Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:11 am

    hoom wrote:
    not in classical meaning thoi. None of US LHDs have a big punch. BTW french mistral has igla type missiles and 12,7 guns AFAIR.
    Well the air-wing part would provide significant 'increased level of attack and defensive potential' compared to 'normal' amphibious ships but I don't see a problem with giving it a healthy poliment-redut, UKSK & Pantsir-M armament, maybe even sufficient to genuinely claim the TAKR designation.


    that's to me is irony, that after so many claims Soviets made bad decision history tends to return to the same point.  IMHO rationale behind this is simply  less resources take TAKR where airwintg is not the only "punch" but can both attack and defend herself.



    Last couple of interviews carried a similar message to today's MoD news:


    The head of the shipbuilding Main command of the Navy rear Admiral Rear Admiral V. Tryapichnikov.
    According to him, already now, in parallel with the serial construction of ships of the near zone, design offices are developing projects for ships of the far sea, ships for existing projects are being modernized.

    It is planned that in the near future, the basis of the groupings of ships in the ocean zone will consist of multifunctional ships of the new generation, which have increased combat capabilities for the impact and defensive potential.


    Ii lookd like TAKRS might be back indeed

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:30 am

    kumbor wrote: lol! Ulyanovsk is 11437 project carrier started building in Nikolayev in 1987. The ship has never been launched. Scrapped on slip by 1994. That project is now 35 years old, morally and physically outdated!

    and why MoD requested to "finaization" of original designs? lol1 lol1 lol1


    model of Ulyanovsk for more pics follow the link

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 11437_model_NevskoePKB_08

    http://bastion-opk.ru/11437-npkb-foto/



    BTW old pic I've found about defense/attack zones of Ulyanovsk (veriosn 1 with Granits) - MiG- here has 700km radius. Su-33 2x longer

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Image?id=805065947783&t=0&plc=WEB&tkn=*raALYCC4wIyrAjLc1422SAlI4QQ

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:52 pm

    Technology and design and materials have moved on since the Ulyanovsk was designed and started building.

    The previously mentioned multi hull design offers some promise in making larger capacity ships that are lighter than more conventional designs.

    New propulsion options could also effect the design as could potential alternative solutions to various problems.

    An Airship based AWACS platform could radically alter the needs of a fixed wing carrier by reducing requirements dramatically in terms of size and length.

    UAVs and UCAVs could also effect the design of the hangar and other decks.

    Even the presence or absence of STOVL aircraft will effect the design considerations...

    Equally the idea of modular design where you might build 12 CVNs, but 2 of them are CVNs and the other 10 are built as cruisers or even arsenal ships...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:07 am

    What have you done to Garry? The Real Garry would not say such blasphemous things about tech advancements? and such balanced opinion?! no way, never, ever!

    Let Garry go you bastard!   attack  attack  attack



    @GB
    As for airships - not sure about enormous space savings. OK  folded airship can be smaller, but inflated one? My other consideration is Arctic and Kamchatka storms - thye have to be "on line" I  mean strong cable or fly very very high.

    In case of a stratospheric airship it would be rather ore feasible to build a large, unmanned one, which can fly couple of  years and follow fleet grouping. From 20km your radar horizon 600+ km optical one 500+km . No need to use shipa for landing, with 100-150km/h speed n ship is going to be faster anyway.  

    Power supply either solar panels or nuclear reactor (might be too heavy tho)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:18 am

    As for airships - not sure about enormous space savings. OK folded airship can be smaller, but inflated one? My other consideration is Arctic and Kamchatka storms - thye have to be "on line" I mean strong cable or fly very very high.

    To be of any use it would need to be relatively big so it will be an airship, not a balloon... no deflating this and putting it in the cupboard.

    I would expect its normal operational altitude would be well above 20km so weather wont be an issue at all.


    Power supply either solar panels or nuclear reactor (might be too heavy tho)

    Solar is not reliable enough, Nuclear would be needed but it wont need enormous amounts of power... with electric motors for station keeping and moving, and fuel cells to convert hydrogen lifting gas into water ballast and back it would be ideal...

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    As for airships - not sure about enormous space savings. OK  folded airship can be smaller, but inflated one? My other consideration is Arctic and Kamchatka storms - thye have to be "on line" I  mean strong cable or fly very very high.

    To be of any use it would need to be relatively big so it will be an airship, not a balloon... no deflating this and putting it in the cupboard.

    I would expect its normal operational altitude would be well above 20km so weather wont be an issue at all.

    then actually it would be ship-borne but hoovering over fleet 24/7 directly from land.




    GB wrote:

    Power supply either solar panels or nuclear reactor (might be too heavy tho)

    Solar is not reliable enough, Nuclear would be needed but it wont need enormous amounts of power... with electric motors for station keeping and moving, and fuel cells to convert hydrogen lifting gas into water ballast and back it would be ideal...



    if missine are nto to take too long yup . BTW Solar panels  - can be all top and on 20,000m there are no clouds anymore ... But AWACS needs nice power supply also at night that;s would be biggest problem in operation.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3391
    Points : 3387
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:32 pm

    Something someone noticed on another forum. You can see here indian russian made carrier sailing with US and japanese carriers. At the same speed. But the wake made by indian carrier is far smaller than the two other.

    In terms of sound it should be much more stealthy than US and Japanese ones.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Ewueni10
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 14, 2019 11:43 am

    An AWACS airship would need a lot of power if it has enormous radar antennas, but the new nuclear power systems they have developed for various systems like their lasers and space based applications could be used to power the airship.

    Such a power supply system would make an airship the ideal option... it never actually has to land... it could use electric motors to fly around the place, and it could use an onboard hydrogen fuel cell to enable the reliable electric current available to convert water into hydrogen lifting gas or back to water, which means it can climb or descend at will without ever needing to vent gas.

    Being able to control the lift of the airship would greatly enhance its performance as an airship.... you could operate it in a range of situations and heights... it could come down and hover over ships for resupply or for transfering things from ship to ship... it could operate its radar in listening mode 24/7... it could transmit in low probability intercept mode as much as you need... it could operate unmanned or have two or three crews that operate in shifts 24/7.

    There is not need to land to refuel...

    It means you don't need EMALS, but then EMALS would mean aircraft could operate at heavier weights, and could offer technology advances in electrical power storage and delivery of bursts of power, and of course projecting heavy objects like a rail gun.

    The more I think about it... an AWACS based airship would be easier to design and make than an AWACS carrier based aircraft, though a carrier based aircraft... say based on the Il-112V or something could be exported and would probably be rather useful to fill gaps in land based defences as well as being used at sea, whereas a nuclear powered airship has limited export potential... perhaps China and India might be interested...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:13 pm

    @GarryB: the idea is too good, it must have some failure or vulnerability! Razz

    Worst part to me is the truly HUGE size (and cost!) it would need to be as per your idea, in order to have a NPP onboard, the huge antennae / power capability you suggest and something similar to the electronic equipment of an AWACS (20 ton electronics in case of A-100). Myself I had though previously on some kind of flat, smaller airship of something like 20 m diameter (maybe more, depending on payload needs), unmanned, tethered that could be lowered and carried onboard in case of very bad weather / repair or enemy attack. But yours has strong points too...

    Maybe we get to see this idea materialize, who knows?
    higurashihougi
    higurashihougi

    Posts : 2243
    Points : 2336
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  higurashihougi on Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:02 pm

    I see it as a downsized radar station which is floating on air... in the same manner as US aircraft carrier is a downsized airbase floating on water. Which means we have a mobile radar base flying together with the naval fleet or closely following the ground forces near the battlefield.

    With this concept in mind the bulkiness is not really an issue, it is flying thanks to a nuclear reactor anyway so put everything possible and turn it into a flying fortress. AESA techology may be helpful in reducing the bulkiness since we can "paint" the radar on the surface of the airship.

    But the largest disadvantage of airship is speed. In comparison with aircraft, airship are tortoise. Nowadays, slow flying thing is highly vulnerable. Hopefully a strong power generator like nuclear engine may solve this problem ? But then again which kind of design allows the airship to handle the risky nuclear reactor and all its heat.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20805
    Points : 21359
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:44 am

    Worst part to me is the truly HUGE size (and cost!) it would need to be as per your idea, in order to have a NPP onboard, the huge antennae / power capability you suggest and something similar to the electronic equipment of an AWACS (20 ton electronics in case of A-100).

    Well no these nuclear power plants are compact and designed for use in relatively small things like torpedoes and space craft and trains.

    That is the point... they are not excessively big and heavy.

    Myself I had though previously on some kind of flat, smaller airship of something like 20 m diameter (maybe more, depending on payload needs), unmanned, tethered that could be lowered and carried onboard in case of very bad weather / repair or enemy attack. But yours has strong points too...

    The advantage of a tether is that you can use it for power and fibre optic data transmission so the raw data can be sent down from the radar array to the ship for processing without a datalink (ie electronic traffic that could be intercepted).

    The thing is that if the alternative is a nuclear powered electric motor driven airship it could support a carrier group but is not tied to it... you could use it independently of ships... so if a storm is brewing it can climb above it and there wont be a ship at the other end of the line being rocked and rolled about.

    A tethered airship might get damaged in a storm and of course there is the risk of attracting lightning strikes too... plus a fully independent airship could operate above the effective altitude of most enemy fighters... 20-30km altitude which would give it an excellent view of the surrounding area.

    A large blimp could also fit enormous VHF and lower frequency AESA arrays as well as high frequency antenna too... to communicate with submarines the Tu-142 is not ideal because to use its ULF antenna the antenna which is over 1km long needs to hang nearly vertically, which requires low flight speed that is close to stall speed... for an airship it would just be a case of dropping a cable... it could also be designed to be able to land on the sea surface and would be an ideal replacement for amphibious aircraft.

    And like I have said with modern carbon fibre and kevlar and nomex materials it could be fire proof... purge the gaps between the hydrogen filled bags with nitrogen so even if there are sparks or even a flare or incendiary round in there it wont even burn... hydrogen wont burn without oxygen... even a smouldering piece of paper would go out without air, or more accurately the oxygen in the air.

    This blimp could be a full AWACS platform with processing and command and control... it could even have self defence missiles... an airborne TOR and Pantsir system with 9M100 there too to defend it from attack... its best defence would be dumping all ballast and climbing to 25km altitude where no enemy fighter could reach it...

    I see it as a downsized radar station which is floating on air... in the same manner as US aircraft carrier is a downsized airbase floating on water. Which means we have a mobile radar base flying together with the naval fleet or closely following the ground forces near the battlefield.

    Agreed except its internal capacity could mean it is more like a building sized OTH radar in an airship and therefore superior to land based AWACS platforms based on airliners like Sentry and A-100.

    You could make different sized models with different sized radars... you could even make a diesel and solar powered model for export with rather less powerful radar arrays.... you don't need super dooper radars... the fact that it is up in the air and its radar horizon is thousands of kms away from the ships it is operating above is enough to make it able to see any low flying threat... the enormous size allows a wide bandwidth range, but new photonic radars might make it all seeing anyway...

    But the largest disadvantage of airship is speed. In comparison with aircraft, airship are tortoise. Nowadays, slow flying thing is highly vulnerable. Hopefully a strong power generator like nuclear engine may solve this problem ? But then again which kind of design allows the airship to handle the risky nuclear reactor and all its heat.

    Here I disagree... speed is of no value to an AWACS platform supporting ships... being able to hover on the spot for days and weeks is actually more useful... the main disadvantage of helicopter based AEW is not lack of speed... it is lack of altitude and limited weight capacity for all the electronics and the radar array... none of which would be an issue.

    As for vulnerability it could be armed... and it could be designed with excessive lift capacity... its party trick would be to dump ballast and climb to very high altitude where blast fragmentation warheads in AAMs and SAMs are rather less effective, where fires wont naturally burn... if you think of the volume of an airship 300m long and perhaps 40m wide and maybe 20m high... what sort of area with the fragments from one AAM do damage considering the gas bags will be carbon fibre and kevlar and nomex and the structure will be fibreglass and carbon fibre... even a clean hit that detonates might destroy 20 cubic metres of hydrogen bags.... so what is going to happen... it will of course start to descend... but we are not talking about a Yak-44 who just took an AMRAAM hit and has lost a wing or suffered serious structural damage and was flying at 450km/h horizontally and is now crashing downwards and 600km/h and accelerating from 10,000m.

    The airship could dump ballast after the hit and it might actually stop descending... what other AWACS platform could do that?

    Of course it wont be invincible, but it could carry self defence jammers and decoys and even self defence guns and missiles... but it probably would not even need all that because anything approaching it will be detected at very long range whether it is flying high or low and it will probably be operating over a Russian carrier surface action group armed to the teeth with naval variants of all the latest Russian SAMs... not to mention the aircraft from the carrier that could also protect the airship as well as themselves and the ships they are operating with.

    The easiest way of dealing with heat from the reactor is to pump the nitrogen between the hydrogen air bags through the reactor to heat up... pumping that through the hydrogen airbags will heat up both the nitrogen and they hydrogen... making it an even more efficient lifting gas.

    That will make the airship stand out as an IR target but antenna arrays this size and power are going to generate a lot of heat anyway so there is really nothing you could do about that... operating at very high altitude would require max lift so the heat would be valuable... and as soon as a radar is turned on the airship could be detected from very long range....
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:47 am

    I think that idea of hoovering airships is get. But is it not for current military who are prepare to  past  wars. It is perhaps be relisted in 15-20 yers.



    higurashihougi wrote:But the largest disadvantage of airship is speed. In comparison with aircraft, airship are tortoise. Nowadays, slow flying thing is highly vulnerable. Hopefully a strong power generator like nuclear engine may solve this problem ? But then again which kind of design allows the airship to handle the risky nuclear reactor and all its heat.

    +++

    LMFS wrote:Worst part to me is the truly HUGE size (and cost!) it would need to be as per your idea, in order to have a NPP onboard, the huge antennae / power capability you suggest and something similar to the electronic equipment of an AWACS (20 ton electronics in case of A-100). Myself I had though previously on some kind of flat, smaller airship of something like 20 m diameter (maybe more, depending on payload needs), unmanned, tethered that could be lowered and carried onboard in case of very bad weather / repair or enemy attack.


    +++
    GB wrote:This blimp could be a full AWACS platform with processing and command and control... it could even have self defence missiles... an airborne TOR and Pantsir system with 9M100 there too to defend it from attack... its best defence would be dumping all ballast and climbing to 25km altitude where no enemy fighter could reach it...





    1) speed but why it should fly fast? just hovers to cover CSG? Normally it can fly up to  120-150km/h , but CSG moves anything 12-30knots.  No need to fly faster


    2) Power Plant: AFAIK over 18kms there re no strong winds anymore so no need to spend much energy to keep  stable,
    Besides whatever flies must eventually  fall.  In peace time this is not acceptable  for Russia, especially close to some other country.

    Large size means large surface, on height where no clouds sapper  anymore. In sunny dy on surface you should receive ~1000w per square meter. Conversion efficiency every yer is going up is should be now 18-20 % so with every thousand m2   you should get ~ 200kW.

    5,000m is like 50mx10m -> 1MW where length of such monster is likely to be more than 100m.

    IMHO it should  enough to have hybrid hydrogen/solar cells power and eventually once per 2-3 months return to base for resupply/checkup.



    3) vulnerability + self defense none of AWCS has missiles  for self defense for  reason. An airship hovers over a CSG.  It's radar horizon on 20,000m is ~600,km so CSG is covered with diameter of 1,200 km. Nothing ever comes close before CSG fighters or AAD missiles be used
    A
    BTW 600 km is form 20,000 to sea level to detect  sea skimmers. Something flying on sy 5,000m horizon is ~c900km
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:24 am

    Excerpt from here, relevant to carriers:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7158p750-russian-navy-status-news-4#248947


    - Lately a lot of talk about a certain expedition ship. How I see it in the Krylov center?

    - The idea of creating a hybrid, or the expedition ship for the Navy is currently particularly relevant. The essence of such a ship to ensure that ship built on a single platform, different features, various combat tasks. In this unified platform, can be reconstructed in the desired configuration to perform certain tasks. For example, as such a ship may be a ship that combines the functions of aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ship. In more detail this problem, usually discussing the military.

    Indeed, the expedition ship is a promising ship, the shape of which is determined by the specific combat tasks of the Navy, its connections and associations. If the state has national interests at any point of the World ocean and can do something to influence the conduct of its foreign policy, or to protect someone, such a state necessarily need to ship the forwarding class. The events in Syria are a clear indication of the need for such ships.

    Of course, in KGNC developed conceptual designs for such ships. And we believe that their efficiency was very decent – I don't compare them with the "Mistral" and similar ships as "Mistral" is a civilian ship converted for military purposes. We offer ships with a balanced weapon system and weapons.

    Such projects we have developed and demonstrated the military. The value of these developments KGNZ that we offer options of blocks, at maximum payload, for example, of capacity have optimal contours from the point of view of hydrodynamics, with respect to their seaworthiness and propulsion. This is the most important thing that the Institute should be engaged and involved.


    - Did the military proposed Krylov centre concept design of an aircraft carrier "Storm" project 23000?


    - We will have a long time I studied various options for the layout of an aircraft carrier with different armament and air group, as well as different types of main propulsion.

    This is just one option when KGNC involved in the justification of the balanced fleet aircraft, weapons promising carrier, its tactical and technical elements. Of course, only the Navy sets the requirements for ships of the future, determines their tactical and technical elements. And we say, how these requirements can be fulfill in the best way, what hull form should have the ship to solve the tasks with the greatest efficiency, for example, by reducing the resistance to movement of the ship.

    How to make a ship stealth? What does it mean? When you solve the problem of selecting, for example, cases from the point of view of hydrodynamics, you want to reduce its resistance to movement. This can be achieved by not only optimizing traditional monohull solutions, but also as a result of research Multihull options. In turn, the achieved reduction in resistance causes a decrease of a required power of the propulsion system, allowing, for example, to increase the supply of fuel, primarily aviation. And this is the number of sorties.

    Therefore, we set ourselves two tasks. The first is to become a major carrier of classical type, with a nuclear power plant (NPP), but with optimized hull. In the selection of the energy of such a ship there is no alternative – this ship should have nuclear power, based on the tasks that now decide the carriers. Indeed, KGNC first proposed a version of the ship, but with its hull lines that have passed the model test. Their result – the resistance to movement decreased by approximately 20%. From here you can either increase the supply capacity by 20 per cent or increase by 20% fuel reserve.

    Concept design of the ship was demonstrated, including at exhibitions, and it has caused a mixed assessment. But the purpose was just to arouse interest, to provoke a debate, lively discussion.

    The second ship, which we have proposed, we called it a light aircraft carrier that has caused issues in both the press and the military. We are talking about the fact that it is a ship of limited tonnage, but he would be on Board balanced fleet of aircraft. We do not quite understand why the term "light aircraft carriers" caused such a violent reaction. Light aircraft carriers – independent subclass of ships that is different from the multi-purpose aircraft carriers, the reduced size and limited combat capabilities.

    There are such ships in the Second world war as a result of the desire of the warring States quickly to Commission the maximum number of aircraft carrier ships with moderate costs. This new class was supposed to do in the strike of joints of the fleet and therefore have a high speed and a solid defense system that is different from the light aircraft carriers from appearing at the same time escort carriers. It is important that the aircraft carrier with a limited displacement had a well-balanced parks aircraft.

    Why we do not confuse the carriers of the "Queen Elizabeth" (Queen Elizabeth class carriers) — British aircraft carriers, also known under the code name of the Future Aircraft Carrier ("Future aircraft carrier"), which are being built to replace the now excluded light carriers such as "invincible". The ship has a full displacement

    70600 printer tons and non-nuclear energy. However, his fleet of aircraft looks very convincing: a standard air group will consist of 40 machines, including aircraft F-35C, helicopters EH101 Merlin helicopters and long-range radar detection (AWACS).

    According to the decision of the Ministry of defence of the United Kingdom on the carrier decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its significant cost. As the main engine uses integrated electric propulsion system (Integrated Electric Propulsion, IEP) of Rolls-Royce. The installation will consist of two gas turbines Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 36 MW each and four diesel engines with a total capacity of 40 MW. Engines run on generators, which provide electricity to a common low voltage network of the vehicle and feed two electric motors which rotate the two propeller shafts with fixed pitch propellers.

    KGNC offered his, a fundamentally new solution to housing light aircraft carrier – polyutherane or catamaran type which allows a limited displacement of about 40 – 50 thousand tons have quite a serious fleet of aircraft by increasing the area of deck and other design decisions. And we really believe that the statement of the military task, which can solve the limited carrier capacity, such an option has the right to life.

    The demonstration of this project at the exhibition "Army – 2018" has caused some excitement. Like KGNC doesn't understand that the carrier must be a carrier. And we began to accuse, what kind of light aircraft carrier, which does not solve the main problems. But the main and only weapon is the aircraft carrier fleet of aircraft. It needs to be balanced. There must be reconnaissance planes, and planes of radar-tracking patrol and attack aircraft, and fighter aircraft. If you have the opportunity with limited displacement to ensure the deployment of a balanced fleet aircraft, that decision has the right to life.

    We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.


    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2516
    Points : 2533
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  eehnie on Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:24 am

    LMFS wrote:Excerpt from here, relevant to carriers:

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t7158p750-russian-navy-status-news-4#248947


    - Lately a lot of talk about a certain expedition ship. How I see it in the Krylov center?

    - The idea of creating a hybrid, or the expedition ship for the Navy is currently particularly relevant. The essence of such a ship to ensure that ship built on a single platform, different features, various combat tasks. In this unified platform, can be reconstructed in the desired configuration to perform certain tasks. For example, as such a ship may be a ship that combines the functions of aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier and amphibious assault ship. In more detail this problem, usually discussing the military.

    Indeed, the expedition ship is a promising ship, the shape of which is determined by the specific combat tasks of the Navy, its connections and associations. If the state has national interests at any point of the World ocean and can do something to influence the conduct of its foreign policy, or to protect someone, such a state necessarily need to ship the forwarding class. The events in Syria are a clear indication of the need for such ships.

    Of course, in KGNC developed conceptual designs for such ships. And we believe that their efficiency was very decent – I don't compare them with the "Mistral" and similar ships as "Mistral" is a civilian ship converted for military purposes. We offer ships with a balanced weapon system and weapons.

    Such projects we have developed and demonstrated the military. The value of these developments KGNZ that we offer options of blocks, at maximum payload, for example, of capacity have optimal contours from the point of view of hydrodynamics, with respect to their seaworthiness and propulsion. This is the most important thing that the Institute should be engaged and involved.


    - Did the military proposed Krylov centre concept design of an aircraft carrier "Storm" project 23000?


    - We will have a long time I studied various options for the layout of an aircraft carrier with different armament and air group, as well as different types of main propulsion.

    This is just one option when KGNC involved in the justification of the balanced fleet aircraft, weapons promising carrier, its tactical and technical elements. Of course, only the Navy sets the requirements for ships of the future, determines their tactical and technical elements. And we say, how these requirements can be fulfill in the best way, what hull form should have the ship to solve the tasks with the greatest efficiency, for example, by reducing the resistance to movement of the ship.

    How to make a ship stealth? What does it mean? When you solve the problem of selecting, for example, cases from the point of view of hydrodynamics, you want to reduce its resistance to movement. This can be achieved by not only optimizing traditional monohull solutions, but also as a result of research Multihull options. In turn, the achieved reduction in resistance causes a decrease of a required power of the propulsion system, allowing, for example, to increase the supply of fuel, primarily aviation. And this is the number of sorties.

    Therefore, we set ourselves two tasks. The first is to become a major carrier of classical type, with a nuclear power plant (NPP), but with optimized hull. In the selection of the energy of such a ship there is no alternative – this ship should have nuclear power, based on the tasks that now decide the carriers. Indeed, KGNC first proposed a version of the ship, but with its hull lines that have passed the model test. Their result – the resistance to movement decreased by approximately 20%. From here you can either increase the supply capacity by 20 per cent or increase by 20% fuel reserve.

    Concept design of the ship was demonstrated, including at exhibitions, and it has caused a mixed assessment. But the purpose was just to arouse interest, to provoke a debate, lively discussion.

    The second ship, which we have proposed, we called it a light aircraft carrier that has caused issues in both the press and the military. We are talking about the fact that it is a ship of limited tonnage, but he would be on Board balanced fleet of aircraft. We do not quite understand why the term "light aircraft carriers" caused such a violent reaction. Light aircraft carriers – independent subclass of ships that is different from the multi-purpose aircraft carriers, the reduced size and limited combat capabilities.

    There are such ships in the Second world war as a result of the desire of the warring States quickly to Commission the maximum number of aircraft carrier ships with moderate costs. This new class was supposed to do in the strike of joints of the fleet and therefore have a high speed and a solid defense system that is different from the light aircraft carriers from appearing at the same time escort carriers. It is important that the aircraft carrier with a limited displacement had a well-balanced parks aircraft.

    Why we do not confuse the carriers of the "Queen Elizabeth" (Queen Elizabeth class carriers) — British aircraft carriers, also known under the code name of the Future Aircraft Carrier ("Future aircraft carrier"), which are being built to replace the now excluded light carriers such as "invincible". The ship has a full displacement

    70600 printer tons and non-nuclear energy. However, his fleet of aircraft looks very convincing: a standard air group will consist of 40 machines, including aircraft F-35C, helicopters EH101 Merlin helicopters and long-range radar detection (AWACS).

    According to the decision of the Ministry of defence of the United Kingdom on the carrier decided not to use nuclear propulsion because of its significant cost. As the main engine uses integrated electric propulsion system (Integrated Electric Propulsion, IEP) of Rolls-Royce. The installation will consist of two gas turbines Rolls-Royce Marine MT30 36 MW each and four diesel engines with a total capacity of 40 MW. Engines run on generators, which provide electricity to a common low voltage network of the vehicle and feed two electric motors which rotate the two propeller shafts with fixed pitch propellers.

    KGNC offered his, a fundamentally new solution to housing light aircraft carrier – polyutherane or catamaran type which allows a limited displacement of about 40 – 50 thousand tons have quite a serious fleet of aircraft by increasing the area of deck and other design decisions. And we really believe that the statement of the military task, which can solve the limited carrier capacity, such an option has the right to life.

    The demonstration of this project at the exhibition "Army – 2018" has caused some excitement. Like KGNC doesn't understand that the carrier must be a carrier. And we began to accuse, what kind of light aircraft carrier, which does not solve the main problems. But the main and only weapon is the aircraft carrier fleet of aircraft. It needs to be balanced. There must be reconnaissance planes, and planes of radar-tracking patrol and attack aircraft, and fighter aircraft. If you have the opportunity with limited displacement to ensure the deployment of a balanced fleet aircraft, that decision has the right to life.

    We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.



    Then, we have confirmed two options of aircraft carrier proposed to the Ministry of Defense, and both seems to be part of the Project 23000:

    1.- Big Shtorm multirole aircraft carrier with nuclear propulsion that fits well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

    2.- Small Shtorm multihull light aircraft carrier with conventional propulsion that fits not well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and neither fits the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

    These are junst the two options presented publicly in the last years.

    Nothing about the Project 11437, which pictures of a model from a museum are included above in this page, and which technological origin is in the Project 1143 designed in the late 1960s early 1970s. Neither about other awesome theories (helicopter carriers, cruiser aircraft carriers, amphibious ships...) that we have been reading here from the pro-US and pro-Israel group of the forum...

    But still for George1 the troll is me...

    The spring of 2019 is coming soon. The reality is coming like a truck...
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3391
    Points : 3387
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:42 am

    We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.

    Weired. They want 12 nuclear Liders but 1 nuclear carrier is too costly to maintain. The reactors should be the same.

    So we can deduce that once they need to make a choice btw nuk and normal propulsion for lider they will go for normal one because they will face similar reality of cost.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 1338
    Points : 1336
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Tue Mar 05, 2019 6:22 pm

    Isos wrote:
    We all understand what is the cost of operation and maintenance of nuclear ships. This is quite serious and expensive. As for the ship with gas-turbine power at full electric propulsion – why not? So once again I say that the purpose KGNC – excite the thoughts of designers, to help them in decision making, offer alternatives. Vapornation combat effectiveness, technical and economic efficiency of promising ships.

    Weired. They want 12 nuclear Liders but 1 nuclear carrier is too costly to maintain. The reactors should be the same.

    So we can deduce that once they need to make a choice btw nuk and normal propulsion for lider they will go for normal one because they will face similar reality of cost.

    they navy wanted 12 but they wuld have never gotten 12 even if russia had the money for it.

    They will get at most six.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:18 am

    Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future:

    https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/regaining-the-high-ground-at-sea-transforming-the-u.s.-navys-carrier-air-wi/publication
    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Screen-Shot-2019-03-05-at-5.46.44-PM
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Mar 06, 2019 1:31 am

    eehnie wrote:Then, we have confirmed two options of aircraft carrier proposed to the Ministry of Defense, and both seems to be part of the Project 23000:

    1.- Big Shtorm multirole aircraft carrier with nuclear propulsion that fits well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

    2.- Small Shtorm multihull light aircraft carrier with conventional propulsion that fits not well the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 and neither fits the requirements of 70000+ tons of the Russian Navy.

    These are junst the two options presented publicly in the last years.

    Nothing about the Project 11437, which pictures of a model from a museum are included above in this page, and which technological origin is in the Project 1143 designed in the late 1960s early 1970s. Neither about other awesome theories (helicopter carriers, cruiser aircraft carriers, amphibious ships...) that we have been reading here from the pro-US and pro-Israel group of the forum...

    But still for George1 the troll is me...

    The spring of 2019 is coming soon. The reality is coming like a truck...
    MoD should take the best of both proposals and get them incorporated to whatever the ideas of the actual design bureaus are. Krylov is responsible for looking into the future so ignoring their advice would be like telling they are useless. I therefore expect some of the ideas of the models we saw being present in the final designs, in case RuN decide they want to develop carriers.

    IMO a 50-60 kT ship based in the multihull design and with NPP would be a very robust option for the future.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:33 am

    LMFS wrote: IMO a 50-60 kT ship based in the multihull design and with NPP would be a very robust option for the future.

    +100 %

    And now I'm waiting when GB will call you  a dick  lol1 lol1 lol1



    SeigSoloyvov wrote: they navy wanted 12 but they wuld have never gotten 12 even if russia had the money for it.
    They will get at most six.

    Soviet Union planned to build 5 Orlans and 10 Atlants now I cn see similarity ith 5-6 Liders + 8-10 22350-Ms



    Isos wrote:Weired. They want 12 nuclear Liders but 1 nuclear carrier is too costly to maintain. The reactors should be the same.

    So we can deduce that once they need to make a choice btw nuk and normal propulsion for lider they will go for normal one because they will face similar reality of cost.


    Logical i'd say but what is the value of CVN for Russia? low  Syria conflict? dick flag waving?  not much else.  Liders will be main work horses for navy's strike groups . 1000km punch , with 100+ missiles.  AFAIK  With 200 conventional CMs you can send UK to missile ages.

    This should be within power  of  one Russian expeditionary group.  

    US  has 11 CSGs.  Us deck aviation is ~ 1000 fighters? The WHOLE RuAF doesnt  have  even 700. Building evne 3 Shtorm you still have 150-180:1000.

    And costs like 9-12 Lliders.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:46 am

    LMFS wrote:Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future:

    https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/regaining-the-high-ground-at-sea-transforming-the-u.s.-navys-carrier-air-wi/publication

    Im not sure why US analysts are drawing Tu-22M3M if in Russian case they got

    1) Poseidon

    2) Avangard

    3) GZUR with longer range then 1,500km
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 452
    Points : 450
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Mar 06, 2019 9:19 am

    Relevant to discussions here, thoughts coming from US about carriers in the future
    China and Russia are likely to exacerbate these Navy ASW shortfalls by fielding submarine-launched ASCMs with ranges on par with their submarine-launched LACMs, some of which can strike targets approximately 1,000 nm away

    AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1398
    Points : 1392
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:25 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    LMFS wrote: IMO a 50-60 kT ship based in the multihull design and with NPP would be a very robust option for the future.

    +100 %

    And now I'm waiting when GB will call you  a dick  lol1 lol1 lol1
    I don't expect him to call me names since we have roughly the same opinion about the issue, but you know how this forum goes, 100 people here is 100 (or even more!) different views Razz
    50-60 kT with that design can be equivalent to >70 kT in conventional design, as some Russian sources were demanding. It would have a bigger deck and internal volume than the K, so I am not seeing a size reduction from it but rather the contrary. 2 sqdn. naval fighters (Su-57 ideally), 1 sqdn. strike / tanker UCAV, 4-6 AEW/AWACS + 8-10 high-speed helicopters would be up to almost any task now and in the foreseeable future.

    Im not sure why US analysts are drawing Tu-22M3M if in Russian case they got

    1) Poseidon

    2) Avangard

    3) GZUR with longer range then 1,500km
    Well, now Russia will be capable of deploying relatively cheap IRBM for the purpose. 5000 km range + 15 min flight time? No problem! Yesterday Scaparroti was already being grilled by US politicians for the country not having a plan to avoid Russia producing the weapons that had been prohibited by INF Rolling Eyes

    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked
    Their data is all messed up. LACM from Russia (3M14) have 2500 km range. AShM version has way shorter range but it is way more dangerous. Now 4500 range expected for Kalibr-M. A faster flying AShM version will still have way shorter range so it wont be comparable as they claim. Nevertheless, Zirkon is expected also in sub-launched version with > 1000 km range. It really isn't relevant to go beyond, you cannot control subs in such a wide area regardless...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:42 pm

    LMFS wrote:
    GunshipDemocracy wrote:And now I'm waiting when GB will call you  a dick  lol1 lol1 lol1

    I don't expect him to call me names since we have roughly the same opinion about the issue, b{}

    he calls everybody who says VSTOL or less then 70kt or less then 60 fighters Razz Razz Razz


    LMFS wrote: 50-60 kT with that design can be equivalent to >70 kT in conventional design, as some Russian sources were demanding. It would have a bigger deck and internal volume than the K, so I am not seeing a size reduction from it but rather the contrary. 2 sqdn. naval fighters (Su-57 ideally), 1 sqdn. strike / tanker UCAV, 4-6 AEW/AWACS + 8-10 high-speed helicopters would be up to almost any task now and in the foreseeable future.

    4-6 aew?!  affraid affraid affraid 104ktons Nimitz has 4-6 AEW.


    Besides looks good to me, very reasonable.  Unlikely tho Su-57 since to add  hook you dont need new programme & 10 years.







    LMFS wrote:Well, now Russia will be capable of deploying relatively cheap IRBM for the purpose. 5000 km range + 15 min flight time? No problem! Yesterday Scaparroti was already being grilled by US politicians for the country not having a plan to avoid Russia producing the weapons that had been prohibited by INF Rolling Eyes  

    Rubezh + Avangard already exists.






    verkhoturye51 wrote:
    AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked
    Their data is all messed up. LACM from Russia (3M14) have 2500 km range. AShM version has way shorter range but it is way more dangerous. Now 4500 range expected for Kalibr-M. A faster flying AShM version will still have way shorter range so it wont be comparable as they claim. Nevertheless, Zirkon is expected also in sub-launched version with > 1000 km range. It really isn't relevant to go beyond, you cannot control subs in such a wide area regardless...
    [/quote]

    1500nm?  Murmansk - Nova Scotia is ~3000nm. So one CVN can block the whole  Northern Atlantic?  LA - Petropvlovsk Kamtchtsky 4000nm. SO 2 CVNs can block 2 oceans? This means glob range weapons now re needed.

    In 2040+can happen new gen of weapons. Avangard
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4914
    Points : 4952
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Wed Mar 06, 2019 4:44 pm

    verkhoturye51 wrote:

    AShM with 1000 nm range seems to be some next gen stuff Shocked

    Avangard has even bigger lol1 lol1 lol1
    verkhoturye51
    verkhoturye51

    Posts : 452
    Points : 450
    Join date : 2018-03-02

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  verkhoturye51 on Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:27 pm

    OK so on second thoughts, the point of the paper is that the USN should return to its Cold war era anti-bastion strategy to counter RuN in the Barents sea and PLAN in the SCS. So this means less focus on second tier threats, like Iran, and more focus on dealing with both great adversaries. They suggest more forward deployments to enhance surivability, and more long range strike capability.

    If USN actually adopts this, this means that Russia should also step one step back from their last Naval doctrine and go more towards bastion defence. This time, besides Barents and Okhotsk perhaps with entire Northern sea route as the third bastion. The good news is that all CM-based projects like Buyan, Karakurt and Yasen have been even better decisions as thought under current Russian naval doctrine, mixing old bastion idea with blue water navy. But this would also mean less funds for amphibious BDK and CVN projects.

    + another interesting point from the paper: there's no defence against missile salvos, so the best way to prevent them is to take the missile carrier down before launch. In this sense, new CVN should stick to TAKR idea and provide extra layer of defence for smaller ships...and make an Improved Kuznetsov...perhaps with NPP, but definitely having some Zircon, Redut and possibly S-500? This probably wouldn't allow for larger air wing as on the K though.

    ++ paper suggests frequent patrols to allow striking at missile carriers before launch. In this sense, strong helo wing would be probably the best answer for looking for enemy SS(B)Ns in domestic waters?

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 34 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:22 pm