Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

PapaDragon wrote:

(Trampoline)<--wtf?

wilhelm wrote:
Seeing as it is placed next to the catapult or acceleration devices, maybe what the translation for "trampoline" really means is arresting gear or arrestors?

"трамплинbl" is more like "ski jump" device.

PapaDragon wrote:
Tech sheet for Aircraft Carrier Project 23000E. Ship's layout is different than the scale models:



http://twower.livejournal.com/1700670.html

They're all export models I would think.

Design process has only just started; MOD will have to fully flesh out its requirements and doctrine before any designs can be finalized. AFAIK, they are still in the process of all of that.

All these projects are just the design bureaus fishing for some interest and feedback among international customers.

The Russian Navy AC will be nuclear-powered, not gas-turbine, and it will be smaller and probably with a greater focus on drones; albeit nothing too experimental.
It won't have a complement of only Naval PAK-FAs as shown in these models and renders, but a mixture of Naval PAK-FAs and MiG-29Ks (eventually to be replaced by Naval Mikoyan LFMS), together with some helicopters. This would be more in line with how the Russians/Soviets have traditionally outfitted ACs.
Not sure about the mini-AWACS aircraft; they might go for drones or blimps, although it's entirely possible that they could restart the Yak-44 project.

Just overall, what we see here doesn't really look like what the Russian Navy would want.
The biggest giveaway though (apart from the 'E' designation after the project number), is the lack of a nuclear reactor.

Same I suspect with the 'Leader' destroyer project. The one we see is geared for the export market.
I suspect the actual Russian vessel will look different and be configured differently, although I can't say how.

wilhelm wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

Same I suspect with the 'Leader' destroyer project. The one we see is geared for the export market.
I suspect the actual Russian vessel will look different and be configured differently, although I can't say how.

I'd be amazed if export is on anyone's mind with regards to the Leader.
Isn't it basically a cruiser?
I've seen a displacement of 14000t mentioned, which is even larger than the big Project 1164 Slava Class.
I'm not too sure there are many countries out there that could afford such vessels.

Remember that it's the design bureau proposing this project, not a shipyard.

So perhaps they're hoping to sell the design and schematics, together with Russian weapons and equipment, to a customer that would like to build something like that in its own shipyards. India, Brazil, Argentina maybe.
If they construct it themselves, it would be an impetus to their own military naval industries.

Will the New carrier be able to fire cruise missiles?

Thanks in advance!

Ok, so there was this discussion here on RDF a couple of months ago as to why the Ru Navy did not go for nuclear propulsion in legacy aircraft carriers? Tuns out that the Kremlin made the right decision. The costs would be far greater. Recently the Yanks have realized the same

LIFE-CYCLE COSTS FOR NUCLEAR-POWERED AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ARE GREATER THAN FOR CONVENTIONALLY POWERED CARRIERS

Will the New carrier be able to fire cruise missiles?

I would think a new large Russian carrier would have at least two UKSK launchers... which means up to 16 missiles... but it might carry anti sub rockets in those tubes most of the time.

The aircraft on board the carrier could carry air launched cruise missiles and anti ship missiles if needed and pretty much every vessel in the new Russian fleet will have UKSK launchers anyway so there will be no lack of anti ship or land attack or anti sub capability.

Ok, so there was this discussion here on RDF a couple of months ago as to why the Ru Navy did not go for nuclear propulsion in legacy aircraft carriers? Tuns out that the Kremlin made the right decision. The costs would be far greater. Recently the Yanks have realized the same

With old reactors that need to be refuelled every 10-13 years the costs are rather higher, but with a modern reactor that will be able to power the vessel for its expected lifespan of 40-50 years it would probably be cheaper if you add in all the refuelling tankers that wont be needed to support your carrier... it would only need to carry aviation fuel... Equally when you don't have bases all round the world like Russia currently doesn't if a Russian carrier group has to make a dash to say southern africa then your carrier group moves only as fast as its slowest component... now with refuelling ships carrying fuel for your carrier moving at 12 knots you carrier can zip away at 35 knots for say 4,000 nautical miles but then have to sit and wait for the tanker to catch up to get fuel for the rest of the trip... or with nuclear power it can zoom all the way there...

With standardisation amongst the new vessels in the Russian Navy costs should be reduced and maintainence costs minimised as much as possible... still wont be cheap... but then having an air force isn't cheap either...

I read on the internet that the carrier will carry a mix of air defence fighters and strike aircraft.
On the model you can see mig-29k's and T-50's.

What aircraft will do what role?

PapaDragon wrote:
EDIT: this is concept art for new Indian carrier. I think that new Russian one will roughly resemble this picture.

>F-35s

Utterly disgusted.

Hope they were not planning to put on Rafales.

Honestly, if there isn't a naval FGFA on India's carriers then I am disappointed.

PapaDragon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:I read on the internet that the carrier will carry a mix of air defence fighters and strike aircraft.
On the model you can see mig-29k's and T-50's.

What aircraft will do what role?

That model we saw was just concept art from shipyard and old one at that. Nothing is decided yet and it won't be for some time.

I believe that final design will have much less ''drastic'' look...

EDIT: this is concept art for new Indian carrier. I think that new Russian one will roughly resemble this picture.

That's not true, no drawings or anything is released about INS Vishal yet.
That's how the hms queen Elizabeth would look like if they had chosen the catapult configuration.

PapaDragon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:I read on the internet that the carrier will carry a mix of air defence fighters and strike aircraft.
On the model you can see mig-29k's and T-50's.

What aircraft will do what role?

That model we saw was just concept art from shipyard and old one at that. Nothing is decided yet and it won't be for some time.

I believe that final design will have much less ''drastic'' look...

EDIT: this is concept art for new Indian carrier. I think that new Russian one will roughly resemble this picture.

That's not true, no drawings or anything is released about INS Vishal yet.
That's how the hms queen Elizabeth would look like if they had chosen the catapult configuration.

That is why I used expressions ''concept art'' and ''I think''.

Don't bite my head off for not being able to see the future, geez....

Okay??
Wasn't meant to be insulting or something.

Maybe India go kuznetsov class ?

I think old design but ok

Book. wrote:Maybe India go kuznetsov class ?

No.

There are none currently available...

Why start building now a ship design that is almost 30 years old?

Technology and time have moved on... make something better.

GarryB wrote:

Will the New carrier be able to fire cruise missiles?

I would think a new large Russian carrier would have at least two UKSK launchers... which means up to 16 missiles... but it might carry anti sub rockets in those tubes most of the time.

The aircraft on board the carrier could carry air launched cruise missiles and anti ship missiles if needed and pretty much every vessel in the new Russian fleet will have UKSK launchers anyway so there will be no lack of anti ship or land attack or anti sub capability.

Sorry if anyone has asked similar question, but I would like to ask, whether the new Russian carrier will continued to be a "cruiser with aircraft" i.e. armed to the teeth like a typical cruiser; or it will have a lower level of weapon like U.S. carriers ?

I suspect it will have a heavy SAM compliment and lots of Pantsir-SMs and gatlings all over it, but it won't likely have heavy artillery (guns).. and will likely only have defensive cruise missile armament... possibly 2-4 UKSK launchers largely armed with anti sub missiles rather than land attack cruise missiles or anti ship missiles.

I suspect it will have a role of defeating all things below water, water surface, air, and space... the latter meaning almost certainly S-500 too.

the UKSK launchers will allow subs to be attacked out to 50km or so, while aircraft will likely be used against most targets too... ie subsurface to space.

No need for any UKSK and S-500s

You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.
You want to spread them out as much as possible.

With its huge air wing, the carrier will already be the most expensive asset in the fleet. If you add more capabilities it would be at the expense of space for fixed and rotary wing aircraft; and will increase the cost and complexity.

Just have it for the aircraft, with some point-defence Pantsir systems and maybe some naval Tors.

If Russia invests the time and resources into an aircraft carrier, then rest assured that aircraft carrying will not be its main feature or prime role.

Russia needs an asset that will be viable and survivable in both tactical and strategic conflicts against world powers.

I only hope that Russia does not imitate the U.S. in the classical aircraft carrier role.

No need to give the U.S. a reason to start investing in actual anti-ship missiles instead the joke of LRASM shall suffice for them.

No need for any UKSK and S-500s

You don't want to put all your eggs in one basket.
You want to spread them out as much as possible.

You are contradicting yourself... first you say you don't need the carrier to carry eggs and then you say you don't want all your eggs in just one type of ship... you want every ship to carry some eggs.

Your latter point is of course the one they seem to be going with... instead of heavy anti ship missiles in a couple of big vessels like Kirov, Slava, and Oscar, every ship from corvette to carrier and also pretty much every sub that is not an SSBN will carry land attack, anti ship, and anti sub missiles in their standardised UKSK universal launchers... they are called universal because they will carry all new anti ship and land attack and anti sub missiles, but also because all vessels big enough to carry them will have them.

this means instead of specialised ships with specific missile loads... the Udaloy could be a multi role vessel but is equipped with subsonic anti sub missiles with a secondary anti ship role... Sovremmeny has anti ship missiles in the form of the Sunburn... the new Frigates will have twice the fire power of these destroyers and the new destroyers will have four times the fire power... the Udaloy having 8 anti sub missiles and the Sovremmeny having 8 anti ship missiles the new destroyers will have 4 UKSK launchers each with 8 tubes... so one new frigate can carry 16 anti ship missiles and 16 anti sub missiles... so the fire power of two Udaloys and two Sovremmenys... or more importantly it could carry the same firepower as one of each vessel and have 16 land attack missiles... with a range of 5,000km... which is comparable to the firepower of old SSBNs and something no Soviet surface vessel could manage.

A UKSK launcher takes up little space and could be placed almost anywhere on the new carriers... they certainly wont have dozens of launchers, but just for anti sub protection they will almost certainly have at least two... I mean if they can fit two to a corvette then they can fit two to a carrier.

In terms of the S-500, it will protect the carrier from all sorts of long range ballistic hypersonic threats... the whole point of a carrier is to extend vision and reach so it will have AWACS and it will have very large sensor arrays that smaller vessels wont be able to accommodate. the Carrier will also form the centre of the battle group... coordinating operations in defence and attack... it will certainly have naval S-400 and likely S-350 and 9M100 for self defence, and so why would the vessel most able to see long range threats not be given a weapon to deal with them? S-500 on the carrier as well as on the cruisers means more missiles available and better defence of the carriers and cruisers... which is something they need.

I would expect PAKET-EM would also be carried to defend against hostile subs and incoming torpedoes.

With its huge air wing, the carrier will already be the most expensive asset in the fleet. If you add more capabilities it would be at the expense of space for fixed and rotary wing aircraft; and will increase the cost and complexity.

It is always going to be expensive... if we translate this to the ground forces are you saying that the major air fields of the Air Force should not have S-500 because it makes them more expensive and restricts some airspace above the launchers for use by aircraft...

Carriers are going to be expensive... so why would you not protect it with your most capable long range SAM?

Just have it for the aircraft, with some point-defence Pantsir systems and maybe some naval Tors.

You mean the American approach?

The Russian Army does not rely on the Russian Air Force for air protection, and I don't think the Russian Navy will rely on the aviation component for air defence alone either. there are lots of places on a modern carrier where you can put vertical launch missiles that wont effect the capacity to carry aircraft...

No need to give the U.S. a reason to start investing in actual anti-ship missiles instead the joke of LRASM shall suffice for them.

More importantly there are some sea states and weather conditions where aircraft simply can't operate... but missiles can be launched by both sides...

the aircraft form another layer of defence and another layer of extended sight, but that is no reason to remove inner rings of protection... Frigates and Corvettes wont have the sensor range to effectively use S-500 so if you want it at sea operating effectively you need every big ship able to carry it to have it. Just as the cruise missile capability is not credible when only a few attack nuke subs have them like in the 1980s. A modern Russian fleet where every vessel can be carrying some makes the cruise missile threat rather enormous for every member of NATO including the US and Canada.

GarryB wrote:
the whole point of a carrier is to extend vision and reach so it will have AWACS and it will have very large sensor arrays that smaller vessels wont be able to accommodate. the Carrier will also form the centre of the battle group... coordinating operations in defence and attack...

Is there any possibility of a Russian Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) in future Russian carriers?