Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.

Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.

You forget that the Russian navy has giant hypnotic killer squids and telleporting claw monsters not to mention their inivisble flying sourcers and super death rays. Russian medical science can also be used to remove the alien embryo form its host safely and reliably so I don't think they will be having any xenomorph infestations.

The americans have how many carriers agian? well it doesn't matter because Russia has 87 fully loaded motherships
hiding in space and ready for the invasion.  

Oh and the energy shields how could I forget thoes they have them all around Russia

PapaDragon wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:

..................

Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

Days of naval air warfare are long over.

Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

1) Scouting

2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.

If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:

..................

Again you keep trying to apply US Naval doctrine on Russia.

Days of naval air warfare are long over.

Russian Navy will use carrier aviation for same three things that all other navies have been using them since mid 20th century:

1) Scouting

2) Bombing third world pre-industrial mountain tribes into submission

3) Geopolitical dick-waiving

Try to bring an aircraft carrier to modern naval war against anything other than a Coast Guard and you can say goodbye to entire ship and crew.

20th century is over. So is era of naval air warfare. Missiles are here.

If you would have some intention of being fair with the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015, you would be talking in this comment about non nuclear deterrence, which is the main purpose of the planned future Russian aircraft carriers, and their aircrafts.

Do not forget that the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 will come to you.

Oh yes the doctrine that states they would have more than one Gorshkov-class in service by now yet they have yet to hand the first one over to the navy.

The document that says they would have tons of other shit in service by now they failed to either commission entirely or the number they gave us.

The document that is confirmed to be a steaming load of BS has shown by the SAP.

PS when the Russians do lay down that carrier, I'll be shocked if they get it made in 15 years. Has by the time the Russians do commission a new CV many nations will be able to sink it with little hassle, since by that point missile tech will be so advanced ain't nothing anyone can do.

Age of the carrier is dead, while they still have their use against a competent force they are little more than target practice.

Yes that plan, so I got one question to ask what kind of drugs are you buying?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

eehnie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:Any costs of developing new STOVL aircraft will be immediately offset by massive savings that will be result of using much cheaper and flexible carrier vessels.

Fake, fake, fake, fake


http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


We have here some pro-US liying, like this one, but the reality emerges.

Where F-35 project voders is actually 3 planes sharing more less component base. Not to mention that PAK FA costs are around $20bln  thus with use "off shelf"   avionics (PK FA/Su 35), engines (like new NK-32), coatings and only one V/STOL configuration has to be cheaper. Who knows maybe even around half price.

No, the US developed not 3 different aircrafts, they developed 3 variants of the same aircraft. It is very different in terms of costs. It is not common to see 3 variants developed since the begin, but at same time, is rare the aircraft that has not 3 or more variants after some years of development. You have been talking repeatedly about the F-35, well, these are the costs of the program. A VTOL fighter like the F-35, that is still underperformer, will not come to Russia without cost.

In every case, we can also assume that the cost of development and construction of a new aircraft carrier in Russia will be also significantly lower for Russia. Do not think that while the development of a VTOL fighter would be cheaper in Russia, the development of aircraft carriers would stay with the costs of the US.

With reports of the Su-57 having a landing distance of around 330m on land runways, and reports of the Project 23000 having a lenght of 330m, well, I have not doubts that the Project 23000 is being designed for a comfortable use of the Su-57. Even, maybe for a comfortable use of the main variant of the Su-57.

You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.

The-thing-next-door wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

Oh so thats why you hate the idea of complete Russian millitary superiority over all enemies combined or better yet no enemies left.

The Russian miliatry is slow to modernise but when it does it will be the most powerful on the planet and no amount of your posts can change this.

Slimy westerners cannot be trusted with power so your whole idea of a "multi power world" is clearly a bad one unless it incledes their elimination.

Russia will never have complete military superiority over all enemies "combined".

Just like the US won't.

You are delusional if you believe this, utterly delusional and clearly don't know about anything.

Population, Manufacturing, GDP and many more factors come into play. What are you 10?

Russia will never be the most "powerful" ever there is no such thing. You can say "Russia is the most powerful in this area" and I may find that to be a fair statement. No country on earth will ever be number one in all areas that is just idiotic to say frankly.

If you really must say such fanboy filled garbage do it with someone who doesn't know better kid or do it with someone who believes in that kind of crap.

Peŕrier wrote:Ok, if thread had turned to SciFi novels, with Wasp able to carry a couple dozens F-35B, not to mention robocops, terminators and Alien's eggs, please be my guest.

I'll simply switch to the ignore it all mood.

No wonder since you are self elected expert above Royal Navy and Russian Navies combined  Loosing arguments that your 44' battles never return simply hurts your inner child. Ignore. Dont get hurt then. 


As for subject matter, we were talking about 2030s. Not 1940's  I dont blame you that you have never heard  

a) about Russian  plans to develop long range hypersonic missiles to fly with 12-14Ma
Jane's Commentary"

According to General-Colonel Zelin, Russia is now implementing a two-stage program for the development of hypersonic missiles. The first stage envisages the development by 2020 of a "compact operational and tactical aviation missile with a range of 1,500 km and a speed of 6 Mach"; this is the aforementioned GZUR. It should be supplemented in the next decade with weapons at a speed of M = 12, assuming a global range.

b) about Kh-50 and   GZUR of range ~ 1500km 

According to reports, GZUR is a missile with a speed of M = 6 and with a range of 1500 km in flight by altitude profile. The length of the rocket is 6 m, and the weight is about 1500 kg. As you can understand, the missile has mainly anti-ship designation.

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/profile

c) Fregat V/STOL drone  (actually kind of converti-pane)  
https://topwar.ru/115642-v-rossii-sozdan-avanproekt-bpla-srednego-klassa-fregat.html
https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54

The company "Kronstadt" created a flying model of an unmanned convertoplane "Fregat". This was in an interview with the agency RIA Novosti, the deputy general director of the company and the head of the Center for Advanced Studies Vladimir Voronov.

"Kronstadt" created a drones, which can fly in both airplane and helicopter. Due to this quality, the range of his flight is increased three-fold compared to helicopter drones, "said Voronov.

Подробнее на РБК:
https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/59818cef9a79472e5008df54


But that you have never heard hear about surveillance drones, about Arctic  importance for Russian Navy, A2/DA and discuss military matters I am a bit surprised. 

SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

It was not answer to me but please note, and almost agree but: 
With naval component  of previous SAP there were additional events of force majeure: Ukraine, low oil prices, economical crisis. This is not about inability of Russia to build ships but that first you need to rebuild economy, build shipyards and train people not to mention about engines and ship avionics.

Well live and see (hopefully) to more naval stuff in 2025 plan. Finally for something those large dockyards are now being built?

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

It was not answer to me but please note, and almost agree but: 
With naval component  of previous SAP there were additional events of force majeure: Ukraine, low oil prices, economical crisis. This is not about inability of Russia to build ships but that first you need to rebuild economy, build shipyards and train people not to mention about engines and ship avionics.

Well live and see (hopefully) to more naval stuff in 2025 plan. Finally for something those large dockyards are now being built?

I am well aware of such things however in the case of the first Gork for example none of that was a factor, it had it's engine before that started and it was faully paid for. I am willing to give them a pass on certian ships for couple of years over the engines.

However in the case of shipyards and training people they should have planned accordingly for that and they clearly didn't.

GarryB wrote:....

Indeed there is no need to repeat the same arguments from both sides. As for Iranians, apart form moral grounds,  I am sure they shoot passenger plane but didn't care or planned this (vide MH-17) .

Please note that
a) Russia cannot and in our lifetime unlikely can afford so many ACs as US. Thus every try to counter US CSG in Midway style is doomed for failure

b) Russia's doctrine focuses on sea denial not sea control and if you look currently every ship or plane is or will be platform to long-arm precision weapons. With 1500 km hypersonic antishp airborne missiles you dont really need so much AA cover by own fighters, do you?

c) there are drones for surveillance drones

d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

I am well aware of such things however in the case of the first Gork for example none of that was a factor, it had it's engine before that started and it was faully paid for. I am willing to give them a pass on certian ships for couple of years over the engines.

However in the case of shipyards and training people they should have planned accordingly for that and they clearly didn't. 

True,could be better but training personnel requires money now, not in budget planned in 5 years (aka cashflow). Uncertainty and inflation + still "money leaking " system without control and central procurement are not of much  help. It is going better but the question is :will it be fast enough?

SeigSoloyvov wrote:You are something else by all accounts the plan you speak off is based on the SAP of 2011-2020.

It assumed certain ships would be in commission by a certain date, the SAP and their "naval" doctrine go hand and hand.

The Russians have failed miserably in terms of naval when the SAP is concerned, the next phase of the SAP

shows only Super Gorks will be laid down which contradicts the plan you love to quote since that doctrine envisioned having certain ships with a certain number in the fleet by this point

Long story short you have some mental damage to your head and at this point, I suggest you seek mental help.

I could give a rats ass what kind of Navy the Russians build (fact is they cannot afford a remotely big one). In fact if you knew me you would know I believe in a multi-power world.

ETC a world where all major powers are equal offset each other.

So keep believing that silly 2015 plan is reality because it's not and you are legit the only one here who thinks that they are still holding true it. Also pal we wll know they will eventually build a new CV however that won't be tell close to 2030 and THEN you gotta wait around 15 years for them to make the dam thing and 15 years is me being generous.

Going on 12 years and they still don't have a single Gorshkov commissioned, I cannot imagine how bad a CV will be for them. Let alone a 100k one IF they decide to build that

First the Russian Maritime Doctrine of 2015 is a document of superior range than the State Armament Program.

As consequence, the State Armament Program 2011-2020 was under the Russian maritime doctrine of 2000/2001 in the refered to the Russian Navy, and the State Armament Program 2018-2025(27) is under the Russian Military Doctrine of 2015 in the refered to the Russian Navy.

And as consequence, the rest of what you said is totally wrong and ridiculous. You have still many things to learn as US "soldier" in Syria.

Happy New Year everyone, just gonna drops some replies before returning to bed where I belong ATM      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:................
d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.
.................

And coincidently, look what is happening in the Pacific even as we speak. Someone must have thought of this before me...or was it the other way around?  


Amphibious Ships Transformed Into Aircraft Carriers Debut in Asia-Pacific

http://defense-update.com/20171231_lhd_with_f35.html

...Last week it was announced that South Korea considers buying additional 26 F-35s, in addition to the 40 they already ordered. Six of those 26 are likely to be F-35B STOVL variants, that will be able to operable from the Marado – the Korean Navy second Dokdo class assault ship currently under construction. This 14,000 ton vessel can be modified through the remaining construction phase, to operate F-35s as it is commissioned around 2020. Korea expects to begin deploying the first F-35As in 2018, and all 40 planes are slated for delivery by 2021 and open to receive the second batch of 20-26 starting in 2023.

Japan is also evaluating the possibility to deploy F-35B on naval vessels, specifically, the 20,000 ton Izumo Class helicopter carriers Izumo (JS183) and Kaga (JS184). The size of the Japanese ships is 30 ft (nine meters) shorter than the wasp (814 vs 844 ft – 257 vs 248 meters), This will practically transform Izumo into an aircraft carrier with limited offensive capability....

Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  

@papadragon Yeah but russia doesn't have this type of ship nor the aircraft. Unless if they manage to put a yak on a modified tarentul boat

Isos wrote:@papadragon Yeah but russia doesn't have this type of ship nor the aircraft. Unless if they manage to put a yak on a modified tarentul boat

Compared to eehenie's Shtorm-class supercarrier (that is supposedly​ under construction already at secret Santa-Clausinsk shipyards in Arctic) Russia will actually be getting LHDs and STOVL aircraft at some point in the future.

So putting those two together would be reasonable course of action.

PapaDragon wrote:



Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  

WOW, a total six aircrafts for Dokdo, a 18.000 tons ship, and likely a little more for Izumo, a 27.000 tons ship.

No doubt, wouldn't the F-35B developement being paid for by USA et others, Japan and South Korea would have developed their owns STOVL top-of-the-line aircrafts.

Maybe not?

Russia has not a viable, ready and competitive STOVL aircrafts, and numbers would never justify such a developement, while has already competitive aircrafts needing only the right kind of ship.

And anyway, Dokdo is and will be nothing more than a token navale aviation asset.

Izumo would be some more credible tool, just enough to provide self protection around the clock.

And Izumo is not, in any way, an amphibious ship.

WOW, a total six aircrafts for Dokdo, a 18.000 tons ship, and likely a little more for Izumo, a 27.000 tons ship.

Well, they can do the same ship but using mig29k and a ski jump and some wires to stop it at landing. The mig doesn't need catapults or expensive technology, just need to design the ship like a small carrier with a recovery aera and the ski jump.

PapaDragon wrote:
Happy New Year everyone, just gonna drops some replies before returning to bed where I belong ATM      

GunshipDemocracy wrote:................
d) 3 tasks already mentioned earlier onby PapaDragon small universal  LHD/ACs/ASW helicopter AC with 18-24 V/STOL fighters is more then enough.
.................

And coincidently, look what is happening in the Pacific even as we speak. Someone must have thought of this before me...or was it the other way around?  


Amphibious Ships Transformed Into Aircraft Carriers Debut in Asia-Pacific

http://defense-update.com/20171231_lhd_with_f35.html

They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did.

PapaDragon wrote:
Dokdo and Izumo as aircraft carriers with STOVL air wing, I wonder who was talking about that on this very forum for a while now...  

Ohhhhh Thank you for mentioning me again  :@:To me the choice is obvious: you got 3 ships in price of 1.
Very positive IMHO surprise would be if Russians add more UKSK-Ms to make it true TAKR ... not like LHD/AC. But we ll have to live to see it yet





and below vertical take off and landing of F-35b. For all folks this is basic carrier model for Royal Navy and USMC




and here STOVL action looks like  simulation of AC operations

Well, they can do the same ship but using mig29k and a ski jump and some wires to stop it at landing. The mig doesn't need catapults or expensive technology, just need to design the ship like a small carrier with a recovery aera and the ski jump.

That's not the point.

Adding an angled deck means adding an angled deck lonng enough and able to withstand landings, plus having arrestor gears.

By all past experiences, under 30.000+ tons it isn't possible to design a flat top equipped with an angled deck able to let 18+ tons aircrafts land on it.

Charles de Gaulle is probably the smallest size a modern carrier could be, and it has nuclear propulsion, which usually has a fairly small footprint compared to the propulsive power generated.

With facilities devoted to amphibious operations, the 37.000 tons of Charles de Gaulle would be far less than ideal.

Reality is, the characteristics are dictated by Phisics, and an angled deck alone require a good tonnage in displacements by itself.

A Wasp would easily top the 50.000 tons mark, if it had an angled deck added.

I am higly skeptical about Russia building a 100.000 tons vessel, it would be really an overshot and of doubtful fit within the actual and foreseeble force structure of the russian Navy.

But I am far more than skeptikal about the chances an LHD could turn into an aircraft carrier, the more so if requiring an angled deck.

A carrier has to be purpose designed and built, and require its own internal facilities and spaces.

And it needs a decent displacement just to act as a carrier, without much more roles to play.

So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

#1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
#2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm. By Western, I mean the U.S so it's a very weak reason but hey.... can't think of many that would make sense. The points put forth by people in favor are weak as hell in my opinion.

No brainer to just develop Shtorm and put navalized Pak-fa's/Navalized Su-35s or 34's in it. Save the money (R&D) AND time (10 years least on that engine). Not to mention, capabilities will be maximized in that combo config, not constrained.

4 Shtorms would be ideal. But b4 all of that, Russia should bulk up on destroyers.

PapaDragon wrote:

....They didnt read  Perriers, Eehneis posts damn. Neither Royal Navy did....

Pathetic fools are they not?

But then again even likes of Nelson, Ushakov and Nimitz pale in comparison to pure naval genius of Grand Admirals eehenia and Perrier don't they?

we, we might disagree with both eehnie and perrier, sometimes fairly strong   but there is no reason to call them bad names.

Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

How much should cost? how can I or anybody here possibly know? We do not know who is sponsoring, what should be characteristics or tasks to fulfill.  Since F-18, F-35 or Yak-141 didn't pass 2Ma mark possibly this one also will not have need to.  PAK FA cost is about $20BLN so this one should be less.   

I'd also presume that deal with Arab Emirates can offset this costs by nice part.  This fighter if build probably replaces MiG-29 class and be for export to. 


My educated guess is that technically it will be something like F-35 , possibly less stealth but with better flight characteristics. To keep costs down usage of NK-32, PAK-FA avionics or coatings would greatly help.

ATLASCUB wrote:2 reasons why this aircraft will be ordered:

#1: Keep a design bureau afloat, either YAK/MIG aka nepotism with Russian tax payer money.
#2: Keep up with Western development of single-engine VTOL aircraft which can spill over to the drone development realm....

#3 and most important one: someone else is paying for it and Navy is taking a chance for a free ride just like with MiG-29K on Indian dime

Peŕrier wrote:So, just to cure my own ignorance, how much could/should cost the development of a new russian STOVL aircraft?

Very approssimate guess-stimations will be welcome as well.

Please, don't be shy and put some number forward.

I am sure that it is so super very much money and that exact amount is listed somewhere in Russian Naval Doctrine of 2015 as an argument not to develop it

If only we had someone to post a copy of that document here, so many questions would be answered...