Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:23 am

    A normal aircraft rolls forward during takeoff which limits the amount of dirt and crap going into the intake. A vertical take off or landing means holding position in the plume of crap being blown up by the engines... like a helo only 100 times more so.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 21, 2017 8:40 pm

    They can use CTOL mode on highways too, like these:








    http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1632

    Viggens & Grippens r STOL, & Russians can avoid using VTOL method with their STOVL fighters while on asphalt roads like shown above.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 22, 2017 3:00 am

    If CTOL aircraft can take off from stretches of highway why spend money developing STOL and VTOL aircraft with lift engines?
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:10 pm

    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.
    avatar
    Singular_Transform

    Posts : 726
    Points : 720
    Join date : 2016-11-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Singular_Transform on Fri Dec 22, 2017 8:04 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.  

    In syberia everything is expensive.

    "lilly pad" makes sense only if you have other means of transportation to the given area.

    It is not true in Siberia.


    And it is a simple cost benefit calculation.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Dec 22, 2017 9:29 pm

    Siberia below the Arctic Circle will be used as deep rear staging/repair area. There r lakes, reservoirs & rivers on which flattop ships/barges could be placed for STOVL fighters. Believe me, the Russians will find a safe way to operate them w/o damaging anything with hot downwash.
    They could even equip them with floats/skis for water landings & take offs!
    The concept isn't new:
    https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/xf2y-1yf2y-1-sea-dart-a-jet-fighter-on-water-skis/
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:13 am

    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.

    The length of a stretch of road is immaterial.... in all of Russia finding a 200m long stretch of motorway for a VTOL aircraft to operate from you will easily find 600m stretches of motorway for a CTOL aircraft to operate from too.

    Building a long airstrip to allow heavy transports to land just makes sense whether you have fighters there or not.

    The only realistic difference is the operating from small carriers that don't have cats... so what you are proposing is to spend a small fortune to develop VTOL fighters so you can cheap out on weak light carriers that are not good enough to get the job done... they will be token carriers for show and to cost lots of money but really fuck all use when you really need something.

    I have said all along for effective use they need medium sized carriers, no matter what the bean counters say, and that giving them VTOL options just means giving the bean counters to claim they can have what they need and save money.

    It wont be until they are all built and used in combat that you find that those new cheaper 20K ton carriers that only VTOL fighters can operate from are bloody useless, with limited endurance and no real reach against any enemy with any sort of modern air force or Navy.

    A decent medium carrier carrys rather more aircraft, can operate further from home bases for rather longer (especially when nuke propelled and with cats able to operate real AWACS aircraft).

    The British learned in the Falklands that shipboard carrier based AEW is an important feature... if their VSTOL fighters had decent ground attack performance (which their navy models didn't) then they would not have needed to send their Vulcans to attack targets...

    Of course the Russian Navy has no history of relying on an air component for anything except anti sub warfare... having air defence fighters and AWACS aircraft care of cats and medium sized carriers will make them a much more powerful force in attack and in defence.

    Having VTOL fighters that can operate from helicopter carriers basically makes the helicopter carriers useless for their intended role because they will carry fighters and not helicopters, it will also mean the bean counters will question why they need medium carriers and helicopter carriers... pretending that helicopter carriers with VTOL fighters can even compare with a real aircraft carrier... which they don't otherwise the British would have them... they are the pinnacle of forces controlled by the bean counters...

    They know they only got the Falklands Islands back by the skin of their teeth and that if the Argentines had more capable fighters than A-4 skyhawks and Mirage jets that they would have had serious problems taking back the falklands with the mini carriers they had.

    Even if the Argentines had F-4s or MiG-23s with medium range missiles and were operating from the Falkland islands instead of the mainland those 20 odd Harriers the British had would have been in serious trouble...

    If the Argentines had tried to take the Falklands when the British still had the Ark Royal the British probably would not have lost any ships, with F-4s and Buccaneers they would have been a much more powerful force... better able to deal with enemy aircraft and anti ship missiles.

    Siberia below the Arctic Circle will be used as deep rear staging/repair area. There r lakes, reservoirs & rivers on which flattop ships/barges could be placed for STOVL fighters. Believe me, the Russians will find a safe way to operate them w/o damaging anything with hot downwash.

    Any even semi permanent base will be much better supported by an airstrip long enough to operate transport aircraft from... the very idea that a VTOL aircraft would keep the base safe is preposterous... most of the time aircraft wont even be flying because of weather conditions... an S-400 battery would be vastly more useful, while MiG-31s from bases 500km distant would offer better coverage of their base than a VTOL aircraft based there.

    They could even equip them with floats/skis for water landings & take offs!

    In such a case such a remote outpost would be better protected with a rigid airship with a tether that could be released to very high altitude and a large internal radar and a few AAMs on board... it could defend itself and offer an excellent unobscured view of the surrounding terrain for thousands of kms around... with low operating costs... power could be provided via a tether from the base itself.... With little to no vibration and internal weapons bays the AAMs could be used for years without replacement until they are used or used in tests, so very low costs, but excellent performance and data that could be fed to the national grid of VKKO battle management ...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:19 pm

    The Mi-26 can bring 20T of supplies, as AN-12, no need to build long airstips.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/milmi-26heavylifthel/
    There r many small civilian airports with helipads: 19 in the FE, 32 in Siberia, both icl. in the Arctic, & a few dozen undesignated (dual use), + 23 AFBs in all regions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Russia#List

    4 y. ago: http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2013/12/putin-orders-new-airports-strengthens-arctic-control-11-12

    https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/08/sky-rocketing-growth-remotest-russian-arctic-airport

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pevek_Airport

    STOVL fighters on small TAKRS/CVs will not be going too far & will be supported by land based aviation, so mid-sized CV/Ns r not that essential. If/once those r built in needed #s, small TAKRS/CVs can be repurposed as helo carriers & assault ships. Russia needs them anyway!


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:32 pm

    An improvised airfield, with no adequate logistical link by paved motorway, railway or harbour (if built near an harbour) it's the aeronautical equivalent of what a pocket is for a land force cut away from its logistical bases.

    Let's say you have half a dozen combat aircrafts (really a token force!), requested/expected to perform two sorties each per day.

    Let's assume 6 tons of fuel and 2 tons of ordnance for each sortie (a really standard payload, nothing extreme).

    It makes 6 x 6 x 2 = 72 tons of fuel daily, plus 6 x 2 x 2 = 24 tons of ordnance daily.

    That means each single day of operations you need to bring 96 tons only in fuel and ordnance.

    Then come food, water, spare parts, repairing materials for the improvised base itself to bring there on time almost every day.

    So to support only six aircrafts, you have to haul daily more than 100 tons of materials.

    Ok, every day a couple of Il-476 land there and unload everything needed... what do you say? There is only a short strip of dirt and some lilipads?

    So it could happen a transport aircraft breaks the undercarriage on landing, or an engine takes some unexpected tear and wear because the less than optimal landing strip. It is called attrition.

    You end rapidly earmarking more than just two Il-476 to support your six magnificent VTOL combat aircrafts dispersed in some spot amidst of nowhere.

    Four or five of such detachments of VTOL combat aircrafts to support and you run out of heavy transport aircrafts.

    And just forget of little tactical transports aircrafts: if you need to send half a dozen of them daily to support half a dozen combat aircrafts, there is something wrong, even wronger than sending a couple of Il-476, because you are multiplying the crews and the aircrafts (requiring maintenance every N cycles) adding more burden on your logistical structure and draining even more resources.

    Having at least a paved road is mandatory, then is far more efficient, if dispersion is a key feature in your strategy, to follow the swede's way: just build sections of your road networks able to be operated by CTOL combat aircrafts as landing strips.

    Because even JAS-39 Gripen is a CTOL aircraft, it is not a STOL, but designed to be able to take off and land on stretches of roads that were  intentionally built to function as makeshift airfields. So there has been a very strict relationship between how and how long those stretches of roads were built, and what take off and landing characteristics were required from Gripen on the designing phase.

    Nothing forbid to build stretches able to withstand landings of far heavier aircrafts, like a Mig-29 if not a Su-35, and long enough to grant a safe landing under operational conditions.

    In the long run, far more credible than sending VTOL aircrafts in the tundra....
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:05 am

    Remote airfields & helipads can be stocked ahead of time (prepositioning)- no need to use Il-76s (some cargo can be airdropped). Not all of those sites r suitable for combat support but for dispersal &/ repair they could be pressed into service.
    Even w/o their utility on land, STOVL fighters on sm./med. TAKR/CVs  r a lot better than just attack helos, while Russia can't afford to build big CVNs! New & modernized nuclear subs, CGNs & icebreakers now & in the near future r far more important to her than emulating (even if partially) the US & French Navies! Btw, France, with its NATO obligations & overseas possessions, can only afford to build 1 CVN-it's now in the yard for 18 months long upgrade and refit.
    If conventional powered Adm.K needs 3 years (w/o nuclear refueling) for it's refit (see my post on its thread), how long will a future big Russian CVN need for its refits, reactors refueling, & overhaul? To have at least 1 CVN deployable 24/7, 3 r needed- all with their airwings & escorts. And Russian economy is smaller than French by ~30%: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia/Economy
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7376
    Points : 7470
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:24 am


    Guys, VTOLs will be for Navy and Navy alone

    VKS version will be standard takeoff

    Peŕrier

    Posts : 286
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier on Sun Dec 24, 2017 12:33 am

    So they supposedly want to develop a VTOL combat aircraft, a concept that never worked until today, to build three or four dozen at best?

    If that is the case, it will be one of the most expensive underperforming aircraft ever....
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5982
    Points : 6009
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:05 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:The Mi-26 can bring 20T of supplies, as AN-12, no need to build long airstips.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/milmi-26heavylifthel/
    There r many small civilian airports with helipads: 19 in the FE, 32 in Siberia, both icl. in the Arctic, & a few dozen undesignated (dual use), + 23 AFBs in all regions:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Russia#List

    4 y. ago: http://barentsobserver.com/en/security/2013/12/putin-orders-new-airports-strengthens-arctic-control-11-12

    https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2017/08/sky-rocketing-growth-remotest-russian-arctic-airport

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pevek_Airport

    STOVL fighters on small TAKRS/CVs will not be going too far & will be supported by land based aviation, so mid-sized CV/Ns r not that essential. If/once those r built in needed #s, small TAKRS/CVs can be repurposed as helo carriers & assault ships. Russia needs them anyway!

    And what is the range of fully loaded Mi-26, and what is the range of fully loaded An-12 may i ask here you now Very Happy

    Also you will rarely if never see Mi-26 actually carrying its full load.

    Do not mix apples, oranges, frogs, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5982
    Points : 6009
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Militarov on Sun Dec 24, 2017 1:09 am

    Peŕrier wrote:So they supposedly want to develop a VTOL combat aircraft, a concept that never worked until today, to build three or four dozen at best?

    If that is the case, it will be one of the most expensive underperforming aircraft ever....

    Placing performance part aside probably on pair with lets say... An-124 which was supposed to be build in few times greater numbers than it was... then Tu-160 till recently... Avros Vulcan... Sea Harrier, B-2 Spirit... F-117... and about 100 more aircraft designs that were built in fairly small numbers due to various reasons.

    Be it their specific role, price...performance... If there is something you need, there is reason to spend money.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:01 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.

    The length of a stretch of road is immaterial.... in all of Russia finding a 200m long stretch of motorway for a VTOL aircraft to operate from you will easily find 600m stretches of motorway for a CTOL aircraft to operate from too.


    Apparently in USSR they were also strange opting for Yak-43 STOL with 120m take off. Or maybe they were concerned with take off .
    BTW British carriers will be exclusively armed with 40  STVOL F35B isnt it?




    You may like or not VTOL the fact is they are budgeted. Not sure about AC but if so Bondaryev explicitly stated: first VTOL then carriers. A

    For all of you folks:  VTOL is already in budget. if you want to express your opinion about that ,  there is a  separate thread.


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:30 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2420
    Points : 2437
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 24, 2017 3:26 am

    In this and the first edition of this topic there is a lot of VTOL comments that have now their own topic and should go there.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:22 am

    The Mi-26 can bring 20T of supplies, as AN-12, no need to build long airstips.

    The Mi-26 is a very big helo that is very expensive to operate... it would be cheaper to build an airfield each year rather than just use helos to support such bases.


    Remote airfields & helipads can be stocked ahead of time (prepositioning)- no need to use Il-76s (some cargo can be airdropped). Not all of those sites r suitable for combat support but for dispersal &/ repair they could be pressed into service.

    You are missing the point... your argument is that VTOL aircraft are a good idea and he has shown with a bit of logistics maths that it actually makes more sense not to operate fighters at every little shit hole you put people on the ground.

    For the same reason the Russian Army does not allocate 6 tanks to each little outpost... and for the same reasons.

    Aircraft are most useful in concentrations... not split up into little easy to smash packets.

    Having 50-60 MiG-31s operating 15 minutes away that cover 10 or 20 little outposts makes rather more sense.

    By all means give those little outposts radar and even some potent SAMs, but tie them into the aerospace defence network and allow them to call up real fighters.... not expensive VTOL junk that is expensive and different from everything else in the Russian Air Force... the Navy wont operate these outposts... they will be army outposts in the arctic.

    Btw, France, with its NATO obligations & overseas possessions, can only afford to build 1 CVN-it's now in the yard for 18 months long upgrade and refit.
    If conventional powered Adm.K needs 3 years (w/o nuclear refueling) for it's refit (see my post on its thread), how long will a future big Russian CVN need for its refits, reactors refueling, & overhaul? To have at least 1 CVN deployable 24/7, 3 r needed- all with their airwings & escorts. And Russian economy is smaller than French by ~30%:

    The new generation nuclear power plants the Russians have developed for their new large ships (cruisers and carriers) and ice breakers don't need refuelling over their operational lives of 30 odd years.

    I agree the Russians don't need to just blindly follow the west, but they should look very hard at their own experience... the Yak-38M was a dog and an expensive and very operationally limited dog. On paper the Yak-41 might have had some redeeming features but was still totally inferior to the MiG-29K.

    Why waste money developing a plane that can operate on helicopter carriers?

    Placing performance part aside probably on pair with lets say... An-124 which was supposed to be build in few times greater numbers than it was... then Tu-160 till recently... Avros Vulcan... Sea Harrier, B-2 Spirit... F-117... and about 100 more aircraft designs that were built in fairly small numbers due to various reasons.

    Be it their specific role, price...performance... If there is something you need, there is reason to spend money.

    except that the An-1124 is very useful for some jobs... a VTOL aircrafts one trick is being able to take off from damaged runways... which is a crock of shit because for the navy a damaged runway is a sinking carrier... who cares if it can take off...

    Most Russian air fields have enormous widths and lots of paved area so if the main runways are damaged most fighters can still take off anyway.

    since you know something Russian military leadership doesn't then please share with them. Or maybe they know something about their needs and possibilities?

    Politics... Yak clearly still has an ear somewhere high up in the Russian military...


    For all of you folks: VTOL is already in budget. if you want to express your opinion about that , there is a separate thread.

    This thread is about future Russian carriers... something directly impacted by the existence or otherwise of VTOL aircraft.

    The Yak-38M was in the budget till it was cancelled, the Yak-41 was in the budget too till it was canned as being a waste of money.


    I am pretty sure they will get to prototype level... it will look really cool and they will cancel it as impractical... for reasons gone over adnauseum...

    Personally I think the Russian VTOL fighters had too much focus on all out speed and a larger higher lift wing would have improved both designs... with new wing designs these days as shown by the Su-35 and PAK FA then new options are possible, but I think given the choice of tiny carriers with VTOL fighters and helicopter AEW aircraft and a medium sized carrier like the K with EM cats and STOL fighters and AWACS aircraft I think the latter would only be slightly more expensive overall when you include the entire support package, but would be vastly more powerful and more useful for Russia.

    I don't think they need either in the next decade, but in 2025 onwards as they expand their partner base they will need to operate globally and carrier groups will allow them to do that.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 2420
    Points : 2437
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun Dec 24, 2017 2:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    For all of you folks:  VTOL is already in budget. if you want to express your opinion about that ,  there is a  separate thread.

    This thread is about future Russian carriers... something directly impacted by the existence or otherwise of VTOL aircraft.

    Mentions to VTOL aircrafts can be fair, like mentions to aircraft carriers in the other, but pages and pages of only VTOL comments in this topic, without mention of the topic, and having the other topic...
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:56 pm

    "France has all year around ice free ports."- so she doesn't need any icebreakers, but still can't afford a 2nd CVN.
    The Mi-26 range is 475-800 km with max. loading: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mi-26.htm
    There's no tundra below the Arctic Circle; building roads & air bases
    is a lot easier South of it.
    A CATOBAR CVN like Ford or Storm, with offensive & defensive missile armaments must be huge & very expensive. But a CVN w/o those armaments will have, not counting propulsion, the same problems as the USN CVNs & the RN QE class: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carriers-specialreport/special-report-aircraft-carriers-championed-by-trump-are-vulnerable-to-attack-idUSKBN16G1CZ
    https://www.naval-technology.com/comment/britains-largest-ever-warship-concerning-flaws/
    The USN & AF r getting the AGM-158C LRASM approaching Granit, Oniks & surface launched Kalibrs in range:
    https://breakingdefense.com/2017/07/navy-warships-get-new-heavy-missile-2500-lb-lrasm/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr#Domestic_variants
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:15 am

    Everything is vulnerable to attack... there is nothing they can build that will be totally safe from enemy attack.


    The point is some pissy little helicopter carrier with VTOL fighter planes wont be that much more useful than an S-400 with 400km range SAMs that can also hit enemy aircraft within a radius of 400km of the ship carrying it...

    On the other hand a medium carrier with cats and a decent AWACS aircraft and fighters that can fly 1,200km plus radius offer the surface group real layered protection from a range of threats.
    avatar
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 1373
    Points : 1373
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:59 pm

    I don't argue with that, & the Russians know it too. But 1st it must be picked up where they left off- i.e Kiev class type TAKRs with STOVLs- they can afford them now, esp. after the Mistral deal was cancelled & all $ paid back with some extra added, thanks to the favorable exchange rate. TAKRs can be adopted for assault ship roles (UDK in Russian designation) as they can get closer to the enemy's shores.
    A few more factors to consider:
    1. There's no guarantee that any future CVNs won't have to be kept longer in service-like most other ships in Soviet & Russian navy- i.e. past 30 y. reactor life.
    2. Aside from refueling it or installing a new 1, refits & modernizations take a long time, usually longer in RF than in the West.
    3. 3 CVNs armed with only CIWS & SAMs like in the USN will need
    "1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.", i.e. 4-5 warships to escort it
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#Carrier_strike_group  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
     4. Simple math: 3 CBGs x 5 ships + 1-2 subs + 1 supply ship = 15 extra warships, 3-6 subs & 3 supply ships on rotation to make just 1 CBG ready to sail 24/7 beyond the EEZ.
    IMO, only the #1 navy has the #s needed for that. Putin wants the RF to have a #2 navy. But when/if combined with the PRC & Pakistani naval surface & sub. escorts in the Indo-Pacific, it can be done.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 27, 2017 2:48 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:I don't argue with that, & the Russians know it too. But 1st it must be picked up where they left off- i.e Kiev class type TAKRs with STOVLs- they can afford them now, esp. after the Mistral deal was cancelled & all $ paid back with some extra added, thanks to the favorable exchange rate. TAKRs can be adopted for assault ship roles (UDK in Russian designation) as they can get closer to the enemy's shores.
    A few more factors to consider:
    1. There's no guarantee that any future CVNs won't have to be kept longer in service-like most other ships in Soviet & Russian navy- i.e. past 30 y. reactor life.
    2. Aside from refueling it or installing a new 1, refits & modernizations take a long time, usually longer in RF than in the West.
    3. 3 CVNs armed with only CIWS & SAMs like in the USN will need
    "1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.", i.e. 4-5 warships to escort it
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#Carrier_strike_group  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_strike_group
     4. Simple math: 3 CBGs x 5 ships + 1-2 subs + 1 supply ship = 15 extra warships, 3-6 subs & 3 supply ships on rotation to make just 1 CBG ready to sail 24/7 beyond the EEZ.
    IMO, only the #1 navy has the #s needed for that. Putin wants the RF to have a #2 navy. But when/if combined with the PRC & Pakistani naval surface & sub. escorts in the Indo-Pacific, it can be done.

    Almost agreed. IMHO it can be TAKR (UKSK-M can have all kinds of missile sinclusive AAD) with similarly to Juan Carlos AC mission dependent air wing.


    But in Russia there are not many capital ships and TAKR can still be considered as command ship + missile cruiser. In times of locla wars or humanitarian missions can be reequipped to other variant then AC.



    What I diagree with you is need to be near US shores. For this are Rubezh, Yars, Samat, skiff and Kh-101, Kh-50 or new hypersonic missile missile with 12-14Ma
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3923
    Points : 3961
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Dec 27, 2017 3:03 am

    GarryB wrote:Everything is vulnerable to attack... there is nothing they can build that will be totally safe from enemy attack.


    The point is some pissy little helicopter carrier with VTOL fighter planes wont be that much more useful than an S-400 with 400km range SAMs that can also hit enemy aircraft within a radius of 400km of the ship carrying it...

    so you didnt check that my post showing that Yak-141 and MiG-29k have same combat radius, did you?



    On the other hand a medium carrier with cats and a decent AWACS aircraft and fighters that can fly 1,200km plus radius offer the surface group real layered protection from a range of threats.

    Interesting that UK resigned from building catapults due to to high costs...and decided to buy STOV instead Smile


    Following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, the British government had intended to purchase the F-35C carrier version of this aircraft, and adopted plans for Prince of Wales to be built to a Catapult Assisted Take Off Barrier Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) configuration. After the projected costs of the CATOBAR system rose to around twice the original estimate, the government announced that it would revert to the original design on 10 May 2012.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

    So actually British ACs are shitty right? only 40 STVOLs Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil

    AWACS? and who told you that you need Yak-44 in new form? We are in XXI century there are drones. According to Design Bureau Kronshtad VTOL drone Fregat can fly for 10 hours and carry 700kg in VTO mode. If not Fregat there will be other Converto drones.

    https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2015/8/31/3502/?h

    Ka-31 AWACS module was weighting 200kg + antenna . Really cannot you use drones? Shocked Shocked Shocked
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:39 am

    But 1st it must be picked up where they left off- i.e Kiev class type TAKRs with STOVLs- they can afford them now, esp. after the Mistral deal was cancelled & all $ paid back with some extra added, thanks to the favorable exchange rate. TAKRs can be adopted for assault ship roles (UDK in Russian designation) as they can get closer to the enemy's shores.

    I disagree... kiev class ships are a step backwards, not forwards.

    A few mistral like helicopter carriers intended as a landing ship (which Kiev never was.... it was an anti sub helicopter VSTOL fighter carrier) and a couple of fixed wing medium sized carriers with Cats in the longer term makes rather more sense.

    1. There's no guarantee that any future CVNs won't have to be kept longer in service-like most other ships in Soviet & Russian navy- i.e. past 30 y. reactor life.

    Their new reactors are breeder reactors... they generate fuel as they burn fuel so clever design could mean as it burns fuel it creates replacement fuel from spent fuel... A modular design could be used so they could be replaced like batteries.

    The current reactors need refuelling which is complex and dangerous...

    2. Aside from refueling it or installing a new 1, refits & modernizations take a long time, usually longer in RF than in the West.

    No they don't.


    2-3 years for a major overhaul is normal for a large ship. The only problem for the K is there is only one so when it is in dry dock there is nothing at sea to replace it.

    3. 3 CVNs armed with only CIWS & SAMs like in the USN will need
    "1 Guided Missile Cruiser (for Air Defense), 2 LAMPS (Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System) Capable Warships (focusing on Anti-Submarine and Surface Warfare), and 1–2 Anti Submarine Destroyers or Frigates.", i.e. 4-5 warships to escort it

    The new Russian destroyers will be multipurpose and be capable of AAW, AShW, ASW and land attack missions... They were planning to replace the Kirovs with 8-12 cruiser sized vessels (though not as big as Kirovs, they would be much more powerfully armed).
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18971
    Points : 19527
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:41 am

    I rather suspect they will only build 2 new CVNs with one based in the northern fleet and one in the Pacific fleet with the K moving between the two while the CVN is in overhaul.

    Over time overhauls in electronics and propulsion would allow upgrades of the K to add nuclear propulsion and eventually EM Cats etc etc and new electronics and systems...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:23 pm