

    This is interesting Very Happy
    As for the air group, we must definitely "put" on the deck of the Su-57. Taking into account the disastrous state of the Super Hornet Park (reference 9), the plans for their updating (reference 11), partial replacement on the F-35C and the full one for the new generation F / A-XX (not earlier than 2020) -2030-ies), the Russian Navy has every chance to beat competitors in a bend. At the same time, information (if we consider it as disinformation) about the planned development of flawed VCVP (vertical / shortened takeoff and landing aircraft) is at least meaningful (reference 12) - so that competitors are not too rushed to implement the F / A-XX program.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 6955
    Points : 7053
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 20, 2018 4:29 pm


    Escorts.

    Can't build escorts, can't build carrier, plain and simple.

    Also, Su-57 is too cumbersome for carriers (think Su-33 issues) and since they already need light single engine fighter for airforce anyway they might as well develop and navalize that one.

    But again main problem remains: escorts.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2430
    Points : 2414
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 5:43 pm

    Depends. These days, missile boats are about as well armed as destroyers we're in Soviet times. I would wager making more Corvettes with modern equipment will solve that task for escorts.

    Personally, jump jets are needed again. They shouldn't have dropped the Yak-141. Cause today, they could make a rather cheap aircraft carriers using transport vessels like seen in past.

    If needed.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Depends. These days, missile boats are about as well armed as destroyers we're in Soviet times. I would wager making more Corvettes with modern equipment will solve that task for escorts.

    Personally, jump jets are needed again. They shouldn't have dropped the Yak-141. Cause today, they could make a rather cheap aircraft carriers using transport vessels like seen in past.

    If needed.

    Missile boats and corvettes can't escort a carrier. They are limited by their size for long range deployment.

    Yak-141 is pretty useless for combat operations. Any other decent fighter will have superiority over it with more range and more weapons. F-35 is not far from the yak in that role, it only has better rcs and better radar.

    The only good thing with that is using it as an airborn radar connected to the fleet to give a better picture of the enemy and maybe guide some anti air missiles over the horizon. It could also use 2 or 3 missiles to intercept incoming threats. But using them against many f-16 or f-15 or superhornets is useless spexially if you only have a few of them on your carrier.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2430
    Points : 2414
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 6:25 pm

    Yak-141 was to solve the issue that Yak-38 had with the weapons payload.

    And modern Corvettes have decent range you know. About as same as older non nuclear ships.  And we're do you expect the carrier will go? To US shores? In most regards, auxiliary ships would be used to help in regards to ranges. Size has little to do with it now. Since newer ships travel as long as older "escort" ships did, so.....

    But whatever.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 7:20 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Yak-141 was to solve the issue that Yak-38 had with the weapons payload.

    And modern Corvettes have decent range you know. About as same as older non nuclear ships.  And we're do you expect the carrier will go? To US shores? In most regards, auxiliary ships would be used to help in regards to ranges. Size has little to do with it now. Since newer ships travel as long as older "escort" ships did, so.....

    But whatever.

    It's not the 16 redut missiles on steregoushchy that will protect your carrier.

    They are limited also by crew and food. Auxiliary ships are very good but russia already has not enough of them so they will need to build new ones and not small ones if you want to assist tens of corvettes far away.

    Russia used K in syria and look wh1t trip it did to go so close ro russia. All the interesting places where a russian carrier could be deployed are far.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2430
    Points : 2414
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 7:44 pm

    Its already been demanded and more or less ordered for upwards to 100 auxillary ships. Your idea of crew and food limitations is archaic. Modern Corvettes have endurance (so that accounts for food and fuel) upwards to 30 days. Most missiles onboard now on Corvettes are more than older larger ships had then. Not to mention they still have quite a few frigates to operate alongside.

    Their destinations are limited and we're a carrier would go is more likely within easy reach of Russia already - Gulf of Aden, Med sea, along the costs to Vietnam, etc. Those are not 30 day destinations.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 1953
    Points : 1947
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 8:08 pm

    It's useless to compare modern corvette to old threats. A modern single fighter can detect a naval group outside the air defence range of the ships and launch easily 4 anti ship missiles.

    Corvettes have evolved but so did the other plateforms. And the advantage goes to the one that attacks. Like alwayd. He can choose when, where and how to attack. Russia doesn't have the monopole in massive antiship missiles attacks. And their ship are not imune to it.

    Their destinations are limited and we're a carrier would go is more likely within easy reach of Russia already - Gulf of Aden, Med sea, along the costs to Vietnam, etc. Those are not 30 day destinations.

    All those place are full of enemy forces. Med sea is inside nato, gulf of aden is surounded by arab countries puppet of US and full of US bases same in asia.

    If they plan to defend their carrier it will be against Nato forces or big countries/militaries like israel, sausi arabia, China, japan .... which all have enough hardware to lunch massive strikes.

    Sorry but corvettes can escort the carrier for small engagement not real ones.

    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 629
    Points : 629
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 8:48 pm

    I don't know what else the Baltic states could do to further alienate their Russian minorities... they make them non citizens... not eligible for benefits or positions within government...
    That's precisely why the RF will give them passports &/ defend their rights!
    big economy does not mean big navy...
    By the same token, smaller RF economy as compared to Japan & PRC can't support building & sustaining a big navy!
    if they were really desperate for large ships they could easily apply a minor overhaul to cold war destroyers they have and use them... If they think they need them but their shipyards can't build them then they have a problem with their shipyards... that won't be fixed by buying ships from Chinese shipyards.
    That takes time & $, + they don't have that many of them anyway. It won't solve shipyards' problems but they'll get FFGs they need & give them time to try to solve them &/ build smaller ships there they also need.  
    Even an SSK could fire a torpedo that way and sink a ship, but what are the rest of the ships going to be doing when you launch torpedos... fire depth charges? A carrier group will likely end the embargo without firing a shot and escalating to stupid directions. ..A warning will only alert them to the threat and they might try to sink your sub before it can attack...
    SSGNs can sink ships from 500km away & a warning can be given by email from Moscow,  & it won't include their coordinates. Plus they will have modernised & new Tu-22/95/160s/ekranoplans with ALCMs & torpedoes. Me & others have said that they most likely won't need to deal with blockades in L. America, SE Asia or S. Africa. If canals r built in Nicaragua & Thailand, the PLAN CV/Ns will protect them & make sure they'll stay open. In their respective AORs, Mexico + by then Venezuela & Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Pakistan, Iran & Thai AFs & navies will also help in that, even w/o any direct RF involvement. Russia may help by tying up NATO/EU & Japan navies & AFs by exercises &/ shows of force around Europe, Atlantic, the Black/Med. Sea & the FE. Welcome to the small world!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 10:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 2430
    Points : 2414
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 9:30 pm

    Isos wrote:It's useless to compare modern corvette to old threats. A modern single fighter can detect a naval group outside the air defence range of the ships and launch easily 4 anti ship missiles.

    Corvettes have evolved but so did the other plateforms. And the advantage goes to the one that attacks. Like alwayd. He can choose when, where and how to attack. Russia doesn't have the monopole in massive antiship missiles attacks. And their ship are not imune to it.

    Their destinations are limited and we're a carrier would go is more likely within easy reach of Russia already - Gulf of Aden, Med sea, along the costs to Vietnam, etc. Those are not 30 day destinations.

    All those place are full of enemy forces. Med sea is inside nato, gulf of aden is surounded by arab countries puppet of US and full of US bases same in asia.

    If they plan to defend their carrier it will be against Nato forces or big countries/militaries like israel, sausi arabia, China, japan .... which all have enough hardware to lunch massive strikes.

    Sorry but corvettes can escort the carrier for small engagement not real ones.


    Your reasoning is inane.

    While things have evolved, US still uses same as it did since 80's and Russia is rebuilding for now and near future. Their enemy hasn't changed, and neither much on capabilities. So in regards, yes, Corvettes and frigates like Grigorovich fit right in for the needs of a small contingent carrier group, especially one escorting a jump jets on some transport vessel. Add in Kilo's and an auxillary ship, it's more than adequate. You think 2 larger vessels carrying more weapons will suffice better? No, it's still 1 large target. In the end, if something happens and any of those ships are hit, gloves are off and there is a lot more to worry about than some kind of Grigorovich ship.

    You are making a lot of assumptions, especially based on nothing. You are aware if let's say a Yak-131 was still around and in numbers, it wouldn't be exactly the same craft then as it would be now, right? Or are you assuming Russia doesn't update it's aircraft fleet at all even legacy aircraft?
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2169
    Points : 2192
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun May 20, 2018 10:57 pm


    Most of the current Russian ships come from the fleet of the Soviet Union planned and built in the 1980s. The feelt of the Soviet Union in the 1980s was planned as a fleet with multiple aircraft carriers with their escorts. While now Russia only keeps one aircraft carrier, most of their current ships from the 1980s were designed and built as escort ships for aircraft carriers.

    In addition to this, Russia never abandoned the strategy of having a fleet with aircraft carriers. It means that also more modern ships have been and are being designed to be compatible with the work as escort of the current and the future aircraft carrier being designed.

    Russia has today escort ships and submarines for aircraft carriers, that updated to the modern weapons, would be more than enough to escort more than one aircraft carrier.

    There is some people that will say everything against, but they are wrong, as the reality is proving,

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:52 pm