Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

medo wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

I fully support idea of deck capable Yak-130, and i even support limited number of them being even always present on the carriers for cheap entry training etc while on sea. And having full sized squadron on training facilities is great idea.

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.

If 48 multirole deck fighters are too expencive for you to operate, then you dont need carrier at all. Yak-130 is way, way to small, its so small that you cant even mount full sized radar on it what for would you use it on a carrier? I can understand it being used as ground based COIN aircraft. On top of everything its subsonic.



I am not sure you are aware how small Yak-130 actually is

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Mig-31BM2 Super Irbis-E wrote:

GarryB wrote:With two seater MiG-29K (MiG-29M2) there is little need for the Yaks... the MiGs can be used as trainers and also as light strike aircraft... instead of 24 MiGs and 28 Yaks... why not 50 MiGs?

Of course adding EM based cats means a few AWACS type aircraft should be added, plus a couple of transports and inflight refuelling tankers would be useful too.

they could adapt the aircraft so they can be used as a transport or a tanker depending on the mission requirements...

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

The task of such four carriers would prevent NATO no-fly zones as in Libya. At a rotation one or two carriers with 4 squadrons Mig-35K were always on the spot and any NATO could prevent deceit.

Yak130 based variants can be used at the best for deck operations training like T45 is in the US. They lack range, payload, speed to be real deck figthers. Having one squadron of them for training is legit, but them forming half of the airwing isnt very viable.

The Yak 130 has enough reach and this at a moderate load. So much more coverage can not bring in a Mig-35D / K as a two-seater. The Mig-35 is the better aircraft and with the Mig-29K, there is enough experience in the operation of aircraft carriers. Looking at the costs and possible flight hours as well as the number of bets, the Yak is the better value. A refueling probe yet and the range is no longer a big deal.

Four seasons a 48 Mig-35 is carrier for each simply too expensive.

If 48 multirole deck fighters are too expencive for you to operate, then you dont need carrier at all. Yak-130 is way, way to small, its so small that you cant even mount full sized radar on it what for would you use it on a carrier? I can understand it being used as ground based COIN aircraft. On top of everything its subsonic.



I am not sure you are aware how small Yak-130 actually is

The application profile of a carrier requires no 48 Mig-35K but cheap bombs Transporter. Four carriers are 24x Mig-35k per carrier 96 Migs total. Given again 96 Yak-130K. The costs are lower rather than 4X48 Mig-35K in about 40 percent.

A carrier would be held suited with its 24 Yak 130 off the coast of Syria. These give the 24 Mig-35K good escort and special bomb missions.

See the aircraft currently used. 12x Su-25, Su-24M 12x, 8 Su-34, 4xSu 30M and 4xSu-35s. A carrier is like a mix of Yak-130 and Mig-35th

The Yak 130 is gübstig to wait, to wait faster, more inserts can fly and is to expensive. Can the Yak 130 is not yet much so well have later still a squadron Mig-35 also will be added from the mainland.

Cost is the main reason. The Yak is much cheaper and can do a lot as well. It can also be 48 Mig-35K but the drives only unnecessary costs in the amount and by the pilots fly less.

When the primary fighter on the K was the Su-33 which does not come in a two seater version then it made sense to have two seat trainer versions of the Su-25 on board because simulations are not an acceptable substitute for learning to land on a carrier at sea... you need to do it for real in a real aircraft.

When it comes to cost a blank rifle bullet is cheaper than a standard rifle round so what you are saying is that Russian infantry should have half the ammo they carry in combat should be blanks... it is cheaper and when they need to kill someone they can load live ammo.

Like I was saying with the Su-33 as the primary fighter on the carrier you could argue that a light fighter bomber version of a Yak-130 could be an alternative to do the job of light short range attack and also as primary trainer, but with the MiG-35 it simply does not make sense to replace effective combat aircraft with shorter range slower much less capable aircraft just for training and light dumb strike roles.

Much of the time a modern carrier will be facing the air power of land based forces, which means potentially very capable air arms. The MiG-35s will be pressed even just in numbers most of the time, let alone the Yak130 which would be way out of its depth against pretty much any modern fighter or previous generation fighter.

By all means have several units at both land based carrier simulators, but at sea the flight training can be on MiGs to keep up skills.

The small amount of aviation fuel you save is just not worth the loss in capability the carrier has with a full compliment of real combat aircraft.

Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

Have they even developed a carrier capable Yak-130 yet?

Personally I would wait... they already have Su-25 based trainers... there is no point getting YAK to make a dozen Yak-130Ks only to find the next gen carriers will have EM Cats and need modifications to the Yak-130Ks... building just 12 and then redesigning them for EM cats and they wont be that cheap. especially when the Su-25s are already doing the job and two seat MiGs are able to do the job too.

Even an 20 million dollars per Yak-130 modified for carrier use and produced in relatively small numbers... that is a lot of fuel... it would be cheaper to continue using Frogfoot aircraft.

[quote="GarryB"]

Agree. Russian NAVY should buy a squadron or two of Yak-130 trainers for their Yeysk training center, where NAVY could school their own pilots, a squadron of MiG-29KUB for constant carrier pilots schooling and training and a squadron of Su-30SM for ground based naval pilots trainings. With having both fighters there, pilots could as well train their air combat skills.

Have they even developed a carrier capable Yak-130 yet?

Personally I would wait... they already have Su-25 based trainers... there is no point getting YAK to make a dozen Yak-130Ks only to find the next gen carriers will have EM Cats and need modifications to the Yak-130Ks... building just 12 and then redesigning them for EM cats and they wont be that cheap. especially when the Su-25s are already doing the job and two seat MiGs are able to do the job too.

Even an 20 million dollars per Yak-130 modified for carrier use and produced in relatively small numbers... that is a lot of fuel... it would be cheaper to continue using Frogfoot aircraft.

I didn't mention any carrier capable Yak-130 as I don't think Russian Navy need them. Navy need Yak-130 in Yeysk training center to replace old L-39 trainers for basic pilot trainings and to prepare pilots for new modern MiG-29K/KUB and Su-30SM, for what Yak-130 is far better suited than old L-39. Yeysk should become full naval aviation school and training center, where pilots will be constantly schooled and trained for navy needs.

I must say the Yak-130 is a very attractive aircraft and for the role it was designed for it is excellent.

I think an enlarged single seat model with an RD-33 like engine... perhaps uprated to 10-12 tons thrust in the form of a 5th gen engine would be an excellent little non stealthy sub 5th gen light fighter that could be designed to be upgradable with AESA radar and other new systems to make it a potent little numbers fighter bomber.... but for use on a carrier... I disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E

Sevmash as it seems is not the only place where such ships could be built. Saint Petersburg, Nakhodka and Yantar are to my knowledge working on similar constructions....

Flanky wrote:Sevmash as it seems is not the only place where such ships could be built. Saint Petersburg, Nakhodka and Yantar are to my knowledge working on similar constructions....

Aren't they building up shipyards right now to build carriers of that size which wont be done tell like past 2020?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Flanky wrote:Sevmash as it seems is not the only place where such ships could be built. Saint Petersburg, Nakhodka and Yantar are to my knowledge working on similar constructions....

Aren't they building up shipyards right now to build carriers of that size which wont be done tell like past 2020?

Zvezda shipyard is being expanded atm to be able and deal with 360m long ships with up to 260.000ish DWT in weight.

Northern Shipyard (Severnay Verf) is getting new 400m long dry dock.

Militarov wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Flanky wrote:Sevmash as it seems is not the only place where such ships could be built. Saint Petersburg, Nakhodka and Yantar are to my knowledge working on similar constructions....

Aren't they building up shipyards right now to build carriers of that size which wont be done tell like past 2020?

Zvezda shipyard is being expanded atm to be able and deal with 360m long ships with up to 260.000ish DWT in weight.  

Northern Shipyard (Severnay Verf) is getting new 400m long dry dock.

Yeah I know those but the time tabled for those shipyards to be done isn't tell like 2023 they said I believe.

I don't know of any Russian plans to build more aircraft carriers within the next 5 years... they don't have enough support vessels, and carrier group vessels to operate the carrier they have now let alone more carriers.

they wont be building new carriers till at least 2022 or later so they wont be operational till 2030 or so.

GarryB wrote:I don't know of any Russian plans to build more aircraft carriers within the next 5 years... they don't have enough support vessels, and carrier group vessels to operate the carrier they have now let alone more carriers.

they wont be building new carriers till at least 2022 or later so they wont be operational till 2030 or so.

not for 8 years at least, they don't have the support ships for the fleet and they don't have tons of other stuff they need to use a carrier battle group.

Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades. It's just not possible for a very long time, I don't wanna know how long it will take them to finish the thing once they start. going by their past projects...going to be awhile.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:I don't know of any Russian plans to build more aircraft carriers within the next 5 years... they don't have enough support vessels, and carrier group vessels to operate the carrier they have now let alone more carriers.

they wont be building new carriers till at least 2022 or later so they wont be operational till 2030 or so.

not for 8 years at least, they don't have the support ships for the fleet and they don't have tons of other stuff they need to use a carrier battle group.

Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades. It's just not possible for a very long time, I don't wanna know how long it will take them to finish the thing once they start. going by their past projects...going to be awhile.

"Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades"...Zircon wants a word with you.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

GarryB wrote:I don't know of any Russian plans to build more aircraft carriers within the next 5 years... they don't have enough support vessels, and carrier group vessels to operate the carrier they have now let alone more carriers.

they wont be building new carriers till at least 2022 or later so they wont be operational till 2030 or so.

not for 8 years at least, they don't have the support ships for the fleet and they don't have tons of other stuff they need to use a carrier battle group.

Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades. It's just not possible for a very long time, I don't wanna know how long it will take them to finish the thing once they start. going by their past projects...going to be awhile.

"Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades"...Zircon wants a word with you.

I mean in ship numbers, I like the navy has much as the next guy really do. Right now however most of their ships are old only a handful are modern.

Just facts yeah zircon will be a good missile but that won't change a fundamental problem.

No need to get all frisky guys since there is also matter of defence doctrine to take into account.

Russian Navy had lower investment for a while but there is a reason for that. Russian doctrine says nukes (sub nukes too) come first, ground troops second. Navy (surface) comes third, maybe even fourth.

US doctrine on the other hand put Navy on the top spot.

RU Navy is not expected to control the oceans, their job is to cover nuke assets and support ground component of military. Would they like aircraft carriers? Yes. Do they really need them that bad. No.

And once they do get fresh carriers they will be using them in much different way than US Navy. And they will still not be top assets in overall hierarchy.

What I am say in is apples and oranges.

Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades

Sorry, but that is just ignorant.

They have demonstrated the ability to use a corvette in the Caspian sea to hit a ground target with precision over 1,500km away... please list the British or French or American corvette able to do the same?

The only comparable navy in terms of submarines is the US Navy which falls short in areas like conventional subs for obvious reasons.

Those same corvettes are able to also carry a missile called Onyx, which is a 600km range Mach 3 anti ship missile... or the 2,500km range Kalibr in conventional and nuclear armed versions.

Can you refine what you mean by major player?

Those old obsolete vessels are still rather more powerful than many NATO vessels and only the US has ships that are comparable to many of them.

US doctrine on the other hand put Navy on the top spot.

RU Navy is not expected to control the oceans, their job is to cover nuke assets and support ground component of military. Would they like aircraft carriers? Yes. Do they really need them that bad. No.

The critical component of a US carrier group are the strike aircraft used to bomb countries... the carrier group is there to protect the carrier.

For the Russians the purpose of an aircraft carrier is to take air power with a carrier group to protect the carrier group.

It is the carrier groups purpose to sink enemy carrier groups hense the carrier carries 12 Granits, but the Kirov and Slava class cruisers carry 20 and 16 Granits respectively.

GarryB wrote:

Honestly wouldn't expect the russians navy to be a major player for at least two decades

Sorry, but that is just ignorant.

They have demonstrated the ability to use a corvette in the Caspian sea to hit a ground target with precision over 1,500km away... please list the British or French or American corvette able to do the same?

The only comparable navy in terms of submarines is the US Navy which falls short in areas like conventional subs for obvious reasons.

Those same corvettes are able to also carry a missile called Onyx, which is a 600km range Mach 3 anti ship missile... or the 2,500km range Kalibr in conventional and nuclear armed versions.

Can you refine what you mean by major player?

Those old obsolete vessels are still rather more powerful than many NATO vessels and only the US has ships that are comparable to many of them.

Has a full blue water force. The corvs are for off shore defense means and areas close to home.

On the older stuff being better then modern Nato designs, That I am not sure about I highly doubt A Sovremennyy can beat a British type 45, maybe if they modernized the Sovre as far has I know they have only repair those not update the electronics or whatever on that class of ship.