Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Share
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 04, 2018 8:49 pm

    Gibraltar wrote:Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear  (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.
    Well, I am no naval engineer but facts are following:
    > K has 4 steam turbines and 4 shafts, Shtorm KM apparently two shafts.
    > 29 knots max speed K, 28 for Shtorm-KM. 25 knots for instance for Queen Elizabeth
    > 150 MW propulsion power for K, 81 MW Shtorm-KM
    > Draft 10 m K, 8,5 Shtorm-KM
    > Essentially same dimensions on water line than K, which is clearly a blue water design (carrier is per definition the blue water vessel)
    > Trimaran (Shtorm-KM resembles that layout with one keel at the bow and two at the stern) are consider among the best sea-keeping ships

    Best picture of the stern I have seen:

    Some interesting comments from 2017:
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201707131538-ziq3.htm

    - Expected three times cheaper than Shtorm (350 billion for the complete Shtorm system, 200-280 billion for the ship). That would mean 70-100 billion for the ship of the Shtorm-KM design (?)
    - Budget for design of new aircraft carrier included in GPV 2025 (acc. to Victor Bursuk)
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:26 pm

    Militarov wrote:It would be comparable to Su-33 in that matter, which USN didnt like plus the weapons array that was available to F-15A wasnt adequate either. To my knowledge there was very little structural work on F-15N compared to the original design, however landing gear modifications had to be severe, that is beyond question, its one thing to land 10 times on a carrier another to land 2000 times. Which again brings us to the conclusion that you can if you want turn anything into navalised fighter if you really want.

    I also said that you CAN land on a carrier with it, i never said its smart idea or something that could be done repeatedly.

    Dassault Rafale, EF-2000, F-15, Gripen, MiG-29, Su-27, Su-25, Venom, Tejas and... dozens of other fighters got their navalised variant, were tested or are proposed even tho they were concieved as land based fighters. Even V-1600 was a thing at one point...
    Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

    In any case my point is about the inherent aptness for carrier operations rather than disputing the wildcard argument "everything is possible if you really want", which is easy to defend but has little significance to me. Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues. And therefore some planes are modified for navy operations and others are not. It is not the same using a thicker, stronger landing strut than having to change the landing gear layout, to give an example. From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.
    avatar
    Gibraltar

    Posts : 21
    Points : 23
    Join date : 2018-09-22

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Gibraltar on Sun Nov 04, 2018 11:51 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Gibraltar wrote:Then, Krylov light design to me has many faults: with that design and displacement is unlikely to go nuclear  (green water ship in best case) with twin hull in stern means 2 completely separated machinery and turbine compartments, low propulsion efficiency optimization, high center of gravity, 30% less displacement than Kuznetsov + large stern means low draft and bad hydrodinamic profile, low speed, large turn rates, an incognite in rough sea situations. I think that, exagerating but not too much, that thing would sail as a cargo barge and still has no cruiser capabilities. I would spend a lot of money in a reliable and long-perspective useful design such as a kuznetsov-evolution, nuclear, bigger but not so much, rather than weird or light solution.
    Well, I am no naval engineer but facts are following:
    > K has 4 steam turbines and 4 shafts, Shtorm KM apparently two shafts.
    > 29 knots max speed K, 28 for Shtorm-KM. 25 knots for instance for Queen Elizabeth
    > 150 MW propulsion power for K, 81 MW Shtorm-KM
    > Draft 10 m K, 8,5 Shtorm-KM
    > Essentially same dimensions on water line than K, which is clearly a blue water design (carrier is per definition the blue water vessel)
    > Trimaran (Shtorm-KM resembles that layout with one keel at the bow and two at the stern) are consider among the best sea-keeping ships

    Best picture of the stern I have seen:

    Some interesting comments from 2017:
    https://tvzvezda.ru/news/opk/content/201707131538-ziq3.htm

    - Expected three times cheaper than Shtorm (350 billion for the complete Shtorm system, 200-280 billion for the ship). That would mean 70-100 billion for the ship of the Shtorm-KM design (?)
    - Budget for design of new aircraft carrier included in GPV 2025 (acc. to Victor Bursuk)


    Saved costs compared to full Shtorm design is all about propulsion, going conventional instead of nuclear. It's a double loss, first because of known advantages of nuclear powering that kind of ships, second because at this moment russians have way more problems and headaches with gas turbines (Gorshkovs..) since weaning from ukrainian suppliers and are way far from mastering that technology when for the nuclear option Krylov full Shtorm design assumed same (doubled) power plant of last Arktika icebreakerss series.
    Hull shape complexity won't be cheaper to build up than a standard single keel design even 25m longer. Less power needed is about lower displacement which means less space inside.
    And not to forget, conventional power plant means maybe not sufficient power to supply EMALS, so turning back to 60's tech steam catapults or just resuming pure sky-jump scheme.

    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:22 am

    Interesting analysis of the Shtorm-KM, from August this year (innovative hull design unknown then I think)

    http://lefauteuildecolbert.blogspot.com/2018/08/vmf-porte-aeronefs-leger-stobar.html

    @Gibraltar: I would go for nuclear propulsion too, but with the Shtorm-KM hull layout (do not agree less displacement = less internal space, specifically due to the new hull design it is actually the opposite in this case) only maybe little bigger for bigger air wing than 2 sqd. (though if Su-57Ks were the fighters on board, even the 4 sqd. fighter air wing of a US CVN would probably struggle, considering their currently deployed fighters)

    Even when hull is not the most expensive cost driver, a layout that allows to save significant displacement for the same dimensions should be taken IMO. Do not have a way of knowing for sure but the power reduction is also VERY significant for essentially same max speed, so I find it possible that we have also an improved hydrodynamic efficiency: K has 45% more displacement but uses 85% more power. Will be keeping an eye on this because is massive as far as I can see. My explanation is that the two rear keels allow for broader hull but with somehow reduced draft and above all reduced cross sectional area compared to single hull.

    Have seen contradictory info on whether it has catapults or not, but the model does not have to show any. They should be present I think at the end of the angled deck, while the bow should keep the springboard because from what I have seen modern fighters do not need catapults even at full load.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1673
    Points : 1668
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:57 am

    LMFS wrote:Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

    It happened more then once, not so much for stunts, but to try and resolve the need for resupply bases, which was an issue at the time, i guess.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:25 am

    Gibraltar wrote:Last add, carriers as ssbn are a fleet part depending 90% on highest level political decisions, very few should be left to militaries wishes because they would choose the easiest and lightest configuration to operate forgetting about capability strategic performances. We can see it by how has been discouraged Kirov platforms rehaul that was in the end started by Putin's circle spin. I hope they won't trade the best capabilities obtainable with carriers for a pretended flexibility.


    It is other way around, sir. Military like to overspend budget on not really important toys. You know the more you spent the more important your position is.   It would b emilitary wanting large expensive and geopolitically toys with little use.






    AlfaT8 wrote:It happened more then once, not so much for stunts, but to try and resolve the need for resupply bases, which was an issue at the time, i guess.


    resupply bases from CVN? affraid affraid affraid did you perhaps mean Carrier Onboard Delivery?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:43 am

    LMFS wrote:Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues.

    Yo bro, the biggest issue it lack of aircraft carriers. US can navalize any fighter that they want to. BTW where there any fighters could not be navalized due to their features?



    From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.

    Nobody confirmed that this is gonna be easy. Text you quoted says that this can be done. . What is obvious as for any fighter.
    As you pointed out earlier statement that this is possible  is  of little importance for you. thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

    BTW Soviets in discussion about navalizine MiG-23 or MiG-29 didnt talk about "roadblocks" but only about qualities of fighter at first AFAIR.[/quote]





    LMFS wrote:
    Yo, bro. I never said Su-57 cannot be navalized.  And what Slyusar said is simply on level of Shtorm or MiG-35. Its true they all can be built!
    MiG-35 can be built already last 10 years. Shtorm last 5 years.
    You said the Su-57 had probably gone through the navalization conceptual studies and that modification was deemed too complex, see below:

    so between possible and being effective you dont see any difference?  Suspect  Suspect  Suspect  for some strange reason VSTOL was c chosen at level of decision makers. Do you think they didnt check possibilities with Su-57 before making such an important decision?


    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Mon Nov 05, 2018 4:15 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    LMFS

    Posts : 823
    Points : 817
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:28 pm

    @Gunship: when I propose Su-57K you question its feasibility. When I prove it is feasible, you say this feasibility is obvious for any plane and that selection of STOVL indicates it was deemed not effective, which is a groundless speculation and falsely implies STOVL excludes Su-57K.

    We will see man, sincerely I am tired of rhetorical discussions.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5972
    Points : 5999
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Militarov on Mon Nov 05, 2018 10:09 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    Ok then, they even landed a Hercules on a carrier once as a mere stunt without any practical utility. Regarding the F-15N structure, the weight increase was around 3000 lbs so I guess it was seriously reworked / reinforced.

    In any case my point is about the inherent aptness for carrier operations rather than disputing the wildcard argument "everything is possible if you really want", which is easy to defend but has little significance to me. Some planes have a good inherent compatibility with carrier operations (aero for low minimum speed, long, strong landing gear struts, double nose wheel, good low speed controllability etc.) and others have more serious issues. And therefore some planes are modified for navy operations and others are not. It is not the same using a thicker, stronger landing strut than having to change the landing gear layout, to give an example. From the attributes that can be perceived in plain sight, Su-57 has them all to be easily modified for carrier operations as far as I can see and (personally) I find it important that UAC confirmed there is no hard technical road block in the way of a naval Su-57. Others may have never had a doubt about it, don't know.

    Weight increase was contributed mostly by reinforced arresting gear, landing gear and most importantly folding mechanism for the wings is heavy as Hell even tho wings were shortened. Structure itself was not modified in any significant way, F-15A is tougher bort than F-18 any day.

    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:06 am

    LMFS wrote:@Gunship: when I propose Su-57K you question its feasibility. When I prove it is feasible, you say this feasibility is obvious for any plane and that selection of STOVL indicates it was deemed not effective, which is a groundless speculation and falsely implies STOVL excludes Su-57K..


    First would be good to understand differences and nuances between English words feasibility and feasible.

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasibility
    The state or degree of being easily or conveniently done.
    No, Su-57 could not be so easily navalized otherwise why to Invest in VSTOL?


    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feasible
    feasible tho has also synonym realizable.
    Yes navalization can be done.


    You act as you dont understand this p'tite difference.


    You dont want to notice facts. There is no decision to navalize Su-57k thus money thrown. In case of VSTOL decision was made and money granted.  
    Technically achievable is not only Su-57k but also base on the moon. Ask Energia or Khrunichev  designers.




    Last edited by GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:41 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:39 am

    Militarov wrote:
    Weight increase was contributed mostly by reinforced arresting gear, landing gear and most importantly folding mechanism for the wings is heavy as Hell even tho wings were shortened. Structure itself was not modified in any significant way, F-15A is tougher bort than F-18 any day.


    you know what would be ironic? Su-57 in VSTOL version russia russia russia
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 06, 2018 1:13 am


    So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:01 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

    like escorts are needed. Awesomeness is not enough? Suspect Suspect Suspect
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:05 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

    like escorts are needed affraid affraid affraid


    They said same about Kuznetzov, how long do you think that tub would last in combat?

    I doubt some CIWS or basic torpedo will save even a good carrier from getting blown out of the water by off-the-shelf aircraft or submarine. Goes triple for Russian one.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:35 am

    PapaDragon wrote:They said same about Kuznetzov, how long do you think that tub would last in combat?

    I doubt some CIWS or basic torpedo will save even a good carrier from getting blown out of the water by off-the-shelf aircraft or submarine. Goes triple for Russian one.


    You dont need to convince me. I agree that any CV needs escort. Both ASW and AAD. US fighters/ships are going to use long range stealth CMs  most likely in saturation attack, for valuable target.

    Paradoxically in this situation Soviet concept TAKR seems to make sense Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil  A ship which sacrifices airwing size for better all around defensive (and offensive) abilities.

    Imagine 18-24 fighters + 6-8 choppers for ASW. But 24-32  UKSK (also for antisub ASROCS), 96-128 redut cells. Displacement similar to Kuz. She could alone support smaller escorts like 22160 in armed version. They in turne can carry own helos ASW + 2x4 kalibr tubes.   This could be effective combination. And cheaper then classical.


    18 fighters can be short for wars like Syria but 24 is more less size of Russian air wing in Syria.
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:18 am

    I know

    Instead of standardizing and balancing their fleet they are still obsessed with front-loading it with white elephants while those few ships that they​ do have are reaching expiration date and useful new ones keep getting delayed
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2448
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:12 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    So anyone care to tell us which ships will be escorting this super duper awesome carrier that is about to be built any second now?

    The same they used for K, a tugboat of course Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 06, 2018 12:11 pm

    It would take less time to get cruisers into service than to get a CVN operational... even just the fitting out period for a carrier is 3 years or so... so there would be plenty of time.

    An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts... especially considering their fire power compared with destroyers of the past.

    The new Russian carriers will be nuke powered... there is no question about that... and it is rather likely they will have propulsion pods rather than shafts, so there will be rather more flexibility as to where they put the reactors.

    The carrier design shown is for export so of course it is a conventionally powered ship, but the domestic model will definitely be a nuke...

    US fighters/ships are going to use long range stealth CMs most likely in saturation attack, for valuable target.

    And the best thing to stop such a long range CM attack is of course surface ships... So why does Russia use MiG-31s for that particular job?
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:It would take less time to get cruisers into service than to get a CVN operational... even just the fitting out period for a carrier is 3 years or so... so there would be plenty of time.

    An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts.....

    Cruisers, destroyers, upgraded Kirovs.... are you serious?

    And where would these cruisers and destroyers come from?

    Frigate construction has hit the wall, building a single corvette takes a decade and even missiles ship production is ending due to lack of engines.

    Kirov upgrade has been delayed from 2018 to 2022 and counting.

    Only thing they can build is Offshore Patrol Vessel and they even stopped ordering those for some reason (probably no engines same as every other one). Not that they could be used to escort carrier anyway...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2454
    Points : 2448
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:24 pm

    PapaDragon wrote:
    GarryB wrote:It would take less time to get cruisers into service than to get a CVN operational... even just the fitting out period for a carrier is 3 years or so... so there would be plenty of time.

    An upgrade Kirov could be used to start off with but 4-6 Destroyers could be escorts.....

    Cruisers, destroyers, upgraded Kirovs.... are you serious?

    And where would these cruisers and destroyers come from?

    Frigate construction has hit the wall, building a single corvette takes a decade and even missiles ship production is ending due to lack of engines.

    Kirov upgrade has been delayed from 2018 to 2022 and counting.

    Only thing they can build is Offshore Patrol Vessel and they even stopped ordering those for some reason (probably no engines same as every other one). Not that they could be used to escort carrier anyway...

    That's for the better. They will be obliged to do their own products. Once they achieve that they will be 100% dependent only on russian stuff.

    Smart thing would be to let enough room in their ships for new and bigger engines if needed so they can always upgrade them with new ones and use first batch of what they design at the beggining so tgey can use the ships. Better engines can be added after.

    hoom

    Posts : 1320
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:26 pm

    They said same about Kuznetzov, how long do you think that tub would last in combat?

    I doubt some CIWS or basic torpedo will save even a good carrier from getting blown out of the water by off-the-shelf aircraft or submarine. Goes triple for Russian one.
    Its a bit more than 'some CIWS'...
    Late Soviet stuff is explicitly designed to defend against saturation supersonic seaskimming missile attacks, K is pretty much the poster child of that.

    192 naval Tor missiles with 4 PESA engagement radars each able to guide 8 missiles to attack 4 simultaneous targets up to Mach2 in 60deg arc, missile launches every 3s.
    256 Tunguska missiles (64 ready) on 8 Kashtans (1 or 2 simultaneous targets each) against targets up to Mach 1.8, launches every 1-2 secs.
    22 30mm gatlings 2 on each Kashtan + 6 AK630

    So assuming it all still works & is switched on it can engage at least 12 different targets simultaneously with at least 6 new missiles in the air every 3secs.
    And simultaneously do the same on the other side of the ship.


    A future CV with new gen gear could have signifcantly better defense vs saturation strikes, though the Krylov concepts have been pretty light on the defenses.
    It'd be escorted on any campaign by at least upgraded Nakhimov with similar saturation defense & a couple of Gorshkov/Grigoroviches, presumably Super Gorshkovs & a Yasen.


    On the other hand yes there is definitely a need to actually get reasonable paced production of a Frigate &/or DDG happening before there's any point starting to build a new CV.

    Only thing they can build is Offshore Patrol Vessel and they even stopped ordering those for some reason (probably no engines same as every other one). Not that they could be used to escort carrier anyway...
    Restarting a military-industrial complex thats in important parts been largely idle since the '90s &/or outright existed in formerly friendly countries who got taken over by hostile forces is no small thing unshaven
    avatar
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 7245
    Points : 7339
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  PapaDragon on Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:28 pm

    Isos wrote:
    That's for the better. They will be obliged to do their own products. Once they achieve that they will be 100% dependent only on russian stuff.

    Smart thing would be to let enough room in their ships for new and bigger engines if needed so they can always upgrade them with new ones and use first batch of what they design at the beggining so tgey can use the ships. Better engines can be added after.

    They have been obliged to make their own product for 5 years already and they don't have diddly-squat to show for it.

    But at least we have new fanart supercarrier model from Krylov so, yay!!!  cheers Rolling Eyes


    hoom wrote:.............
    192 naval Tor missiles with 4 PESA engagement radars each able to guide 8 missiles to attack 4 simultaneous targets up to Mach2 in 60deg arc, missile launches every 3s.
    256 Tunguska missiles (64 ready) on 8 Kashtans (1 or 2 simultaneous targets each) against targets up to Mach 1.8, launches every 1-2 secs.
    22 30mm gatlings 2 on each Kashtan + 6 AK630.......

    Al of which have tiny range.

    One squadron of fighter jets would rip this single unprotected bathtub to pieces. Why do you thing carriers have escorts (which will be firing on bathtub along with airplanes so double problem)


    hoom wrote:.............So assuming it all still works ..........

    Massive assumption.

    They assumed arrestor cables worked until Syria.

    hoom

    Posts : 1320
    Points : 1310
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  hoom on Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:19 pm

    Al of which have tiny range.

    One squadron of fighter jets would rip this single unprotected bathtub to pieces. Why do you thing carriers have escorts (which will be firing on bathtub along with airplanes so double problem)
    For defense against a missile swarm the ranges that matter are radio horizon & that the missile goes boom at a distance from the hull where shock/fragments do little/no damage.

    How many missiles is a squadron of fighters & maybe a few Harpoons? Suspect

    As I said K on its own is far from unprotected, its almost certainly the most protected ship on the planet vs a saturation missile attack & as far as I know K has never gone on a mission without PtG which has similar point defenses + a full Burke load worth of long range SAMs.

    A Burke can terminal guide 6 engagements simultaneously by my understanding and thats split between 2 aft directors & 1 forward.
    avatar
    AlfaT8

    Posts : 1673
    Points : 1668
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:27 pm

    I see this dance keeps going round and round as usual.

    I have been looking for a way to avoid carriers, but not much comes to mind.
    The only way i see is to develop missile cruiser fleet along with VTOL AEW drones.

    Well more like a fleet centered around the missile cruisers instead of a Carriers.

    By my estimates, this Cruiser should have about double the fire-power of the Super-Gorshkov and have the Long ranged radar capabilities of the Lider.

    So, still a very significant investment.

    Honestly, i still think having your own air-support is much more beneficial.
    Keeping the enemy fighter occupied instead of focused on your fleet, will help minimize the amount of fire-power your opponent can bring to bear.

    Nevertheless the Cruiser strategy is still feasible, so long as the situational awareness of the fleet is equal if not better than the opposing force.
    Yet, i still remain of the opinion that this awareness issue cannot be resolved without a Carrier.
    avatar
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 3718
    Points : 3756
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 76
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Tue Nov 06, 2018 7:45 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The carrier design shown is for export so of course it is a conventionally powered ship, but the domestic model will definitely be a nuke...

    an who is going to buy such CV ? China and India are building their own, other contenders? Belorussia?




    GB wrote:
    US fighters/ships are going to use long range stealth CMs  most likely in saturation attack, for valuable target.

    And the best thing to stop such a long range CM attack is of course surface ships... So why does Russia use MiG-31s for that particular job?

    MiG-31 over ocean? or as deck fighter on  Krylov super carrier?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 19, 2018 7:13 am