Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GarryB wrote:

The first part is right, but the communism has nothing to do with it. There are other communist countries having friendly relations with its neighbors that are also interested in commerce and cooperation.

I mentioned the absence of communism to highlight that Russia no longer has an ideology to push... they don't need to convert Taiwan or Turkey any more than they have to convert North Korea or Cuba.  They have no need to convert of change the countries they trade with... unlike the US/West.

But the communism has nothing to do with it. Do you see China trying to convert other countries? It is possible to be communits a try to convert, and it possible to be communit and to to try not. Like it is possible to be anti-communist and try to convert, and it is possible to be anti-communist and to try not.

GarryB wrote:

You really think Russia would offer to India bigger aircraft carriers than what Russia plans to have?

India was operating Su-30MKIs at a time Russia had Su-27s.

[/quote]

This is a mistake difficult to repeat. It was other time.

According to the Maritime Doctrine of 2015 Russia must have a project of aircraft carrier ready by 2020. At this point the Project 23000 is the alone known project of aircraft carrier, and is proposed with 90000 to 100000 tons. Do you expect to see other project? Based on what? I see nothing to expect a different project. Only comments of people, in many cases with a pro-Western record here, I do not agree with.

GarryB wrote:

You said some thing about why Russia would need their aircraft carriers. To escort ships and subs, for better sight with AWACS platforms, for better air warning of threats, and by economic reasons. Can you elaborate more about what is threatening these Russian ships and subs to need to be escorted? Can you elaborate more about what can threat a good sea based air warning of threats? Can you elaborate more about what can threat sea based AWACS platforms?

Can we agree that Russian subs and ships need protection from enemy air power? I mean they do carry SAMs for that purpose, but then Russian Army units have SAMs as well but the Russian forces would be better protected with the cooperation of the Air Force as well as the Army.

To have air power to support the navy you need a type of aircraft carrier. You can have big ones, medium ones or small ones. Each has advantages and problems... the big ones are capable but expensive to buy and to operate. The little ones might not be that useful for longer deployments.
My opinion is that the medium ones (ie 40-70K ton) are better than the big ones (100K ton) or the small ones (20K ton).

Of course we can agree. Russian ships and submarines need protection from the air power of their adversaries. And to have help from the Russian Aerospace Forces is positive. Even we can agree about the military concept of Aircraft Carrier as a modern and useful concept that allows to expand air coverage to areas that otherwise would have not it.

But It is necessary to elaborate more about how is projected the air power of the adversaries of Russia to put in risk the Russian ships, the Russian submarines, or the systems of sea based air warning and the sea suport to AWACS platforms. What tools make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems?

PapaDragon wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:

......

What about a smaller carrier around 70+kT, similar to the Kuz?

Kuz is roughly 50kT but something like that would make more sense, especially if it is based on other type of ship like Lider destroyer

So basically Izumo or Wasp class equivalent with nuclear propulsion (20-30kT tops)

However everyone here is obsessed with "100K or nothing" approach

Nobody gives a crap if something like that his even needed

This is precisely why people who do this for a living stay the hell away from forums

Man, i really shouldn't have used that + sign, the Kuz's reported max is about 61kT so to avoid confusion i used 70+k, which basically means a max of around 70 to 73k, my bad.

Yea, that 100k or nothing approach just feels like a trap, looking at the Kuz's size compared to the Nimitz it really doesn't seem like much deck wise.



Yes, i know this is the Chinese carrier.

Guys, i found the perfect carrier to work from, it's a carrier with a weight of 65 to 75T (max),and it's pretty close to the Kuz design.

Link

AlfaT8 wrote:.................

Yea, that 100k or nothing approach just feels like a trap, looking at the Kuz's size compared to the Nimitz it really doesn't seem like much deck wise.



Yes, i know this is the Chinese carrier.

You are right.

Had they kept industrial base for carrier construction then modified nuclear Kuznetzov would have been more than enough.

Guys, i found the perfect carrier to work from, it's a carrier with a weight of 65 to 75T (max),and it's pretty close to the Kuz design.

Problem is supposedly Ukraine sold the full design documentation (literally double digits M^3 of the original blueprints) to China

So I think unless China can be convinced to hand them over/Russian ship design companies have been heavily involved with Chinas' CV program (rumoured to be so) then new CVs will be either heavily based on K or a clean-paper (clean CAD file?) design.

I really like the style of the well known Shtorm concept but I don't see any problem with doing a fixed/modernised K.

hoom wrote:

Guys, i found the perfect carrier to work from, it's a carrier with a weight of 65 to 75T (max),and it's pretty close to the Kuz design.

Problem is supposedly Ukraine sold the full design documentation (literally double digits M^3 of the original blueprints) to China

So I think unless China can be convinced to hand them over/Russian ship design companies have been heavily involved with Chinas' CV program (rumoured to be so) then new CVs will be either heavily based on K or a clean-paper (clean CAD file?) design.

I really like the style of the well known Shtorm concept but I don't see any problem with doing a fixed/modernised K.

Well, even if China hands the blueprints over, I'm sure that they have made enough copies for themselves, so this isn't really a win-win situation.

I meant buy a digital copy off China/trade for something.

The designer of the Kuz is the Nevskoye Planning and Design Bureau, in st Petersburg.

There was same funny calculation about the cost of nuclear sub vs. super aircraft carrier.


So, based on the cost from wiki .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawolf-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Harry_S._Truman


So, the seawolf submarine is the only one comparable to the yassen class, and actualy three of it cost as much as two aircraft carrier.

So, russia can make 5-6 super carrier from the money spent onto the yassens.

You know, i notice we're doing this cost estimate game without the price of the Kuz, so does anyone have the Kuz's cost?

Also why is the Yasen (Kazan) costing as much as a Nimitz Carrier???

AlfaT8 wrote:Also why is the Yasen (Kazan) costing as much as a Nimitz Carrier???

It doesn't - this is just more fuktard "reporting" from idiots who should know better but apparently don't....

The "cost" of the Kazan is only high IF one accepts that the R&D and component manufacturing startup costs of modernising the design from the Cold War vintage Severodvinsk are bundled into her build cost, which of course is complete BS... these one-off costs needs to be spread across the whole series build, not lumped onto the lead vessel. Some moron is simply attributing project cost-to-date against the Kazan herself, not her sisters.

There is probably no way to ascertain the true cost of each hull from public data, but I'd expect each hull is significantly cheaper than a USN Virginia.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

AlfaT8 wrote:You know, i notice we're doing this cost estimate game without the price of the Kuz, so does anyone have the Kuz's cost?

Also why is the Yasen (Kazan) costing as much as a Nimitz Carrier???

Around 4 billion without her aircraft.

4.3 Billion I believe is what that soviet file said.

Is that in rubles, circa 1985?

But the communism has nothing to do with it. Do you see China trying to convert other countries? It is possible to be communits a try to convert, and it possible to be communit and to to try not. Like it is possible to be anti-communist and try to convert, and it is possible to be anti-communist and to try not.

Communism had everything to do with it... communism was bad because Russia was communist.

Now it is just bad to be Russian.

China was not bad because they were not a threat... even though they are still communist.

Communism is like religion... you are not happy unless everyone believes the same as you do.

Non communist countries don't like to deal with communist countries.

Now that Russia is not communist it has no need to convert those it deals with to its way of thinking... unlike the west.

This is a mistake difficult to repeat. It was other time.

Of course it was not a mistake... money from india and direct investment in a range of Russian technologies kept several companies viable during a very hard time. The PAK FA would be nothing like it is now without the investment into Sukhoi and other Russian companies like KRET.

According to the Maritime Doctrine of 2015 Russia must have a project of aircraft carrier ready by 2020. At this point the Project 23000 is the alone known project of aircraft carrier, and is proposed with 90000 to 100000 tons. Do you expect to see other project? Based on what? I see nothing to expect a different project. Only comments of people, in many cases with a pro-Western record here, I do not agree with.

Russia has a history of leaking the unlikely project... the one that probably wont go ahead in the hopes a foreign customer might save it. A good example of this was the Mi-28 which was revealed 5-6 years before the Ka-50 was seen in public because the Ka-50 had won the contract for Army Aviation helo to replace the Hind. OF course later requirements that added night and all weather capability meant a rematch and adoption of both the Mi-28N and Ka-52, but that is beside the point.

The best designs for a new carrier will not be revealed any time soon.

Experience from the campaign in Syria will be included but information about what they want to be able to do along with what they need to be able to do will be used to decide what they need... having a project ready by 2020 does not mean ship in the water by 2020... it means basic design finalised by 2020. There wont be anything operational before 2025-2030 at least.

What tools make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems?

Aircraft from Russian carriers will be most useful for extending the radar horizon of the group so threats can be seen earlier. It extends the reach of the group because air launched missiles fired 1,000km closer to the threat area will reach targets much faster and without revealing the location of the carrier or the ships of the group.
It also means aircraft can launch drones to enter airspace of the enemy to look for targets for ship launched cruise missiles to attack and can monitor that attack to determine if a further attack is needed. The drones could be equipped with warheads to further effect the defence systems of the target area if needed.
Equally if the enemy attacks the Russian ships air power offers a fast defence and a fast attack for reactions to enemy actions.

If Russia wants a more active role in the world, then landing food aide to Yemen will require some serious hardware to prevent intervention by third parties. Operating fighter aircraft within a SAM network provided by several ships and an AWACS aircraft is a huge deterrent even to some fairly strong air powers.

Yea, that 100k or nothing approach just feels like a trap, looking at the Kuz's size compared to the Nimitz it really doesn't seem like much deck wise.

Not much in deck area... more in hull depth.

I really like the style of the well known Shtorm concept but I don't see any problem with doing a fixed/modernised K.

The design of the kuznetsov was not something super modern and magical. If they are going to be operating a carrier for the next 50 years they might as well develop a new one from scratch that is actually modern.

There is no point basing the design on the K or the U because the new carrier will most likely be nuclear powered which means a completely different layout of components internally.

There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.


The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost to run magnitude more than a submarine.

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.


The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.
The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.
The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

Russia can build a submarine AC, perhaps.

GarryB wrote:

But the communism has nothing to do with it. Do you see China trying to convert other countries? It is possible to be communits a try to convert, and it possible to be communit and to to try not. Like it is possible to be anti-communist and try to convert, and it is possible to be anti-communist and to try not.

Communism had everything to do with it... communism was bad because Russia was communist.

Now it is just bad to be Russian.

China was not bad because they were not a threat... even though they are still communist.

Communism is like religion... you are not happy unless everyone believes the same as you do.

Non communist countries don't like to deal with communist countries.

Now that Russia is not communist it has no need to convert those it deals with to its way of thinking...  unlike the west.

This is more in your mind than in the reality, because you can not traslate this to every country that had a communist gouvernment. Then obviously the communism was and is not the reason of the hate to Russia.

GarryB wrote:

This is a mistake difficult to repeat. It was other time.

Of course it was not a mistake... money from india and direct investment in a range of Russian technologies kept several companies viable during a very hard time. The PAK FA would be nothing like it is now without the investment into Sukhoi and other Russian companies like KRET.

I do not think you can say that the current Russian technological level depends of the sale of some variant of Su-30 to India before than to Russia. But even this example is not valid because at the time Russia had before earlier variants of the Su-30. This is not the same than to offer to India aircraft carriers of 90000-100000 tons that Russia plans not to have (in your opinion).

GarryB wrote:

According to the Maritime Doctrine of 2015 Russia must have a project of aircraft carrier ready by 2020. At this point the Project 23000 is the alone known project of aircraft carrier, and is proposed with 90000 to 100000 tons. Do you expect to see other project? Based on what? I see nothing to expect a different project. Only comments of people, in many cases with a pro-Western record here, I do not agree with.

Russia has a history of leaking the unlikely project... the one that probably wont go ahead in the hopes a foreign customer might save it. A good example of this was the Mi-28 which was revealed 5-6 years before the Ka-50 was seen in public because the Ka-50 had won the contract for Army Aviation helo to replace the Hind. OF course later requirements that added night and all weather capability meant a rematch and adoption of both the Mi-28N and Ka-52, but that is beside the point.

The best designs for a new carrier will not be revealed any time soon.

Experience from the campaign in Syria will be included but information about what they want to be able to do along with what they need to be able to do will be used to decide what they need... having a project ready by 2020 does not mean ship in the water by 2020... it means basic design finalised by 2020. There wont be anything operational before 2025-2030 at least.

Russia never does it with the most advanced and the most powerful armament. Russia never would do it with the A-235, with the SS-30, with the SA-500, with the T-14 or with the Su-PAK-FA. This is a non-sense.

No-one is talking about ships in the water by 2020, even it would not be possible with the Project 23000. But a project of aircraft carrier is not something doable in 6 months or 1 year. The timeline for an alternative project of aircraft carrier is so short, every time shorter, every time less realistic.

GarryB wrote:

What tools make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems?

Aircraft from Russian carriers will be most useful for extending the radar horizon of the group so threats can be seen earlier. It extends the reach of the group because air launched missiles fired 1,000km closer to the threat area will reach targets much faster and without revealing the location of the carrier or the ships of the group.
It also means aircraft can launch drones to enter airspace of the enemy to look for targets for ship launched cruise missiles to attack and can monitor that attack to determine if a further attack is needed. The drones could be equipped with warheads to further effect the defence systems of the target area if needed.
Equally if the enemy attacks the Russian ships air power offers a fast defence and a fast attack for reactions to enemy actions.

If Russia wants a more active role in the world, then landing food aide to Yemen will require some serious hardware to prevent intervention by third parties. Operating fighter aircraft within a SAM network provided by several ships and an AWACS aircraft is a huge deterrent even to some fairly strong air powers.

You can try to evade the question, but the answer is clear. Out of the range of the air force from coastal bases, the tools what make possible to the adversaries of Russia to project their air power to put in risk Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems, are clearly the aircraft carriers of the adversaries. It means the Russian aircraft carriers must defend the Russian ships, submarines and other defense systems from the aircraft carriers of the adversaries. Then it is logical that Russia, China, and India, think about aircraft carriers of at least the same power (which means the same size). Only that makes possible to face the aircraft carriers of the adversaries in a 1 vs 1 situation. With smaller aircraft carriers the alone option is to escape (just what the US likes).

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.


The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

NO.

You compare oranges with flute music.


Again, the logic simple:

Akula = Seawolf < Yassen.


3 * Seawolf = 2 * Nimitz.

I think the above calculation is simple and easy to understand by anyone.

So, you can complain about :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $


But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.


If all three point above true , and you still think that the nimitz is not comparable to anything that is not nimitz then I suggest to visit the pokemon.com to discuss more interesting stuff than the reality.

PapaDragon wrote:

Isos wrote:

Singular_Transform wrote:There is not so much diference between the cost of a carrier and a capable attack submarine , like the akule/seawolf/yassen.
The mayor diference is the running cost, the carrier with full group/supply cost  to run magnitude more than a submarine.

An akula cost 1.6 billion $ while a "normal" carrier some 5 billion $. With modern fighters and awacs you can add at least 3 billion $. It's a big difference. For russians who have 0 experience at building carriers you can multiply by 2 these numbers for at least the first carrier.

Any carrier cost lot of money. That's a fact.

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

I believe the big word here is "currently", with all honesty as Russia's role in the global sphere becomes greater, the need for carriers will be greater as well, Syria may be just a prelude of what's to come.

Anyway, i hope they're at least building the shipyards for these future carrier, especially the new Heli carrier Project Lavina.

NO.

You compare oranges with flute music.


Again, the logic simple:

Akula = Seawolf < Yassen.


3 * Seawolf = 2 * Nimitz.

I think the above calculation is simple and easy to understand by anyone.

So, you can complain about :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $


But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.


If all three point above true , and you still think that the nimitz is not comparable to anything that is not nimitz then I suggest to visit the pokemon.com to discuss more interesting stuff than the reality.

Yassen is expensive because of corruption. The minister of defence at the time expressed concerns about its expensive price.

Akula is 1.6 billion $ while seawolf is 3 billion. Your maths are so stupid.

Nimitz is 4.6 billion $ without aircrafts. You need FIGHTERS on a carrier so you must INCLUDE the price of the planes in the price of the carrier. Lets say you need 40 fighters F-18 and 2 more awacs : 100 million for Super hornet and 200 million$ for E-2 => 4.4 billion $ +4.6 billion $ =9 billion $ PLus you need missiles and bombs for your planes.

1.6 billion $ << 9 billion $

Do you get it now ?

AlfaT8 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:.........

Precisely.

And fact remains that defense needs of Russia are currently better served by submarines than carriers.

I believe the big word here is "currently", with all honesty as Russia's role in the global sphere becomes greater, the need for carriers will be greater as well, Syria may be just a prelude of what's to come.

Anyway, i hope they're at least building the shipyards for these future carrier, especially the new Heli carrier Project Lavina.

You are right. They might become needed later and they should plan for it but in this stage submarines should be priority.

They need to stabilize production of new attack and ballistic subs and to complete overhauls of all Soviet era subs that they plan to keep in service.

Also they have to get rest of their surface fleet in order. That means getting production of new corvettes and frigates (and their derivatives) stabilized.

And you mentioned one ship class that they need now lot more than AC which is helicopter carriers and landing ships.

Add to that Lider destroyers and they already have loads of work ahead of them before getting around any carrier project. And that carrier will have to have manageable size otherwise exploitation costs will cause them huge headaches in the long run.

Submarines don't have thousands of crewmen and entire aircraft complement attached to them. Carriers do. And it all costs pretty penny. So moderation will be keyword.

Isos wrote:

NO.

You compare oranges with flute music.


Again, the logic simple:

Akula = Seawolf < Yassen.


3 * Seawolf = 2 * Nimitz.

I think the above calculation is simple and easy to understand by anyone.

So, you can complain about :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $


But if the above three is true, then you can buy two nimitz class carrier for the price of three yassen.


If all three point above true , and you still think that the nimitz is not comparable to anything that is not nimitz then I suggest to visit the pokemon.com to discuss more interesting stuff than the reality.

Yassen is expensive because of corruption. The minister of defence at the time expressed concerns about its expensive price.

Akula is 1.6 billion $ while seawolf is 3 billion. Your maths are so stupid.

Nimitz is 4.6 billion $ without aircrafts. You need FIGHTERS on a carrier so you must INCLUDE the price of the planes in the price of the carrier. Lets say you need 40 fighters F-18 and 2 more awacs : 100 million for Super hornet and 200 million$ for E-2 => 4.4 billion $ +4.6 billion $ =9 billion $ PLus you need missiles and bombs for your planes.

1.6 billion $ << 9 billion $

Do you get it now ?

So, again :
1. The yassen is not as capable as the seawolf
2. The seawolf cost wasn't 3 billion $
3. The USS Harry S. Truman cost wasn't 4.5 billion $

You said nothing about the above logic.

So, thing that I haven't said:
-I haven't said anything about the yassen price
-I haven't said anything about the akula price


However I mentioned that the running cost of carrier actually higher (way higher) than the ownership cost of submarine


The cost of carrier was established based on USA prices, and expressed as a ratio .

This ratio was carried over to the russian manufacturing.

So, again :
Are you agree about that three seawolf submarine cost as much as two nimitz carrier?

YES or NO