Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:29 am

    I don't expect those trans-Atlantic cruises- cheaper to send N/AF planes to land bases there & large surface ships & subs, as before. The Adm. K can come out of the Med. Sea & rendezvous with escorts near Gibraltar, if need be.

    Why bother sending anything to the med?

    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... too many bottlenecks and not really much worth visiting anyway... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.

    Their focus for expansion is the far east and the arctic, which suggests expansion of the northern fleet and pacific fleets makes the most sense and would be the ideal places to base carrier groups most of the time.

    The VMF had its share of accidents & I won't blame them if they r extra careful. But others will make fun of it.

    You can call them idiots if they keep doing what they used to do they way they used to do after an accident occurs.

    Idiots are not people who have accidents... idiots are people who do not learn from accidents or mistakes... you know like regime change policies that kill millions and allow your stated enemies to gain real footholds in countries that were formerly indifferent to them...

    potential problems, & given the past history, highly probable at that.

    You are not getting it... if they had problems and then didn't operate with more support vessels in case such problems happened again then I agree... call them idiots.

    I rather suspect after a few collisions of US ships with civilian cargo vessels that the US Navy will take quite a few steps to ensure it stops happening... but why wouldn't they? That is the sensible thing to do isn't it?

    If northern CSG will be created then its main task will be protection of Russian SSBNs bastions not chasing US ones.

    Why?

    Having a CSG to show your enemy where your SSBNs are and all they need to do is direct a couple of SLBMs to shower the area with 10-20 nuke warheads to damage or disable your SSBNs is not a great move really.

    They have SSNs for that.

    Any Russian Surface action group should be looking for any strategic nuclear weapon or weapon platform nearby that it can kill, whether it is a cruise missile or B-2 flying past, or ICBM or SLBM warheads going over head. If it spots an SSBN, then by all means attack but do you really think the US will base any SSBNs in the arctic ocean? Can american SSBNs even launch SLBMs or cruise missiles through icesheets?

    Remaining 1-2 wil be roaming somewhere for dick waving/colonial wars and not countering if USN too.

    If that is what you think they will be doing then you are right... they are an expensive and pointless waste of time and money.

    If, however, the Pacific based carrier surface group travels around the pacific... asia, central and south america, pacific islands and perhaps india on longer voyages, while the Northern fleet group could patrol the northern sea route and go down beside greenland down past dragon country to central and south america... cuba and venezuela and african countries too for visits to promote trade and cooperation, then it would make rather more sense.

    and here specially for you lol1 lol1 lol1 real project of severny in 80s

    I actually really like that concept

    This ship have a very good design for hunting submarines.

    It also must be cheap as fuck. It's empty, weapons are basic. It reminds me the heli carrier/landing ship of phillipines that is somewhere near 50 million a piece but very usefull.

    But this one has everything to counter subs. They should build two or three for tge pacific and north.

    Look again... it is totally empty... the bridge area is hollow and used to store aircraft... there would be no command area. Based on the shape of the front there would be no room for propulsion and an internal hangar, let alone fuel and weapons for the aircraft.

    Great for a Lego design, but pretty useless for a real combat vessel.

    Never ending peddling of the notion that Russia is broke, has no use for carriers, cannot build anything and should throw themselves out the window, in the hopes that the negativism and loser mentality they instil sinks in and even Russians think they should not allow their government to spend scarce rubles in such lost causes as rebuilding the navy.

    Indeed... a pro US anti Russian website suggests something... why would anyone think it could possibly be in Russian interests to listen to those censored .

    This proposal with China building the ships can be summed up as "Russia cannot do it so better leave it to others", in the end just one more in an endless list of fake "reasonable and well-intentioned proposals" from the West.

    To which the first words would be... they have never tried to build a carrier and failed before, and how are they going to get any better at building ships if they give contracts for ship building to foreign countries?

    They tried to sell the Storm CVN to India so they could afford 1 for themselves.

    Listen to what you are saying... a company in Russia that wants to make a carrier offered to sell the design to India so they could also sell the idea to the Russian navy and make two carriers or more.

    That is not the same as Russia wanting India to build a carrier so they could save money and order one at the same time to get their own one built.

    If their yards r busy/not ready & $ can be saved by outsourcing, why not? They could get a 70-80K Ton CV hull a lot sooner & outfit it with their own systems, while refitting old CGNs, DDGs, SSGNs, & building new ships/subs. The PD-14 that sunk was built in Sweden; they can swallow their pride for expediency, if need be.
    Having the Adm. K + 2 new TAKR/CVs will ensure that 1 of them is available for training/deployment most of the time.

    Russia has no practical use for a 70K ton carrier right now, nor in the next 4-5 years... where would they base it? What ships would operate with it? What would they actually do with it?

    There is no hurry for a new carrier... getting the Chinese to build one is just silly talk.

    Why hand over the best carrier design they can manage right now at a time when China is finding its own way in that regard?

    Would be better to finalise a new design with fairly radical design that suits their needs and then ask China if they want a similar design too... the way the french did it with Mistral, except actually delivering payed for ships rather than screwing their customer at the last second on the orders of Washington...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Fri Apr 12, 2019 4:05 pm

    Why bother sending anything to the med?
    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.
    For realistic combat training & to show the flag off the coasts of friends & foes alike. They may also transit it on the way to the Indian Ocean to help the Pac. Fleet there.
    If it spots an SSBN, then by all means attack but do you really think the US will base any SSBNs in the arctic ocean? Can american SSBNs even launch SLBMs or cruise missiles through icesheets?
    Even Russian 1s will try to find a polynya- open water to fire them; the Bulava can allegedly brake trough 2,1 m thick through ice; Breaking through thick Arctic cover is so hard on a vessel that a submarine commander's first task may be to avoid punching through ice altogether. ..Typical submarines can break through about three feet of ice. Vessels that have been specifically strengthened can go through about nine feet.
    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a19681544/how-a-submarine-surfaces-through-ice/

    The USN SSBNs r not designed or meant to patrol under the ice. They can go to the ice-free areas in Barentz Sea, but it will complicate NATO ASW ops there & increase the risk of VMF detecting them. Not worth it!

    they have never tried to build a carrier and failed before,..
    They did build Adm. K & 75% of Varyag, besides modifying the ex-Gorshkov for India.
    That is not the same as Russia wanting India to build a carrier so they could save money and order one at the same time to get their own one built.
    They wanted to build it themselves, make profit, & use the $ to build 1 for their own use, just like with Su-30s. The Sevmash is a state enterprise.
    Russia has no practical use for a 70K ton carrier right now, nor in the next 4-5 years... where would they base it? What ships would operate with it? What would they actually do with it?
    It would take a few years to complete if ordered now, by then there'll be more infrastructure & escorts built; in any case, if 1 is in port/yard, it won't need escorts & they can be assigned to the 1 sailing out. It would be used to train & for naval diplomacy. When China finally got the CV-16 operational, the USN admirals were tripping. If the VMF can keep 1 TAKR/CV at sea regularly, Russia will get more respect all over the World. Better than to rely on just Tu-160s to "send a message"!
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Apr 12, 2019 5:14 pm

    Tsavo Lion wrote:That could change: they may need more of them sooner, before the industry is up to the task. It would depend on the international situation, economy, treaties, allies, etc.
    Naval aviators must have a seagoing platform to train on, to keep those skills honed, so aircraft & pilots don't crash & die. 1 in the Black Sea can be used all year round, but there must be more than 1 to allow for repairs/refits/deployments.
    They will need to train on simulator or land based strips in the meantime. And as GarryB said, there is not big need (as in need to deploy to hot areas where high level threats are present) for a carrier if you don't even have an escort group up to the task. You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty. To show the flag they can send pretty much what they want, but to combat you need to have your armour complete and without holes.

    The Type 001 isn't that different from the ex-Varyag, now the CV-16, Adm. K sister ship; they could build 1-2 of them or type 001A flattops with catapults. Just a thought!
    I would agree if building carriers was a small thing. It is not for the Chinese either, which need their capability to ramp up their fleet groups really fast now US is rising tensions, and Russia could not buy some "off-the-shelf" carriers from China to operate them for the next 50 years... the time is right for Russia to create the shipbuilding and supply capabilities now the escort groups are closer to be a reality, then carriers will follow when they can deploy a escort group without leaving the Russian coast badly unprotected.

    GarryB wrote:Why bother sending anything to the med?

    It is a NATO lake.... just like the Black Sea is a Russian lake... no naval grouping Russia could send to the med could ever cope with the amount of aircraft NATO could send against them there... too many bottlenecks and not really much worth visiting anyway... and access via Turkey controlled straights is hardly something to rely upon.
    Not that fast, Mediterranean is covered by Russian EW radars and long range missile capabilities. The issue here is not that Russia cannot deploy a force, it is rather they do not have a huge need to deploy highest end CV to operate there. A LHD or surface group without aviation could do. If anyone starts doing silly things they get a express-delivered Kinzhal in response. As Mafia boss Pence would put it, "it is our neighbourhood" Razz

    Their focus for expansion is the far east and the arctic, which suggests expansion of the northern fleet and pacific fleets makes the most sense and would be the ideal places to base carrier groups most of the time.
    Agree here. Indian Ocean and the traditional issues with access to warm waters should be solved long term too, maybe Yemen again? And as said Caribbean is a prime place, considering what CVs are for.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Apr 13, 2019 1:50 am

    You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty.
    A TAKR type CV is well protected w/o the need for 2 FFGs, 1 &/ a CGN which they should have ready by then will do.
    Indian Ocean and the traditional issues with access to warm waters should be solved long term too, maybe Yemen again? And as said Caribbean is a prime place, considering what CVs are for.
    Black Sea is a warm sea; Tartus in the Med. Sea is good location; Yemen is not internally stable & surrounded by enemies; the same applies to Nicaragua, Cuba & Venezuela, + they r too remote. A network of bases/sites is needed there to defend it while it's in port & assist it while it's at sea.
    The USN has a forward deployed CSG in Yokosuka, Japan which is stable & surrounded by other American naval & AF bases in Japan/Okinawa, S. Korea, & Guam.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:46 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:A TAKR type CV is well protected w/o the need for 2 FFGs, 1 &/ a CGN which they should have ready by then will do.
    Whatever the level of the defences the carrier has, it needs an escort group and now they dont have up to date units for it. After 2020-21 the Kuznetsov will be operative again (I will for now believe Shoigu on this) and a few modern Gorshkovs will be available so the scope of missions could be progressively increased.

    Black Sea is a warm sea; Tartus in the Med. Sea is good location;
    Interior seas are not the best places to keep carriers since they can be easily blocked in times of need, so Northern and Pacific fleets are the natural places to base them, but the base in Tartus is of course very valuable. Besides, carriers are mostly needed far from Russia, not close to it where both surveillance and "kinetic" means are readily available from the mainland. LHDs are more than enough as a regular presence in the Mediterranean and in Black Sea IMHO.

    Yemen is not internally stable & surrounded by enemies;
    I said in the future, given the right conditions. But USSR had close ties with South Yemen and bases (apparently not big) there if I am not wrong. The geographical location is optimal. There has been talk recently about reactivating them, just an example:

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/russia-to-establish-a-naval-base-in-yemen-implications-for-us-military-involvement-in-syria/5587768

    the same applies to Nicaragua, Cuba & Venezuela, + they r too remote. A network of bases/sites is needed there to defend it while it's in port & assist it while it's at sea.
    The navy is your footprint and defence in those remote areas, that is one of the main things your blue water navy is meant to do. And also navy is your best means to ensure those allies are not violently overrun. It allows you to ensure good intelligence in hot zones, short reaction times and deterrent capacity in the West hemisphere and not only in some countries but in all of it. The Nicaraguan channel is in stand still by now but if reactivated, it would be a key asset to defend for Russia and China.

    The USN has a forward deployed CSG in Yokosuka, Japan which is stable & surrounded by other American naval & AF bases in Japan/Okinawa, S. Korea, & Guam.  
    US has 800 bases around the world, I think we can spare us the comparisons Razz
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Apr 13, 2019 6:01 am

    Interior seas are not the best places to keep carriers since they can be easily blocked in times of need,..
    1 can be home ported in Tartus & 1 in the Black Sea for year-round training. Short of war with Turkey, which is highly unlikely, they'll be allowed to transit in/out for occasional deployments & repairs/refits, earning her extra $. The VMF will save more by not sailing them to the E. Med. from Kola or Vladivostok/Kamchatka. Those home ported there r best used in the Atlantic/Pacific, respectively.
    The Pac. Fleet carrier(s) should normally cover the Indian Ocean.
    Later, if a canal big enough is cut via Iran, 1-2 could be based in the Caspian for training & deployments to the Indian & Pacific Oceans.
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:49 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:1 can be home ported in Tartus & 1 in the Black Sea for year-round training. Short of war with Turkey, which is highly unlikely, they'll be allowed to transit in/out for occasional deployments & repairs/refits, earning her extra $. The VMF will save more by not sailing them to the E. Med. from Kola or Vladivostok/Kamchatka. Those home ported there r best used in the Atlantic/Pacific, respectively.
    We have a deal  Laughing

    The Pac. Fleet carrier(s) should normally cover the Indian Ocean.
    Yes but it is still very far and the straits are under control of US. Would be good to have some local presence there (Indian Ocean) even if not the biggest one.

    Later, if a canal big enough is cut via Iran, 1-2 could be based in the Caspian for training & deployments to the Indian & Pacific Oceans.
    And I thought I am crazy for talking about the channel in Nicaragua...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:55 am

    For realistic combat training & to show the flag off the coasts of friends & foes alike.

    They could get more training in the Pacific or Atlantic and there are more foes than friends in the Med right now... the only benefit from stirring them up is to make them spend money on defence, which ends up costing Russia more too, so there is no advantage there.

    Being able to sail the new northern sea route means it inspires confidence than it is navigatible and open to naval traffic, and would also deter any interference as well.

    They may also transit it on the way to the Indian Ocean to help the Pac. Fleet there.

    In a real conflict it would be too easy to bottleneck them and trap them in the Black Sea.

    In comparison, the ownership of the Kurile islands means sea access in the Pacific fleet and the gap into the north Atlantic is large and too big to effectively blockade without needing serious forces there in a non shooting situation... ie without sinking a ship the US could not stop a large Russian ship moving from the Northern Fleet to Venezuela through the GIUK gap.

    They did build Adm. K & 75% of Varyag, besides modifying the ex-Gorshkov for India.

    So that is experience isn't it?

    They wanted to build it themselves, make profit, & use the $ to build 1 for their own use, just like with Su-30s. The Sevmash is a state enterprise.

    Yeah, but even if India loved the plan and design they would still want to make it themselves...

    Su-30 was operational for decades before India put their variant together...

    It would take a few years to complete if ordered now, by then there'll be more infrastructure & escorts built; in any case, if 1 is in port/yard, it won't need escorts & they can be assigned to the 1 sailing out.

    Support vessels need upgrades and rest as well. Even if they laid down a new carrier right now it would take at the minimum of 12 years to get it into the water and ready for active duty, but those 12 years would also be needed to create the infrastructure and support ships needed to operate with that carrier... the point is that that infrastructure is useful anyway and those support ships and cruisers are useful on their own as well, so it makes rather more sense to build up your infrastructure and support ships first and then make them more useful by adding a carrier which will add long range vision with fighters and AWACS platforms, and a more effective air defence capacity.

    Some people are saying hypersonic missiles make carriers useless... the reality is that hypersonic missiles either make carriers mandatory, or surface navies useless.

    Better than to rely on just Tu-160s to "send a message"!

    Real messengers are TOPOL and Sineva and their replacements... Tu-160 is a card that can be played without showing your whole hand... they have visited Venezuela three times now to date...

    Sending a carrier... the carrier is not the message... the carrier is there to defend the message, which will be the missile armed ships and subs... the carrier is just there to protect them with air power.

    You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty. To show the flag they can send pretty much what they want, but to combat you need to have your armour complete and without holes.

    Right now, if they had more big ships they would retire older models rather than send them off for round the world tours...

    Hopefully once they get them into production they can get the tempo up... they might need to make a few for export too after all...

    A TAKR type CV is well protected w/o the need for 2 FFGs, 1 &/ a CGN which they should have ready by then will do.

    You are missing the point.... the point is not the carrier... the carrier is not the focus of the carrier group... despite it being called a carrier group... the carrier is there to protect the ships and subs in the surface group so they can do what they are supposed to be doing, whether is it supporting a landing with a helicopter carrier, or some geography redistribution via Calibre... or just humanitarian aide or an exercise with an ally in international waters.

    Black Sea is a warm sea; Tartus in the Med. Sea is good location; Yemen is not internally stable & surrounded by enemies; the same applies to Nicaragua, Cuba & Venezuela, + they r too remote. A network of bases/sites is needed there to defend it while it's in port & assist it while it's at sea.
    The USN has a forward deployed CSG in Yokosuka, Japan which is stable & surrounded by other American naval & AF bases in Japan/Okinawa, S. Korea, & Guam.

    US needs forward bases to move their forces when they attack a country nearby... ie for Japan that would be North Korea or China.

    For Russia it will be a place to go where they can stop and refuel and relax and then launch training or other missions from if they wish, but having a Russian carrier group in Venezuela right now would seriously piss the Americans off, but what could they actually do about it? Invade?

    Would Columbia invade with Russian carriers off the coast?

    Would Brazil?

    I seriously doubt it.

    1 can be home ported in Tartus & 1 in the Black Sea for year-round training.

    Tartus was a tiny repair stop for Soviet and Russian ships... they are upgrading it, but I doubt you could park aircraft carriers there... I mean they would have trouble parking carriers in the Pacific and Northern fleet because of their size and draft... they need to develop infrastructure to house them and operate them... it makes more sense to spend that money in Russia than in Syria... when they have elections Assad might be out on his arse and his replacement might be pro west for all we know... democracy is a bitch.

    Short of war with Turkey, which is highly unlikely, they'll be allowed to transit in/out for occasional deployments & repairs/refits, earning her extra $. The VMF will save more by not sailing them to the E. Med. from Kola or Vladivostok/Kamchatka. Those home ported there r best used in the Atlantic/Pacific, respectively.

    You have not explained properly why Russia needs to send a carrier group to the Med more than the Atlantic or Pacific.

    Future Russian trade growth is not going to be Europe or the US... it is going to be Asia and central and south america and africa.

    If a deep canal is built through Iran then the Caspian sea could be a future option, but I don't really see the value of having a large portion of your navy in the Black Sea supporting a carrier that needs to run the gauntlet of all those hostile EU countries.

    Besides, if the purpose is trolling NATO then the northern route means sailing past the UK all the time which must get you extra points and of course sailing past France on your way to a training exercise with those Egyptian Mistrals... Twisted Evil
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat Apr 13, 2019 4:13 pm

    So that is experience isn't it?
    Yes, & many of those engineers & workers moved to Russia since & can help with new construction.
    but I don't really see the value of having a large portion of your navy in the Black Sea supporting a carrier..
    Only 1-2 of the oldest/training TAKR/CVs there; other carriers may go for visits/repairs/substitution, if need be.
    Even if they laid down a new carrier right now it would take at the minimum of 12 years to get it into the water and ready for active duty,..
    where did that figure came from? China will build it in 2-3 years, +1 more year to outfit & get it ready in Russia. A training CV will need minimum systems compared to combat CV.
    ..when they have elections Assad might be out..
    He'll die in office, Syria won't even have Iranian style democracy.
    You have not explained properly why Russia needs to send a carrier group to the Med. more than the Atlantic or Pacific.
    I didn't imply that, only that it's closer to the Black Sea & it's more feasible to train there & deploy to/transit via the Med. to the Atlantic & Red sea/Indian ocean. The Soviet Black Sea Steamship Company & its ports got most of cargo volume handling thanks to its proximity to S. Europe, ME, S./SE Asia. I knew a few of seamen who went to India, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba & Nicaragua from Odessa. They also had most of the cruise liners, earning them hard currency. Today, the port of Novorrosiisk handles most of the commercial cargo.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Apr 14, 2019 5:41 am

    GarryB wrote:
    You will need a couple Gorshkovs at the least, rather two of them plus a 22350M, as a basic surface group, not to talk about Liders if things get really nasty. To show the flag they can send pretty much what they want, but to combat you need to have your armour complete and without holes.
    Right now, if they had more big ships they would retire older models rather than send them off for round the world tours...

    Hopefully once they get them into production they can get the tempo up... they might need to make a few for export too after all...
    True and I am aware that in the first years of the ongoing RuN "expansion" they will still struggle to make up for the Soviet vessels leaving service. But in any case with some new ships, even if scarce, they will have the capabilities to eventually deploy them according to modern combat requirements and not to embarrass themselves and put lives at risk. By now it would not make much sense to even try.

    For Russia it will be a place to go where they can stop and refuel and relax and then launch training or other missions from if they wish, but having a Russian carrier group in Venezuela right now would seriously piss the Americans off, but what could they actually do about it? Invade?

    Would Columbia invade with Russian carriers off the coast?

    Would Brazil?

    I seriously doubt it.
    Not only would not engage militarily but would probably turn to Russia in search for better deals than the ones US offers. In the current situation you need a very special kind of determination to go against US, but with a bigger Russian and Chinese footprint in the Western hemisphere many Latin American countries would really start improving their conditions and not only in a misleading macroeconomic way but evolving as real societies.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 14, 2019 7:33 am

    Yes, & many of those engineers & workers moved to Russia since & can help with new construction.

    But how many have been driving cabs in the west or in Russia because that was the job they could get to feed their families?

    Building ships has changed even since the 1980s, and materials have changed too... I don't think someone who worked an Nikolaiev in the 1980s to build carriers, or in the 2000s to convert a kiev class to a conventional STOBAR carrier has the skills to now build a brand new state of the art radical new carrier design... and while experience is a good thing sometimes new ways be be more effective and rewarding too.

    Only 1-2 of the oldest/training TAKR/CVs there; other carriers may go for visits/repairs/substitution, if need be.

    You haven't explained why they should train in the Black sea but have their operational carriers in the Northern and Pacific fleet... wouldn't it make rather more sense to train where you operate?

    A carriers life cycle means that while you can have training carriers, pretty much all carriers are training carriers too... when it first goes in to service you need to train the crew to operate it because it is not going to be the same... being a new carrier. Once they are trained to use it they use it and it is an operational carrier, but they keep training... they keep doing exercises to launch aircraft, or to fight fires or flooding or whatever... and eventually they need to put her in dry dock for replacements, maintenance and upgrades... and of course any upgrades will require the crew to be retrained to use the upgrades, plus any changes in maintenance those upgrades and changes require.

    It makes sense to have carries at the northern fleet and the pacific fleet, but little to no real sense in the black sea... the distance from the north sea fleet to the Black sea means it is a serious trip... why go to the black sea for repairs when a trip to the enormous shipyards in the pacific would be a shorter trip to better facilities to handle large ships.

    Large ship handling in the northern fleet and the Pacific fleet make sense... basing 20K ton cruisers in the north fleet and the pacific fleet make sense... basing them in the black sea... why?

    A temporary mooring in international waters in the Med would be much cheaper and easier and could be serviced from Tartus so any carrier group visit to the Med could be sent from the north sea and moored near Egypt or Algeria or whereever they want, with any support coming from Tartus or a nearby allied country...

    The rules of the entry into the black sea limits how many ships you can send through at any one time too... plus any submarine escort needs to transit into and out of the black sea on the surface so they will know exactly which subs are operating with your surface group to start with...

    where did that figure came from? China will build it in 2-3 years, +1 more year to outfit & get it ready in Russia. A training CV will need minimum systems compared to combat CV.

    WTF has china got to do with this? They don't even have a completed design that is signed off by the Russian Navy, it would take a bare minimum of 7-8 years to build... assuming there are no problems with EMALS or other features that are brand new like propulsion or main radars or S-500 SAMs, plus two-three years testing and training, and that does not even allow for problems with naval aircraft.... it will probably start with some MiG-35s as the air component until the new 5th gen light fighter is ready... whether it is STOL or STOVL.

    He'll die in office, Syria won't even have Iranian style democracy.

    If the CIA get a chance... sure... or Mossad... but either way he is not a certainty...

    I didn't imply that, only that it's closer to the Black Sea & it's more feasible to train there & deploy to/transit via the Med. to the Atlantic & Red sea/Indian ocean.

    I don't know that it is... they could go from the Northern Fleet down through the GIUK gap and be in Central America before they can sail from the Black Sea and across the med and up out passed Gibraltar to the open atlantic. How often does the Russian navy operate in Indian ocean waters?

    The Soviet Black Sea Steamship Company & its ports got most of cargo volume handling thanks to its proximity to S. Europe, ME, S./SE Asia. I knew a few of seamen who went to India, Cambodia, Vietnam, Cuba & Nicaragua from Odessa. They also had most of the cruise liners, earning them hard currency. Today, the port of Novorrosiisk handles most of the commercial of cargo.

    Apart from a few instances of piracy off Africa, why would they need such an expensive and powerful escort?

    It is more likely trips to places that piss america off that are going to need an escort... to americas back yard in central and south america... which means northern fleet and pacific fleet ports that are bigger and better able to handle and support larger ships and their support fleet ships and land based infrastructure are located.

    They have already said lots of times... their focus is in the arctic and the far east...

    Not only would not engage militarily but would probably turn to Russia in search for better deals than the ones US offers. In the current situation you need a very special kind of determination to go against US, but with a bigger Russian and Chinese footprint in the Western hemisphere many Latin American countries would really start improving their conditions and not only in a misleading macroeconomic way but evolving as real societies.

    In public they back the US... especially in organisations created by the US for them... but seriously if there was an alternative that offered real growth and progress that is not stifled by the west in general and the US in particular to prevent them becoming independent and more powerful, then I think they would jump at the chance... but until Russia can back up words with ships off their coast in a protecting and supporting role, as opposed to US ships blocking their ports and harassing their trade routes, then we can't really fully believe the things they are saying in public.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Apr 14, 2019 4:32 pm

    You haven't explained why they should train in the Black sea but have their operational carriers in the Northern and Pacific fleet... wouldn't it make rather more sense to train where you operate?
    Basic/initial training better in the BSF after NITKA, after that, pilots & deck crews will transfer to other carriers to continue their operational training.
    ..why go to the black sea for repairs when a trip to the enormous shipyards in the pacific would be a shorter trip to better facilities to handle large ships.
    A TAKR/CV in the Med. can go to the Black Sea yard & the 1 there can come down to temporary replace it from there or the NF/PF.
    The rules of the entry into the black sea limits how many ships you can send through at any one time too.
    Russia is the Black Sea nation & can send as many ships into it via the Bosporus & keep them there for as long she wants.
    ..it would take a bare minimum of 7-8 years to build..
    Several design r being worked on & I have no doubt that they could build 1 in 1/2 that time, if not sooner.
    How often does the Russian navy operate in Indian ocean waters?
    Often enough, & the frequency of transits/ops will only increase. http://tass.com/defense/1039332

    There r NF ships sailing to Tsingtao, PRC now.
    https://www.korabel.ru/news/comments/otryad_rossiyskih_korabley_i_sudov_zaydet_v_cindao.html
    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/6331233

    Apart from a few instances of piracy off Africa, why would they need such an expensive and powerful escort?
    I didn't imply that; if it's more feasible to have most of the merchant fleet in the Black Sea, it also makes sense to have at least training/light carriers there to save $ & for quicker access to Indian & Pacific Oceans, if need be.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:02 pm; edited 3 times in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:20 am

    Basic/initial training better in the BSF after NITKA, after that, pilots & deck crews will transfer to other carriers to continue their operational training.

    Why is it better?

    If the carrier is going to spend most of its time patrolling the north sea route... does it not make sense to operate it there?

    A TAKR/CV in the Med. can go to the Black Sea yard & the 1 there can come down to temporary replace it from there or the NF/PF.

    Again... why?

    If the carriers are patrolling the North Sea Route then they will be sailing it regularly and interacting with ports and air fields along the route... how much time does it need to spend in the Med?

    Moving back and forth between the Northern fleet base and the Pacific fleet base makes sense and from each of those bases they could go on longer trips to shake the icicles out of the radar antenna... but trips to the Med would be rather rare things indeed.


    Russia is the Black Sea nation & can send as many ships into it via the Bosporus & keep them there for as long she wants.

    She also needs to give advanced warning and list what is going through and when... and all subs have to travel the straights on the surface...

    Several design r being worked on & I have no doubt that they could build 1 in 1/2 that time, if not sooner.

    If they were in a desperate hurry, but then it is going to take that long to create mooring points for these new ships and the ships that will operate with them, not to mention the land based storage area for fuel and equipment and aircraft etc etc.

    What is the hurry.... high speed costs more.

    Often enough, & the frequency of transits/ops will only increase. <snip>

    There r NF ships sailing to Tsingtao, PRC now.

    There is a difference between sending a few ships for a port visit and sending a carrier group... most of the time a carrier group is not needed and it is too expensive having them operating 24/7.

    I didn't imply that; if it's more feasible to have most of the merchant fleet in the Black Sea, it also makes sense to have at least training/light carriers there to save $ & for quicker access to Indian & Pacific Oceans, if need be.

    Yeah, I think you are a bit confused.... if Somali pirates attack a Russian ship and take the crew hostage, they wont wait three weeks and then send a carrier group... they will look at what ships they have nearby and send that... by the time a carrier group had arrived it would be over...

    If naval special forces were needed they would be sent in by aircraft to a nearby friendly country or delivered by submarine.

    Right now if they had an operational carrier then they might decide to send it to Venezuela for naval exercises, but they would not send it as is where it is... they would hurry back to a Russian port and stock up for the sort of things they might need and a few small groups with a certain set of skills and then sail to Venezuela for the exercises and then stay a while...
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 884
    Points : 925
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  dino00 on Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:56 am

    I as yet don't see the interest in a Aircraft carrier but I think one that has this...

    Zirkon✓
    kalibr-M✓
    Packet✓
    Pantsir-M✓
    S-400F✓ S-500F✓
    SU-57K✓
    UAV AWACS✓
    LANDING CAPABILITY✓

    Just this pirat it's possible?


    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 3412
    Points : 3408
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Isos on Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:48 am

    dino00 wrote:I as yet don't see the interest in a Aircraft carrier 100kt = min 4 billion $ but I think one that has this...

    Zirkon✓ UKSK-M SO POSSIBLE
    kalibr-M✓ same
    Packet✓   very small system so possible to carry even 4 or 5 sets
    Pantsir-M✓ possible but tor is better
    S-400F✓ S-500F✓ take place and add a least 250 million $ to total price. Escort ship will have it so not really needed. Cheaper Shtill/buk m3 has enough range and is ARH so can deal with aircraft and missiles from far enough. Only need self protection anti air missiles.
    SU-57K✓ more likely 1 su-57 for 3 or 4 mig 29k. $$$ per aircraft
    UAV AWACS✓uav sucks. They want yak-44 type awacs that theybstill don't have. Something that will be costly and very low production numbers. Could sell some to china and india.
    LANDING CAPABILITY✓ possible

    Just this pirat  it's possible?



    A new design of the light shtorm could carry all that without being a supercarrier but will still have super capacities. With nuclear reactor it would be fine.
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 884
    Points : 925
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 31
    Location : portugal

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  dino00 on Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:57 pm

    Isos wrote:
    dino00 wrote:I as yet don't see the interest in a Aircraft carrier 100kt = min 4 billion $ but I think one that has this...

    Zirkon✓ UKSK-M SO POSSIBLE
    kalibr-M✓ same
    Packet✓   very small system so possible to carry even 4 or 5 sets
    Pantsir-M✓ possible but tor is better
    S-400F✓ S-500F✓ take place and add a least 250 million $ to total price. Escort ship will have it so not really needed. Cheaper Shtill/buk m3 has enough range and is ARH so can deal with aircraft and missiles from far enough. Only need self protection anti air missiles.
    SU-57K✓ more likely 1 su-57 for 3 or 4 mig 29k. $$$ per aircraft
    UAV AWACS✓uav sucks. They want yak-44 type awacs that theybstill don't have. Something that will be costly and very low production numbers. Could sell some to china and india.
    LANDING CAPABILITY✓ possible

    Just this pirat  it's possible?



    A new design of the light shtorm could carry all that without being a supercarrier but will still have super capacities. With nuclear reactor it would be fine.

    Nice thanks! I was in doubt between tor and pantsir, my S-500 wasn't for protecting the ship..if you know what I mean... pirat
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:04 pm

    Why is it better?
    It can be done there year round with less risks.
    If the carrier is going to spend most of its time patrolling the north sea route... does it not make sense to operate it there?
    It won't be doing that, subs & aircraft r enough.
    Again... why?
    The Zaliv shipyard is closer than those on Kola & Vladivostok, so why waste & time sending those home ported in the Med. & Black Sea there?
    Moving back and forth between the Northern fleet base and the Pacific fleet base makes sense
    They may use the NSR in an emergency but otherwise it's risky & req's icebreaker escort. U stated that they'll go on Atlantic & Pacific deployments; & that's true & fine with me. However, they may decide to have 1 forward deployed in Syria for more flexibility & as an additional training platform.
    She also needs to give advanced warning and list what is going through and when... and all subs have to travel the straights on the surface...
    They'll do that as was done before- plans r made in advance anyway.
    If they were in a desperate hurry, but then it is going to take that long to create mooring points for these new ships and the ships that will operate with them, not to mention the land based storage area for fuel and equipment and aircraft etc etc.
    It'll take less time than to build even 1/2 of all those new ships.
    They can put a few old ships/barges together, pour cement over them, & create piers that way. The Crimea, Caucasus, & the Far East have plenty of sand/dirt/rocks & old construction junk to build breakwaters, piers, etc. Light aircraft shelters similar to these can be erected in a week or 2:
    https://alaskastructures.com/portfolio-view/aviation/
    https://www.rocketsteelbuildings.com/hangars/
    https://www.farmtek.com/farm/supplies/cat1;ft_fabric_buildings;ft_airplane_hangars.html
    https://rmsteel.com/metal-building-types/aircraft-hangars/

    There is a difference between sending a few ships for a port visit and sending a carrier group... most of the time a carrier group is not needed and it is too expensive having them operating 24/7.
    True, but occasionally they'll want to go there to train in operating in the Red/Med. Sea, IO/Pac., & to substitute for each other fleet ships that for some reason can't be deployed in time in their respective AORs.
    ..if Somali pirates attack a Russian ship and take the crew hostage, they wont wait three weeks and then send a carrier group...
    It's not about such rescues; it's about geography & economy.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:57 am

    Zirkon✓
    kalibr-M✓
    Packet✓
    Pantsir-M✓
    S-400F✓ S-500F✓
    SU-57K✓
    UAV AWACS✓
    LANDING CAPABILITY✓

    I would say yes to all of those except landing capability... it will have UKSK-M launch tubes which will mean not just Zircon and Onyx, and Kalibr, but also the 91ER1 anti sub rocket delivering a torpedo to attack subs out to about 50km. Paket as standard, and Pantsir will also be present too as a replacement for Kashtan-M.

    The air defence missiles will likely be unified into a standard launcher which means perhaps UKSK-M might be adapted to carry SAMs as well as other missiles so instead of having 2-4 UKSK launch tube systems with 16-32 missiles and perhaps four Redut launcher systems with X number of missiles it will 6-8 UKSK-M launchers with a mix of these weapons... but it will probably also have TOR and Pantsir as well...

    The Kuznetsov has 12 Granit missiles plus Kashtan-M and TOR, so of course a bigger carrier will have better defences too.

    Landing capability takes up too much space and it means it needs to operate close to shore for the landing craft to carry vehicles for the landing.

    It makes rather more sense to use any capacity for aircraft and weapons, and have a couple of Mistral like ships built with helicopters and landing ships and armour and troops.

    The purpose of the fixed wing carrier is to protect the ships it operates with using the long range sight of an AWACS aircraft and the reach of air power for air defence... 4,500km range reach of Kalibr-M is plenty for any strike mission... especially when launched from a forward deployed sub like Yasen-M, and if that is not going to penetrate the air defences of the target (subsonic low flying missiles are not perfect) then you can launch a mach 9 manouvering Zircon with a range of over 1,000km from that same Yasen-M sub... why risk strike aircraft and fighter escorts... and by the time these carriers are operational they will likely have Skat or similar strike drones that could use dumb bombs and a Gefest & T avionics package to hit point targets with dumb bombs flying from safe altitudes anyway...

    It can be done there year round with less risks.

    They could base it in lake Baikal with no risks at all... as mentioned... any threat in the Med can be covered by Kinzhal and soon Zircon and of course new generation ground and air launched IRBMs...

    It won't be doing that, subs & aircraft r enough.

    They had plans for four Mistral class carriers and they were going to be based... two in the northern fleet and two in the pacific fleet and all upgrade to operate in ice... Would it not make sense for such carriers to operate with air cover and air support provided by fixed wing carriers?

    The Zaliv shipyard is closer than those on Kola & Vladivostok, so why waste & time sending those home ported in the Med. & Black Sea there?

    What has the Zaliv shipyard have to do with anything? It has only ever made Krivak Frigates for the Russian Navy...

    It makes rather more sense basing large ships like CVNs in the large ports... Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet...

    They may use the NSR in an emergency but otherwise it's risky & req's icebreaker escort.

    They are trying to promote the NSR as an alternative to traditional much longer routes via the Med and Suez canal... if they are too afraid to send their navy through what chance will they have of getting commercial companies to go through...

    However, they may decide to have 1 forward deployed in Syria for more flexibility & as an additional training platform.

    Why. If they need to send it somewhere they need to be able to fully load it with a range of state of the art equipment and munitions including naval weapons and aircraft carried weapons... how much of that will be just lying around in Syria?

    These carriers are not first responders... they will protect the rescue team... the first vessels on the scene will be subs or perhaps a cruiser... a carrier based in Syria probably wont even have a full aircraft compliment with it, let alone nukes...

    It'll take less time than to build even 1/2 of all those new ships.

    Doing everything at once would be very very expensive, and it needs to be done before the ships are ready for service.

    They can put a few old ships/barges together, pour cement over them, & create piers that way. The Crimea, Caucasus, & the Far East have plenty of sand/dirt/rocks & old construction junk to build breakwaters, piers, etc. Light aircraft shelters similar to these can be erected in a week or 2:

    Dredging out the area so large ships can be moored there is another thing... no point having a pier for a big ship if it can't operate at max weight there because the water is not deep enough... having to sail out into the harbour so they can continue to load fuel and aircraft and missiles is not a good thing...

    True, but occasionally they'll want to go there to train in operating in the Red/Med. Sea, IO/Pac., & to substitute for each other fleet ships that for some reason can't be deployed in time in their respective AORs.

    they are going to need to build a lot of big ships before they have enough spare for persistent presence is possible in the Med... and ultimately what benefit would they really achieve by having ships there?

    It's not about such rescues; it's about geography & economy.

    Well in terms of Geography there is no point in using a carrier where Russian land based missiles will be able to do the job... and with new accurate long range hypersonic missiles launched from Russia, most of the Med will be covered... it is further away that they need carriers to project force... or should I say peace and democracy...



    avatar
    Gazputin

    Posts : 73
    Points : 73
    Join date : 2019-04-07

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty carriers ?

    Post  Gazputin on Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:15 am

    why do you need carriers ?
    useless dinosaurs

    I'd be building a sort of drone you launch from a sub that just hangs up there like a "low satellite"
    as my AWACs ….

    just left it hover up there …. to cross reference with your satellites

    for sure Russia will make some multi-function "supply" ships what were they called "Surf" ?
    for regional resupply etc … tactical … not strategic

    VTOL …. seriously they are totally useless
    when you have a vertical lift engine behind the cockpit you need some "symmetry" re your rear jet engine
    so you need to move it forward in the fuselage ….
    then you have to stick your wings in between those …
    and wings not too wide as it is VTOL ….
    meanwhile you also want all your fuel around the COG of the plane too …
    oh … and lets not forget "stealth" … you need to stow your weapons internally ….
    in the same area ….
    what do you get ? something that looks like a constipated guinea pig … the F-35B
    with the aerodynamics of a housebrick ...
    an utterly useless piece of junk with so little flight range the carrier has to move in close to shore …
    and get blown out of the water ….
    ( unless you are attacking a tinpot despot sitting on oil and the USA needs to "defund dumocrassy"
    by killing 1/2 the population and sending the survivors back into the medieval era …. democratically … of course )

    anyway back to "super carriers" and "VTOL" ….
    this twaddle is exactly what the USA wants Russia to waste its money on ….
    to create civilian "discontent" … and start a "colours revolution"
    the USA wants control of the Russia arctic oil and gas …. end of story

    carriers …. VTOL ….. why do you think Yak helped Lockheed design the F-35
    its clearly based on the Yak-41 … itself an utterly useless piece of crap ….

    my "carriers" SSGNs …. hordes of them ….
    and with weird drones you can launch from them ….

    the point with all this is ….
    the USA "strategy" is they think Russia only has 20-30 yrs of "easy to get to oil and gas"

    and they think that the dumbass Russians who can't do anything like that …. as they are so "backward"

    (except resupply the ISS in 3hrs and 21min …. or land probes on Venus … )

    according to USA "Thinktanks" those same dumbasses can't figure out how to drill out horizontally from the land to access reserves under the Arctic in lieu of offshore platforms …. tricky in the Arctic

    so they want Russia to piss money up against the wall on useless crap …. to create civil unrest …

    …. Cold War 2.0 …







    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:29 am

    They could base it in lake Baikal with no risks at all... as mentioned... any threat in the Med can be covered by Kinzhal and soon Zircon and of course new generation ground and air launched IRBMs...
    "Risks" posed to inexperienced pilots/crews by the weather. Baikal is covered in thick ice most of the year & can be sailed on only in summer w/o an icebreaker. Even with it, a CV must move fast to get req'd wind over the deck, but the open water will get filled with ice fast, slowing it down.
    What has the Zaliv shipyard have to do with anything? It has only ever made Krivak Frigates for the Russian Navy..
    The drydock there can handle Adm. K & even a bigger ship. Experienced personnel can be sent there from other yards & out of retirement.
    It makes rather more sense basing large ships like CVNs in the large ports... Northern Fleet and Pacific Fleet...
    Sevastopol & Novorossiisk area ports r large enough; Adm K was anchored in the former before the BSF was divided up with Kiev.
    ..if they are too afraid to send their navy through what chance will they have of getting commercial companies to go through..
    No need to unnecessarily expose aircraft to the Arctic conditions with it's severe weather, esp. since flight ops there better conducted from land bases.
    Why. If they need to send it somewhere they need to be able to fully load it with a range of state of the art equipment and munitions including naval weapons and aircraft carried weapons... how much of that will be just lying around in Syria?
    It'll spend most of the time in the Med. Sea, if they home port it in Syria. If more sailors/pilots need training, they could also be sent there, instead of waiting their turn on Adm. K or other training CV.
    CVs can also rotate between Med. & Black Seas, with both in the BSF & none home ported in the Med.
    Dredging out the area so large ships can be moored there is another thing... no point having a pier for a big ship if it can't operate at max weight there because the water is not deep enough... having to sail out into the harbour so they can continue to load fuel and aircraft and missiles is not a good thing...
    It can be done in a few months. Aircraft r flown in after leaving port. For safety, after some disasters, explosives r usually not loaded in port, but at sea via UN/VERTREP from the ammo ships. I've seen it being done myself.
    ..they are going to need to build a lot of big ships before they have enough spare for persistent presence is possible in the Med... and ultimately what benefit would they really achieve by having ships there?
    Not necessarily; 1 TAKR/CV forward deployed in the Med. is going to be worth 2-3 CVs in the North & Pac. Fleets, as it'll be spending more time at sea resulting in more sustainability/persistence & higher state of readiness. The Med. Sea has even better weather in winter months than the Black Sea, allowing more & safer training.
    Well in terms of Geography there is no point in using a carrier where Russian land based missiles will be able to do the job...
    Surface ships in trouble spots deter intervention/aggression & perform diplomatic function; TAKRs/CVs r needed for air cover, as u pointed out. Having them there sends a clear message, so there's no doubt that Russia will be defending her interests in far away areas- no submarine or land based bombers/missiles can do so as persistently & sustainable.
    If Russia can't deploy TAKRs/CV/Ns to Atlantic/Med./Red Seas regularly &/ when needed, China certainly will to fill that vacuum; as Alexander I said, "Russia has only 2 allies: her army & navy".


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    LMFS
    LMFS

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

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  LMFS on Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:58 pm

    Gazputin wrote:why do you need carriers ?
    useless dinosaurs
    +

    anyway back to "super carriers" and "VTOL" ….
    this twaddle is exactly what the USA wants Russia to waste its money on ….
    to create civilian "discontent" … and start a "colours revolution"
    the USA wants control of the Russia arctic oil and gas  …. end  of story
    Well, actually what the West is "recommending" Russia is to give up their carriers and their blue water navy all together if possible. Like projecting power is a hard job Russia should not bother with, better leave the role of ruling the world to the colonial powers that have been doing that for 500 years. As usually, the West's stand can be summarized in "do what I say, but not what I do"

    VTOL …. seriously they are totally useless
    when you have a vertical lift engine behind the cockpit you need some "symmetry" re your rear jet engine
    so you need to move it forward in the fuselage ….
    then you have to stick your wings in between those …
    and wings not too wide as it is VTOL ….
    meanwhile you also want all your fuel around the COG of the plane too …
    oh … and lets not forget "stealth" … you need to stow your weapons internally ….
    in the same area ….
    what do you get ? something that looks like a constipated guinea pig … the F-35B
    with the aerodynamics of a housebrick ...
    This is more or less what I make out of the F-35B's layout myself too. But there is a twist here:
    an STOVL UCAV version of a STOL manned plane may substitute the space normally taken by the cockpit and place a lift fan there, allowing to bring the engine back to its normal and more optimal position, free space for the crucial dorsal fuel tanks and at the same time allow to put some weapon bays in a reasonable position close to the CoG. I hope I can send a drawing one of these days, but from the rough numbers I have done this looks fine in terms of weight distribution, reducing substantially the amount of thrust the fan should be responsible of generating, reducing its diameter / aero effects and power drain from engine's turbine. Many of the problems I see with other STOVL layouts are solved this way. The use of such STOVL drones would be normally restricted to LHDs in relatively low risk missions so the need for guidance should not be a big issue for some years until autonomous flight gains maturity.

    my "carriers" SSGNs …. hordes of them ….
    and with weird drones you can launch from them ….
    The thing with subs is that they should remain hidden until it is the time to attack, so they are not a good weapon of deterrence or to have airspace control, but to retaliate against surface and land targets. And if they launch and recover drones they will give away their position. I like the idea but the surface fleet will be developed, as for any other country. Despite all the complaints and innovative ideas, VMF seems to be keen on this and I think they are completely right.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:13 pm

    why do you need carriers ?
    useless dinosaurs

    Actually there are plenty of dinosaurs still around that survive just fine.

    Can you suggest an alternative to supplying air power for a surface group of ships?

    I'd be building a sort of drone you launch from a sub that just hangs up there like a "low satellite"
    as my AWACs ….

    just left it hover up there …. to cross reference with your satellites

    What sort of drone could operate for long periods and operate from a sub?

    Have discussed a nuclear powered airship in the past... you might want to look back on some older posts particularly on the VSTOL threads...

    VTOL …. seriously they are totally useless

    Totally agree... the Hermes 20K ton carriers and the Kiev class carriers prove they are worse than useless...

    anyway back to "super carriers" and "VTOL" ….
    this twaddle is exactly what the USA wants Russia to waste its money on ….

    I used to think that... but a carrier is not for WWIII, it is for peace time...

    Look at the US shootdown and murder of hundreds of civilians in Iranian waters in the 1980s... the US Ship that was supposed to be state of the art mistook a civilian airliner as an F-14 that was attacking it and open fire with the only weapon it had to deal with what it thought was the threat.

    If it had an aircraft carrier nearby (or indeed had not violated Iranian waters in the first place and had been somewhere else) then the situation could have been resolved in a much more civilised and less brutal and bloody way.

    In peace time you can send a few fighters out to investigate blips on a radar screen perhaps hundreds of kms away from your surface group.

    An airship AWACS makes a lot of sense but it lacks the flexibility of fixed wing fighter air power in terms of meeting and engaging an enemy threat... a detected attack by missiles or aircraft or a combination can be detected early by an AWACS platform but having fighters... especially conventional fighters unified in design with land based aircraft so they are not stupidly expensive and are capable against modern enemies, means you can go out and meet a threat further from your ships.

    Datalinks and modern communication means even if your fighters can only shoot down a dozen incoming threats it can also use its sensors to detect more stealthy objects from closer distances... information which the ships can use to engage them making them able to engage targets at greater range too.

    They enhance the sight and reach of any surface ship group... and they don't need to be enormous white elephants like the Americans make... clever design multi hull ships with wide hulls for large internal volume but reduced overall displacement... they have shown a model of ship with a displacement of 45K tons that has better internal volume and aircraft capacity than the 65K ton Kuznetsov...

    All they need is to carry a decent AWACS platform and some fixed wing fighter aircraft... and likely in the future more and more UAVs of various types.

    to create civilian "discontent" … and start a "colours revolution"
    the USA wants control of the Russia arctic oil and gas …. end of story

    They will be spending billions on new big ships so spending slightly more on maybe two new CVNs so those ships can operate safely beyond the reach of Russian land based aviation is only a minor cost.

    We are not talking about 11 carrier groups with 11 x 100Kton carriers.

    carriers …. VTOL ….. why do you think Yak helped Lockheed design the F-35
    its clearly based on the Yak-41 … itself an utterly useless piece of crap ….

    VTOL is a dead end street... a money pit, where the best you can hope for is a carrier that is too small to be useful for anything, and under performing fighters whose design is messed up so that it can hover even though in practise they never actually will because a rolling take off means more payload and more fuel, and a rolling landing means safer landing in the event of an engine failure or stall.

    so they want Russia to piss money up against the wall on useless crap …. to create civil unrest …

    But who cares what they think right?

    What Russia needs it to be able to trade with the countries of the world that are not the west, which means being able to sail their navy anywhere in the world without worry about blockades or sanctions etc... so they need a powerful navy... not a big one... but a powerful one... that means big ships for long trips and a couple of carriers to protect those ships while they are doing what they are doing.

    Having a carrier group right now sitting off the coast of Venezuela would be a useful thing for Russia and for Venezuela... not so good for the US and her henchmen wanting to plunder the country of its oil resources...

    The carrier group doesn't need to be attacking any one.... just normal exercises with ally Venezuelan Navy... or Cuba or Nicaragua... or any other country the US is currently bullying into cutting ties with Russia via economic extortion.

    Russia wont be using these carriers for WWIII, or for invading any one, but what country will trade with Russia if the US just goes in and removes Maduro from his legally election position because they trade too much with Russia and China?

    If Russia can't help potential trading partners then the US will bully everyone to not trade with them and Russia will become isolated and have to trade with the west... fuck the west.

    "Risks" posed to inexperienced pilots/crews by the weather. Baikal is covered in thick ice most of the year & can be sailed on only in summer w/o an icebreaker. Even with it, a CV must move fast to get req'd wind over the deck, but the open water will get filled with ice fast, slowing it down.

    How about the obvious... how would you get the Kuznetsov there?

    If you want to use carriers in the northern sea route... which they clearly do... how can having your only carrier in the black sea going to work and what value is there in training in the black sea for operations in the arctic?

    The drydock there can handle Adm. K & even a bigger ship. Experienced personnel can be sent there from other yards & out of retirement.

    It is not 100% Russian owned and has no experience with large military ships... the biggest military ships it has made are frigates. It mainly works on tankers...

    Sevastopol & Novorossiisk area ports r large enough; Adm K was anchored in the former before the BSF was divided up with Kiev.

    It is not a question of large enough... there is no point basing your only carrier 14,000km away from where you intend to operate it...

    No need to unnecessarily expose aircraft to the Arctic conditions with it's severe weather, esp. since flight ops there better conducted from land bases.

    Maybe they should send them up a canal to the Aral sea and beach them and that way they will be protected from sea water as well so they wont need to paint them so often...

    It'll spend most of the time in the Med. Sea, if they home port it in Syria.

    WTF would it be doing in the med? WTF would it do in Syria?

    If more sailors/pilots need training, they could also be sent there, instead of waiting their turn on Adm. K or other training CV.
    CVs can also rotate between Med. & Black Seas, with both in the BSF & none home ported in the Med.

    They only have one carrier.... it is the Admiral K.... WTF would they put any carrier in the Med for?

    During the cold war there were three sides in the Med... NATO, WARSAW PACT, and neutral... WP is gone and it is mostly hostile now... not some where that needs a Russian carrier at all.

    It can be done in a few months. Aircraft r flown in after leaving port. For safety, after some disasters, explosives r usually not loaded in port, but at sea via UN/VERTREP from the ammo ships. I've seen it being done myself.

    BUT WHY. You still haven't explained why they need a platform specifically designed to provide air cover for the Russian Navy in the Black sea or the Med?

    A carrier is not going to be sailing around all the time doing regular patrols... the carrier is a support vessel to support a surface action group that is doing something... more than half the carriers life will be in overhaul/upgrade, or just sitting in port doing nothing.

    It costs a lot of money to have them out doing things... there is a reason why only about 3 US carrier groups are operational at any one time and they have 11...

    Not necessarily; 1 TAKR/CV forward deployed in the Med. is going to be worth 2-3 CVs in the North & Pac. Fleets, as it'll be spending more time at sea resulting in more sustainability/persistence & higher state of readiness. The Med. Sea has even better weather in winter months than the Black Sea, allowing more & safer training.

    Get it through your head... Russian aircraft carriers are not for fighting NATO or for fighting the US because that means WWIII where aircraft carriers = Zero and are still expensive to buy and operate.

    What possible use is a Russian carrier in the Med?

    Surface ships in trouble spots deter intervention/aggression & perform diplomatic function;

    And in the med... why would they require air support?

    Which NATO country is stupid enough to try to sink a Russian ship?

    TAKRs/CVs r needed for air cover, as u pointed out. Having them there sends a clear message, so there's no doubt that Russia will be defending her interests in far away areas- no submarine or land based bombers/missiles can do so as persistently & sustainable.

    Air cover wont be needed in the Med... no NATO country will attack Russian surface ships because their own territory will be within range of direct missile counter attack... Air power would be redundant.

    At the bottom of the pacific or atlantic however things might be different.

    If Russia can't deploy TAKRs/CV/Ns to Atlantic/Med./Red Seas regularly &/ when needed, China certainly will to fill that vacuum; as Alexander I said, "Russia has only 2 allies: her army & navy".

    If China wants to send carriers to the Med then good luck to them.

    For Russia it makes more sense for her to expand her operations away from the west and towards Africa and Asia and Central and South America... no where near the black sea or the med.

    This is more or less what I make out of the F-35B's layout myself too. But there is a twist here:
    an STOVL UCAV version of a STOL manned plane may substitute the space normally taken by the cockpit and place a lift fan there, allowing to bring the engine back to its normal and more optimal position, free space for the crucial dorsal fuel tanks and at the same time allow to put some weapon bays in a reasonable position close to the CoG. I hope I can send a drawing one of these days, but from the rough numbers I have done this looks fine in terms of weight distribution, reducing substantially the amount of thrust the fan should be responsible of generating, reducing its diameter / aero effects and power drain from engine's turbine. Many of the problems I see with other STOVL layouts are solved this way. The use of such STOVL drones would be normally restricted to LHDs in relatively low risk missions so the need for guidance should not be a big issue for some years until autonomous flight gains maturity.

    There is no reason the front fan engine couldn't be put in front of the pilot and behind the nose mounted radar... it just makes it harder to power the fan from the main engine... or if you go with separate lift engines like the Yak-41 then you end up with hot engine exhaust ingestion stalls again...


       my "carriers" SSGNs …. hordes of them ….
       and with weird drones you can launch from them ….

    A future aircraft carrier could carry a wide range of all sorts of drones and special vehicles... a surface ship can carry bigger aircraft and not have to worry so much about surfacing or submerging...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 18, 2019 1:29 pm

    Russia sent ground troops to Syria for a low intensity war to help an ally.

    There was never any intention of going without the use of air power, so air power was critical to their plan of helping Syria.

    Where could their navy go where air power was of no use?

    Why would the navy not want to use air power to support their own operations.

    They are going to be spending big money on 20K ton cruisers... doens't it just make sense to build a ship that can provide air cover for those ships... I mean those ships will be well armed, but they sit on the sea surface and really don't have the ability to move hundreds of kms in a few hours to go out and check a blip on a radar, and it wont see enormous ranges down to sea level to spot incoming low flying threats like an AWACS aircraft would.

    The more I think about it the more I think don't bother with ship board AWACS.... go with nuclear powered airships... enormous volume for antenna of all shapes and sizes. Hang 3km long ULF cables that need to be hung vertically to communicate with Submarines at operational depths... that is hard with a Tu-142, but easy with an airship...

    A flat wing shaped airship could have enormous box shaped antennas scanning in all four cardinal points of the compass at once with enormous AESA arrays in a dozen different radar frequency ranges from Ku, X, S, L, and even longer bands...

    Nuclear power could power those radars for decades... most of the time they just listen anyway... and constant electrical supply means the easy conversion of ballast water to lifting hydrogen and back... you could optimise the airship to operate at over 20km altitude... it could have self defence missile and jamming systems... electric motors to move it around...

    You could have dozens of them operating in the border mountain areas around Russia.

    Scaled down diesel powered models for export... you could have a tethered version for border observation, or communications repeater in mountains...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 2434
    Points : 2432
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:13 pm

    How about the obvious... how would you get the Kuznetsov there?
    As I said, they could built a small training CV there.
    If you want to use carriers in the northern sea route... which they clearly do... how can having your only carrier in the black sea going to work and what value is there in training in the black sea for operations in the arctic?
    I've seen no indications that they intend to do carrier flight ops there. They had trouble in the balmy Med., the suddenly changing Arctic weather will waste more planes & pilots, even if it's ice free in summer along the NSR. They can stop hostile ships, subs & aircraft from entering it & their EEZ w/o them.
    https://iz.ru/868182/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko-bogdan-stepovoi/severnyi-morskoi-pusk-arktiku-zashchitiat-s-400-i-sistemy-pantcir-s
    https://iz.ru/839212/aleksei-ramm-aleksei-kozachenko/severnaia-migratciia-v-arktike-buden-sozdan-istrebitelnyi-aviapolk
    https://iz.ru/788383/aleksei-ramm-bogdan-stepovoi/tikhookeanskii-flot-poluchil-korabl-zvezdnykh-voin

    The Adm. K is not so good for power projection ashore ops anyway, but good enough as as a training platform.
    Maybe they should send them up a canal to the Aral sea and beach them and that way they will be protected from sea water as well so they wont need to paint them so often...
    don't be silly. There's no canal; that lake is outside of the RF & only Northern part has water now. If they annex surrounding lands, then perhaps they could build & use a small training UDK/CV there.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea#Naval_history
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25620-history-shows-that-parched-aral-sea-can-be-restored/

    It would be better to build a small training CV & use it in the Azov &/ Black Sea, were the NITKAs r; the Caspian is a poor choice as its N. part freezes in winter & the S. part has heavy ferry/fishing traffic & dozens oil wells.
    WTF would it be doing in the med? WTF would it do in Syria?
    if nothing else, train in realistic combat conditions & perhaps occasionally assist other forces.
    You still haven't explained why they need a platform specifically designed to provide air cover for the Russian Navy in the Black sea or the Med?
    I'm tired of repeating it: those r good training areas with plenty of room & showing the flag there won't hurt at all.
    What possible use is a Russian carrier in the Med?
    Ask Putin, Shoigu & the VMF that sent the Adm. K there. They wanted to learn write a book like NATOPS on how to use carriers in a different way the Soviet VMF was used to.
    Which NATO country is stupid enough to try to sink a Russian ship?
    They may want to just damage it to take it out of action. Turkey shot down their Su-24, & Israeli tactics caused the loss of the Il-22. Iran provided AshM to Hezbollah which used it to attack INS Hanit, & earlier the Egyptians sunk Eilat- their nukes weren't an effective deterrent. The USS Liberty was attacked by the IAF & EC-121 shot down by NKAF w/o any subsequent retaliation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Hanit#Attack_on_14_July_2006
    http://www.egypttoday.com/Article/2/51097/Sinking-Eilat-destroyer-%E2%80%93-50-years-on
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_EC-121_shootdown_incident#Interception_and_shoot-down
    Air cover wont be needed in the Med...
    It may be needed in the Red/Arabian Sea/Indian ocean where they can be sailing from the Med.:
    Let me refute it with ur own words:
    Look at the US shootdown and murder of hundreds of civilians in Iranian waters in the 1980s...
    If it had an aircraft carrier nearby.. then the situation could have been resolved in a much more civilised and less brutal and bloody way. In peace time you can send a few fighters out to investigate blips on a radar screen perhaps hundreds of kms away from your surface group.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:11 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : add text)
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 20857
    Points : 21411
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:29 am

    As I said, they could built a small training CV there.

    Lake Baikal?

    Have you looked at a map of that lake and know where it is?


    https://yandex.com/maps/?ll=107.228302%2C53.141433&pt=107.672986%2C53.405214&source=entity_search&spn=6.264%2C4.393&z=4

    They had trouble in the balmy Med.,

    What trouble?

    The Adm. K is not so good for power projection ashore ops anyway, but good enough as as a training platform.

    They don't need power projection ashore they are not fucking nazis like the US or France.

    The purpose of the Admiral K is defending the surface ships from enemy air power and missile attack. That is what they expect from their carriers.


    It would be better to build a small training CV & use it in the Azov &/ Black Sea, were the NITKAs r; the Caspian is a poor choice as its N. part freezes in winter & the S. part has heavy ferry/fishing traffic & dozens oil wells.

    Why on earth would they waste money building a training CV... they have a CV they can use for training as much as they want and where they want.

    They also have two land based facilities... NITKA and the base they built in the sea of Azov when they lost access to NITKA due to hostility from Kiev.

    Now they should have two land based carrier training facilities... and one operational carrier... so why waste money making a training carrier?

    if nothing else, train in realistic combat conditions & perhaps occasionally assist other forces.

    In what way realistic?

    Wouldn't sailing down the GIUK gap to Venezuela or Cuba be just as realistic?

    Or from the Pacific fleet out into the largest ocean on the planet also realistic?

    Wouldn't it take a few years to get some modern big ships in to service and if that is the case WTF would they send them to the Black Sea for?

    They are spending a lot of money on the North Sea Route and expansion east into the Arctic and far east... and with that will grow a need to expand ties and communication with the non west rest of the world... which will require visits and exercises and the like...

    I'm tired of repeating it: those r good training areas with plenty of room & showing the flag there won't hurt at all.

    Why show the flag to HATO... they don't like the flag and don't want to see it.

    They don't want to play and they don't like Russia... they wont let you in their gang because you have a new carrier... they will just photoshop lots of smoke coming out of it and pretend it is sinking all the time...

    Russian carriers should spend more time visiting Cuba and Vietnam and Venezuela and Africa and India etc etc countries that want free and open trade relations with Russia.

    Reminds me of all those stupid teen moving in the 1980s where the nerd wants to win the hot chick who only seems to like rich good looking guys... and after some silly things they end up either winning the girl, or sometimes realising that the female nerdy friend who is helping them but secretly has a crush on them can with a makeover be much hotter than the hot girl he was so fixated with for most of the film.

    The west is not the future... it is eating itself with PC... Russia has a better future dealing with China and India and other smaller poorer countries than the corrupt and immoral west despite its riches.

    Ask Putin, Shoigu & the VMF that sent the Adm. K there. They wanted to learn write a book like NATOPS on how to use carriers in a different way the Soviet VMF was used to.

    They sent it for operational testing in Syria... if Syria had not happened and Venezuela had the Civil war they could just as easily have sent it there.

    They may want to just damage it to take it out of action.

    And what platform do they have that can do that?

    Turkey shot down their Su-24, & Israeli tactics caused the loss of the Il-22.

    Turkey opened fire in an Su-24 armed with iron bombs and no air to air weapons except a 23mm cannon... firing from behind without warning there was no risk to those aircraft at all.

    How is any NATO country going to even damage a Russian ship at no risk to itself?

    Even the Corvettes have the capacity to carry long range cruise missiles and supersonic anti ship missiles... bigger vessels will be even better defended.

    Iran provided AshM to Hezbollah which used it to attack INS Hanit, & earlier the Egyptians sunk Eilat- their nukes weren't an effective deterrent.

    The juice got revenge in both cases, though not directly at the time.

    The USS Liberty was attacked by the IAF

    Which just shows you who is in control in the US.

    EC-121 shot down by NKAF w/o any subsequent retaliation:

    And the Soviets shot down plenty of US recon aircraft entering their air space during the cold war... what is your point?

    Why do you think the presence of absence of a carrier would make any difference in that case...

    And BTW the so called case of mistaken identity in the USS Liberty case suddenly ended when the Israelis intercepted a communication from a nearby US carrier saying aircraft were on the way... but I don't see what that has to do with anything we are talking about.

    Russian ships have more than two 50 cal HMGs on their decks to protect themselves with and any NATO country... no matter which one including the US would get a seriously bloody nose trying to play with a Russian ship.

    Impressing Med countries is pointless because half of them are NATO and are not impressed no matter what.

    Most of the north african ones are broken... it would make more sense to send container ships and tankers for trade than cruisers and carriers.

    It may be needed in the Red/Arabian Sea/Indian ocean where they can be sailing from the Med.:
    Let me refute it with ur own words:

    Russian ships have no need to enter Iranian waters and shoot down Iranian commercial airliners...

    Using aircraft carriers in the med would be like buying a campervan to go for holidays in the local supermarkets carpark...

    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #3 - Page 38 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:59 am