Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Of course comparing 80 teh with 2020s western makes little sense. Same as you'd compare western 80s AWACS against Su-57 /R-37M

Su-57 developed is finished it will enter service very soon and r-37M is supposed to be used by it. So it makes sense to compare it to actual AWACS used by NATO.

You said no future tech just existing. French wiki says 100kmtracking/80km engagement. Why do you assume that Ka-31 would not fly over Kuz w.o escort?

Rafales are geting their new radars. What wiki says is for older pesa radar. You should look fir more soyrces than only wiki.

how do you know they wont be detected? Syrian S-300 proves otherwise. Did Rafale ever fight against technologically advanced opponent? never heard about it.

Not be detected by ka-31 radars. S-300 are sitting ducks once you know where they are. You either launch cruise missile or anti ship missiles in this case from safe distance or don't go in their engagement zones.

Like I said if you only use it above your fleet, then it's ok (even if they should prove that it can track reduced rcs nmissiles...).

But if you want to use it against f-35 or rafales a little bit farther of your fleet and coordinate flankers it won't help. First because its radar is old and then because it's an helicopter.

A drone will face hard jaming on its communication, radars, hacking attempts ... a human factor is needed to coordinate all that. And it is also slow.

BTW syrian s-300 proved nothing.

m not sure hat is ship-borne "real" AWACS? Besides US and French (US built) remaining navies use AEW on helo platform. And C on ship. If we take a look on history ti is concept form IIWW. Refined by 50years and now virtually reached its peak. Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.

They use helo instead of real awacs because they don't have the money for real carrier and real awacs. India is already looking for naval awacs for its future carrier. China will probably try to buy yak-44 data. Russia if they choose something like shtorm will make a brand new yak-44.

Again, your ships witg S-400/500 don't exists. The only one could be Nakhimov.

All talk of the new carriers includes mention of being able to engage targets underwater, on the sea surface, on land, in the air, and in space... so why would they fit S-500 and not fit S-400 as well?

Rif is no longer made and like Granit and Vulkan will need to be replaced for new cruisers.

Fort-M could engage at 250km away but there are only 48 missile on only PtG.

Rif and Rif-M are the same physical size as the new 400km range S-400 missiles, it is only a matter of time before they are put in service... even just because there are no older missiles in production any more.

Just like you I said a ka-31 above your fleet is good.

It is not ideal, but certainly better than nothing.

But as an awacs to coordinate flankers against f-35 or rafales, it's useless. Those fighters can fly at 10km altitude at mach 1 and launch their AAM at max range easily without being detected.

Its purpose is not AWACS... it is AEW. An enemy fighter flying at 10km altitude will be detected by ship radar 400km away and Flankers can be vectored to intercept them easily enough.

The purpose of the Ka-31... now actually called Ka-35 BTW, is to detect small low flying threats on land or at sea.... something ship radar has problems because of the horizon...

Im nto sure if with decentralizes drones, sensor fusion and first of all netcentric warfare you need existing AWACS. It would be like cavalry among mechanized troops.

In certain environments modern cavalry still makes no sense but soldiers on horseback can be vastly more mobile and carry more kit than those on foot.

I agree helos are not perfect platforms due to ceiling and duration. Drones are much better.

A drone helicopter would have all the same issues that helicopters have.... a fixed wing aircraft is the best solution... whether it is manned or unmanned is a matter of debate still, but fixed wing or airship both make a lot of sense... yet at the end of the day a helicopter can work where nothing else works like the current Russian Navy as they have no catapults.

meh crosswind not necessarily helps, size antenna cannot be

There are enormous radars for the S-300 family systems that have a flat panel radar array that folds... at the moment the Ka-31/35 has a tail assembly for stability in forward flight... a radar antenna array could be designed to open out backwards and act as a stabiliser in forward flight too...

I mean if they can get two sets of coaxial 3 bladed main rotor blades to fold back into a nice tidy small space I am sure they could do the same with a flat radar antenna.

extended comparing to ship true. But unless you have OTH radar - radar horizon is for everybody. And this depends on ceiling...

Ka-31 has an operational ceiling of 3.5km, but with the new engines Klimov is now making for their helos (Hokum and Havoc) it should be able to improve that quite a bit... they are looking for low flying threats... not ICBMs coming over the north pole...

But why?!

Imagine a surface action group where ships are operating together a few kms apart... to give them freedom of manouver and ability to defend themselves without having to worry about hitting a friendly.... you would normally have a few smaller ships operating out further... in a sort of Picket role... having to keep your AEW orbiting your carrier gives away its position... whereever you want your AEW helo to operate you can post a ship there to support it... ie a place to land if there is a problem and a place to refuel when needed... when it is refuelling it is not looking, so when it lands to refuel another Ka-31 can take off from any other ship with a helo pad and take over its duties.

The alternative is having your helo fly 10-20 or more kms to its area where it will search for threats and then fly back to refuel... rather less efficient.

Of course you could be rather smart and have a small towable barge loaded with enormous amounts of aviation fuel that the Ka-31 could tow to where it is going to operate... so when it runs low on fuel it can descend from 3km altitude and connect up to the barge and refuel and then climb back up and resume operations...

As long as you can lauch HALE form your ships it would be a good idea. Or airship ;-)

If it is inflight refuelling capable you could pretty much launch it from land when the carrier group leaves Russian waters and then launch aircraft to keep it refuelled all the way... but I agree an airship would also be valuable... it could hover over an area for long periods... in fact you could use the trade winds to move it without using any energy at all...

Rafales are geting their new radars.

Russian cruisers will be getting upgrades and new cruisers will be built...

Not be detected by ka-31 radars.

Says who?

The radar antenna on the Ka-31 is 6 metres across... do you think it might do a better job than a little fighter aircraft radar less than 1 metre across?

It is intended for tracking anti ship missiles like Harpoon... Harpoon is a very small target when it is heading towards you...

S-300 are sitting ducks once you know where they are. You either launch cruise missile or anti ship missiles in this case from safe distance or don't go in their engagement zones.

Impressed by your confidence... you should tell the Israelis what a bunch of pussies they are getting all upset about S-300s in Syria...

If you don't go in their engagement zone they they have done their job well.

Like I said if you only use it above your fleet, then it's ok (even if they should prove that it can track reduced rcs nmissiles...).

When was the last time an AEW aircraft led an attack on anything anywhere?

Its job is to look out for low flying attacking threats so the ships can be ready when the threat pops up over the horizon.

But if you want to use it against f-35 or rafales a little bit farther of your fleet and coordinate flankers it won't help. First because its radar is old and then because it's an helicopter.

How old and crappy do you think the radar on the Ka-31 is?

Why do you think they would bother with it if it couldn't even detect aircraft let alone munitions?

A drone will face hard jaming on its communication, radars, hacking attempts ... a human factor is needed to coordinate all that. And it is also slow.

Jamming is related to distance... jamming from closer is more effective, but a jammer is an emitter and therefore a target for anti jamming missiles.... they might not have super long range S-300 or S-400 missiles on ships yet but Su-33s with R-27E missiles have excellent reach...

BTW syrian s-300 proved nothing.

Russia sent S-300s to Syria for use under Syrian control and all of a sudden all operational F-35s are grounded because of a fuel line problem... yeah... nothing proved...

They use helo instead of real awacs because they don't have the money for real carrier and real awacs.

They have a real carrier, what they lack is catapult technology, which they are working on right now...

So we think the same about the role of ka-31

Russia sent S-300s to Syria for use under Syrian control and all of a sudden all operational F-35s are grounded because of a fuel line problem... yeah... nothing proved...

They were grounded because of the crash of one f-35 in usa. It's a common attitude to all air forces. When an indian su-30 crashes all the air forces with su-30 will be concerned and will wait for conclusions. Because those things cost more or less than 100 million $.

Without the sukhois and russians there, israeli would take care of them really fast. That's why russians are operating it.

All talk of the new carriers includes mention of being able to engage targets underwater, on the sea surface, on land, in the air, and in space... so why would they fit S-500 and not fit S-400 as well?

Talks. Your carrier doesn't even exist on paper. Now they have the K with old ka-31 and its old radar. USA and other nations are putting f-35 on their carriers now. That's the reality.

Russian cruisers will be getting upgrades and new cruisers will be built...

...

Says who?

The radar antenna on the Ka-31 is 6 metres across... do you think it might do a better job than a little fighter aircraft radar less than 1 metre across?

It is intended for tracking anti ship missiles like Harpoon... Harpoon is a very small target when it is heading towards you...

They are building small corvettes and missile boats. Gorshkov construction is slow. Upgrading nakhimov takes as long as building a new one (by russian and not soviet standards).

Rafales are changing their radars like now. They go from a radar that can see 90km away to something that can see 200km away fighters. It's better than your ka-31.

https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/ wrote:the surveillance range against a fighter aircraft size target is up to 150km

Fighter size target is 3-5m2. F-35 is less than 1m2 and rafale is ~1m2 when loaded with air to air. So yeah it sucks against new threats. New anti ship missiles are also stealthier than the older one it was designed to deal with, it will pick them too late.

Why do you think they would bother with it if it couldn't even detect aircraft let alone munitions?

They can't have anything better. Yak-44 was not finished. China and india are looking for catapult equiped carrier with new real awacs. For their Kuznetsov they need an upgraded ka-31 or a new yak 44.

People need to remember that:
a) Russia does not need to project its power like the US does
b) Russia's Naval building capabilities were greatly affected by the fall of the soviet union
c) In line with point a) VTOL is not necessary; and in addition to that would require a complicated design to which would not be for the best interest
d) In line with point B) Delay/No information about Russia building the Lider Destroyer & Shtorm Carrier
e) Even if Russia does plan to develop the Shtorm carrier (Very costly) It would use non-VTOL aircraft.

In regards to the last posts;

It is correct that when an incident happens with a plane/helicopter; that plane/helicopter is grounded until the cause is found.
It is also correct to say that without the Russian presence in Syria; Israel and its allies would be running rampant (With addition that a black flag would be waving in Damascus)

Ka-31 is still a capable helicopter in the sense that it can be used for anti-submarine warfare. While it's original role was AWAC; it should be noted that the size,range and frequency of a radar affects the design of the helicopter. If a Ka-31 wants to mount an aircraft's radar (e.g Those used on Mig-31's) its frame cannot support it, Unless modifications are made to which requires R&D and money.

However I do want to add that it is easier to develop radar technology than stealth.


S-500 is set to replace the S-300s. S-400's are in-fact a variant of many from the S-300 family; which you could say performs a different role from S-300s (Due to missiles used)

Borschty wrote:a) Russia does not need to project its power like the US does

Right, they should let the US make Libya out of Syria and bring Ukraine to NATO.

People on Balancer and in Russia often get idealistic about Russian non-interfering in world affairs. But somebody has to be world cup, so things like genocide in Sri Lanka or Uganda don't happen. The question is thus not IF, but WHEN and WHO. There's quite big need for Russian power projection, as people need protection against US chaos-bringing troops.

Regarding poor capabilities - shipments of Russian cutting edge weaponry could be enough. Iran prevented Houthi defeat this way and N. Vietnam won this way, too.

Borschty wrote:b) Russia's Naval building capabilities were greatly affected by the fall of the soviet union

You're saying this in the year when first ships in classes Gorshkov, Ivan Gren, Karakurt, Yasen M, Borei A were/will be soon commisioned.

Borschty wrote:d) In line with point B) Delay/No information about Russia building the Lider Destroyer & Shtorm Carrier

Super Gorshkov has got a priority over Lider. To be laid down in 2019/20. 8000 tonn destroyer with 100 Kalibrs etc. makes Russia do pretty much whatever they want.

Borschty wrote:e) Even if Russia does plan to develop the Shtorm carrier (Very costly) It would use non-VTOL aircraft.

2-CV Russian navy sounds sci-fi because that's what it is. Modernised Kuznetsov can sail into 2040s, by then major part of naval reconstruction will be over and funds for supercarriers can be released.

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Right, they should let the US make Libya out of Syria and bring Ukraine to NATO.

People on Balancer and in Russia often get idealistic about Russian non-interfering in world affairs. But somebody has to be world cup, so things like genocide in Sri Lanka or Uganda don't happen. The question is thus not IF, but WHEN and WHO. There's quite big need for Russian power projection, as people need protection against US chaos-bringing troops.

Regarding poor capabilities - shipments of Russian cutting edge weaponry could be enough. Iran prevented Houthi defeat this way and N. Vietnam won this way, too.

Well if you think about it in terms of how Russia got involved in Syria; It did not project it like it does like the US flexing its might. It simply used the narrative that it was invited. With Libya it is the same. Russia wouldn't step in unless invited and doesnt use false pretexts (as from what Ive seen it plays by the book).

Do I think Russia should project power? Sure; but not globally and not like the US by force.

I also want to add that Russia itself is already outnumbered in terms of population and density. The population of Russia is 140 Million and the US is 300million; adding in NATO allies that might as well bring it up to about approx. 500mil? (Or more? Just making estimates).

We shouldn't forget that China is on the playing table too; whether its helping out via Silk Road Policy on its own region.

You are correct about the shipments of Russian cutting edge weaponry; it does act as a deterrent/advantage to those who need it (recent example being Syria).

verkhoturye51 wrote:
You're saying this in the year when first ships in classes Gorshkov, Ivan Gren, Karakurt, Yasen M, Borei A were/will be soon commissioned.

In terms of design and such that's an area Russia is still fine. However what I mean is the facilities to build them. When you compare the number of ships or the time it takes to build them Russia is still lacking in this area. Probably not technologically, just in facilities/infrastructure and personnel which affect the speed of modernization/retrofitting (As a personal taste I want to see another Kirov-Class Battle-cruiser out at sea).


As for everything else that you've answered; I agree. I believe the frigates, submarines and corvettes are enough with the addition to their modern weaponry.

Borschty wrote:but not globally and not like the US by force.

The world is getting smaller and you can set western presidents sitting in your chair in St. Petersburg. If Russia has interests in distant Venezuela, they should be protected if finances aren't a problem, also for humanitarian reasons. Letting CIA break a country by force means ruining future of many generations.

Borschty wrote:I also want to add that Russia itself is already outnumbered in terms of population and density.

China is slowly allying with Russia, besides Valery Gerasimov said: assymetrical warfare. If Russian 50-man Karakurt can Kalibr-down 300-man Arleigh Burke, there's no reason to worry.

Borschty wrote:As a personal taste I want to see another Kirov-Class Battle-cruiser out at sea).

Kirov cruisers are inheritance of 1960s Gorshkov's defensive ideology of denying access to CSGs. With corvettes and frigates taking care of that today, the need for cruisers is much smaller. Russia should focus on amphibious ships, like helicopter carriers Priboy/Lavina, in case heads in the west get hot again and they try to change future pro-Russian Haftar's regime in Libya or elsewhere.

So, to get back to the topic, 5-10 VTOLs instead of 12 helicopters would bring immense added value to LHD Priboys. And those ships should cost just 0,6 bn for 23.000 tons with 5 years to build. You could make 8 instead of a 5 bn CVN. You don't need many fighters to wage a war - how many operated in Hmeymim?

verkhoturye51 wrote:

Borschty wrote:but not globally and not like the US by force.

The world is getting smaller and you can set western presidents sitting in your chair in St. Petersburg. If Russia has interests in distant Venezuela, they should be protected if finances aren't a problem, also for humanitarian reasons. Letting CIA break a country by force means ruining future of many generations.

Depending on the interests of Russia itself and the request of the government I'm sure Russia would help; but if they don't ask then they don't get anything (Generally) I'm sure somewhere there might be some puppeteer action happening but in general Russia won't but into domestic affairs of a country unless asked to do so. The only way for a Western President to be set on the chair of St. Petersburg would be the next election it won't be by force; whether Russia will have another Yeltsin is yet to be decided.

It is also true that the capabilities of Russia and its new ships can handle the role of the Kirov.

If you put in that sense; yes it would make sense to have VTOL aircraft instead of helicopters; but at the same time it depends on the role they'll perform. Will it be similar to that of the F-35? or would it perform more specific role such as short-ranged fighter or a bombing/Close-Air Support role (To which KA-52 is capable of doing - Close air support anyway).

Additionally it also depends on how the LHD Priboys are gonna be designed; whether its gonna be similar to that of the Kuznetsov (I.E It can defend itself) or more towards the western style (Requires an escort of several ships)

Without the sukhois and russians there, israeli would take care of them really fast. That's why russians are operating it.

So why would the Syrians even ask for the system if it can only be used effectively by Russians?

Without the Russians there the Iranians would have to take a more aggressive stance and might send aircraft and SAMs to the area... they might as well... it makes more sense for them to fight Israel from Syria than from Iran when they have destroyed Syria.

Talks. Your carrier doesn't even exist on paper. Now they have the K with old ka-31 and its old radar. USA and other nations are putting f-35 on their carriers now. That's the reality.

The thread is about aircraft development for the Russian navy... why would we ignore developments the navy intends.

Who cares what the US is doing with their carriers now... take that to the "America is so wonderful and they can do no wrong and everyone should do what they say" thread.

Even right now the SAM systems on the currently available Kirov class cruisers are based on the S-300 system. Their newer ships have Poliment/Redut, which is S-350, which uses technology from the S-400 system that the F-35s of the future are afraid of right now.

Rafales are changing their radars like now. They go from a radar that can see 90km away to something that can see 200km away fighters. It's better than your ka-31.

The only Navy with Rafales in service is France... do you think a conflict between Russia and France will be decided by aircraft carriers?

Rafales are changing their radars like now. They go from a radar that can see 90km away to something that can see 200km away fighters. It's better than your ka-31.

Are you an idiot?

A Rafale detecting the Ka-31 at 90km? at 200km? The Ka-31 will be operating a radar... a Rafale will probably detect the Ka-31 at 1,000km... who cares?

The ships the Ka-31 is operating above have all sorts of ESM and EW equipment and that Rafale will need to get past the SAM defences of a half a dozen ships to take down that Ka-31... and even if it manages to do that the second Ka-31 gets airborne and the ships start launching Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles at the nearest French ships until France says sorry...

Fighter size target is 3-5m2. F-35 is less than 1m2 and rafale is ~1m2 when loaded with air to air. So yeah it sucks against new threats. New anti ship missiles are also stealthier than the older one it was designed to deal with, it will pick them too late.

You are assuming the published detection capabilities reflect the systems Russia is operating, and also rather amusing western figures for western systems... but perhaps the best question would be... if it is so useless against small targets then why bother... they will hardly use low flying B-52s against ships... it will be low RCS anti ship missiles... and equally you would have to ask yourself why the Russian Army is also introducing Ka-35s to detect and track low flying threats... harpoon and tomahawk missiles will have a RCS of less than 1m square...

They can't have anything better.

Oh dear... so you are claiming it does not work but they use it because they don't have anything better... right.

After the Falklands conflict was over and it appeared that the British had lost quite a few modern ships to exocet missiles... on paper the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart should have stopped every attack, but they didn't... and they had no excuse... they had exocet missiles in their own inventory, so they couldn't claim they didn't know anything about it... they actually had the balls to say it was OK because the Soviets didn't have anything in service as dangerous as Exocet!!!!!

When the Udaloy was first seen many western observers were surprised because the SS-N-14 was an anti sub weapon with a torpedo... they couldn't understand the Soviets putting such a large ship into service that had no anti ship capacity... it was only later that they found out that the model missile carried was fully dual capable... it could attack subs or surface ships...

You see the Russians aren't nearly as stupid as some like to think they are... The Ka-31 is not for decoration and is certainly no sitting duck either.

It is correct that when an incident happens with a plane/helicopter; that plane/helicopter is grounded until the cause is found.

The aircraft in question was the vertical take off model used by the US Marines that crashed.... the version used by the Israelis is a different type... not a case of being cautious... a case of being chicken.

a) Russia does not need to project its power like the US does

If Russia wants any sort of independent future then it needs the global power and reach to ensure that with its own assets without relying on any other country... because not only would the US Navy not help, odds are they would actively try to hinder.

They don't need to be able to invade some country, but to operate surface ships with adequate air cover so they can do their job.

Ka-31 is still a capable helicopter in the sense that it can be used for anti-submarine warfare.

The Ka-31 has had all its anti sub equipment removed to allow the radar assembly and equipment to be fitted.

S-500 is set to replace the S-300s. S-400's are in-fact a variant of many from the S-300 family; which you could say performs a different role from S-300s (Due to missiles used)

No.

S-500 is a dedicated ABM system, the S-300 is the standard long range air defence system against bombers and aircraft and cruise missiles and big UAVs and UCAVs out to long range and it will be replaced with a combination of S-400 and S-350 in the Aerospace Defence Forces and likely S-300V4 and BUK in the Army.

But somebody has to be world cup, so things like genocide in Sri Lanka or Uganda don't happen.

There is no such thing as world cop... it is generally lynch mob mobilised when one countries interests are in jeopardy or they think they can use a situation to hurt an enemy. For instance the US didn't really benefit from the breakup of Yugoslavia, but knew it could take a few shots at Russia by dismembering it and damaging Serbia by making them out to be the bad guys...

The question is thus not IF, but WHEN and WHO. There's quite big need for Russian power projection, as people need protection against US chaos-bringing troops.

Exactly... what country will trade with Russia if it thinks the US is going to impose a naval blockade on their main ports until they buy Patriot instead of S-400?

b) Russia's Naval building capabilities were greatly affected by the fall of the soviet union

In many ways the break up of the Soviet Union was as destructive to Russia as the German invasion of WWII, where industry was broken and had to be rebuilt, and certain industrial partnerships were broken and new companies had to be created to fill the gaps.

In a way in the last decade it has happened again in the sense that imported materials have been sanctioned so domestic production becomes necessary... painful in the short term as it is much cheaper just to import components and equipment, but for an exporter it makes a lot of sense having sanction proof products that no one else can stop you selling to anyone you want.

Well if you think about it in terms of how Russia got involved in Syria; It did not project it like it does like the US flexing its might. It simply used the narrative that it was invited. With Libya it is the same. Russia wouldn't step in unless invited and doesnt use false pretexts (as from what Ive seen it plays by the book).

There were situations in some of the former Soviet 'Stans where the leaders asked for Russian intervention and Russia declined... Russia does not want to expand.... it hasn't absorbed South Ossetia and Abkhazia and it hasn't absorbed Georgia, or the Donbass, or the Baltic countries... it absorbed the Crimea because it was Russian anyway.

Russia is not interested in invading and installing puppet regimes and telling other countries what to think and do... it is not interested in regime change.

China is the same.

And it is why African countries like to deal with China and why countries like Iraq and Libya and the Central African Republic and many other countries are asking Russia for military assistance.

Russia isn't in Syria to support Assad, they are there for the Syrian people... and the best thing for the Syrian people is a stable government and removal of the terrorists. Once the terrorists are dealt with the Russians will likely dramatically scale back their presence in Syria to just peacekeeping levels for new elections to take place... just like they did in the Crimea.

If the people want the US in charge the Russians would likely leave... their position in such a hostile situation would hardly be tenable. But the fact is that the Russians and Iranians will be the main reason Syria has peace and a future, so I rather doubt they would do that... but that does not mean Assad would automatically win an election.

I also want to add that Russia itself is already outnumbered in terms of population and density. The population of Russia is 140 Million and the US is 300million; adding in NATO allies that might as well bring it up to about approx. 500mil? (Or more? Just making estimates).

Yeah... in the 1930s Japan occupied China and Korea... what would the population ratios say in that case?

When the Germans were marching across europe was it because they had more people than all the rest of europe, or because they had an army with better tactics? They didn't even really have better equipment most of the time.

We shouldn't forget that China is on the playing table too; whether its helping out via Silk Road Policy on its own region.

China will need Russian cooperation to get its goods to the EU... whether by sea or by rail, though they will likely have a north and a south rail route so they will cover their bases...

In terms of design and such that's an area Russia is still fine. However what I mean is the facilities to build them. When you compare the number of ships or the time it takes to build them Russia is still lacking in this area. Probably not technologically, just in facilities/infrastructure and personnel which affect the speed of modernization/retrofitting (As a personal taste I want to see another Kirov-Class Battle-cruiser out at sea).

They have invested enormous amounts of money upgrading and expanding shipyards and continue to do so...

And with modern systems... ie weapons/sensors, a destroyer sized vessel can have the fire power of an old battle cruiser... a battle cruisers fire power and capabilities are going to be very very interesting.

As for everything else that you've answered; I agree. I believe the frigates, submarines and corvettes are enough with the addition to their modern weaponry.

They are enough for now, but as their trade partnerships expand they will need rather more blue sea going capacity... and mobile air cover.

Kirov cruisers are inheritance of 1960s Gorshkov's defensive ideology of denying access to CSGs. With corvettes and frigates taking care of that today, the need for cruisers is much smaller. Russia should focus on amphibious ships, like helicopter carriers Priboy/Lavina, in case heads in the west get hot again and they try to change future pro-Russian Haftar's regime in Libya or elsewhere.

Actually the Kirovs were supposed to be the capital ships that operated with the new aircraft carriers they were building, and if they intend to continue with carriers some sort of replacement would be needed.

I do expect the new ships might not be so big but will be much better armed and equipped...

5-10 VTOLs instead of 12 helicopters would bring immense added value to LHD Priboys

Except that for a landing force having 12 helicopters would be much more useful than a couple of VTOLs...

You could make 8 instead of a 5 bn CVN. You don't need many fighters to wage a war - how many operated in Hmeymim?

If you can't have many would it be better if they were MiG-21s or Su-57s?

Additionally it also depends on how the LHD Priboys are gonna be designed; whether its gonna be similar to that of the Kuznetsov (I.E It can defend itself) or more towards the western style (Requires an escort of several ships)

Russian carriers will have serious air defence capability... Kuznetsov has 192 Klintok missiles... and as they are basically naval TOR, the latest model TOR has increase range and is half the size so twice as many can be carried... so almost 400 TOR missiles... and also Pantsir systems as well...

China can resume almost a half century project why Russia should do so? enormous spending of money with little effect.

Just like the STOVL programme I rather suspect the Yak-44 will be examined with new airframe designs and new engines and new radars, but that also new helicopter models might be considered and also unmanned options considered too... and there is even the option of a tethered aerostat... they use them in mountainous areas of Russia where they can operate for 3 months... a tethered airship taking power from the ship it is tethered to, it could carry an enormous radar array because internal volume and power considerations are not really critical... you could put small electric motors for station keeping and moderate manouver performance... ie to keep the antenna pointed in a direction... and of course it could be totally unmanned and use fuel cell technology to convert water ballast into hydrogen lifting gas and back so it can climb and descend as much as it likes. All data from the radar whether in active or passive mode can go through a fibre optic cable in the tether so it emits no signal for a datalink...

Actually Russia is building VSTOL Official news. It is in Russia's best interest.

Correction... is developing... they are not at the building stage yet.

easier 2-3 loitering drones/or manned tiltrottors in 24/7 regime

In what way easier?

Using helicopters already developed and in service compared with developing drones to do the same thing... I am sure they might like that, but they would probably also like about three dozen more Su-33s but they wont get those either.

from land over Arctic eventually but little sense if CVN is "somewhere" around Auckland ;-)

Well being an aircraft a HALE could pretty much be launched from anywhere in Russia and get to a Russian carrier leaving port before it gets too far beyond Russian air cover... at 12 knots that is about 22km/h, so it would take about 3 and a half days to move 2,000km where they could no longer rely on air protection... a UAV could easily catch up with such a fleet in that sort of time from anywhere in Russia... once it has caught up it can be refuelled by buddy refuelling packs carried by fighters from the carrier and just continue to shadow the carrier group... you could occasionally send up an Il-78 if it happens to cross paths on the way somewhere and fully top up the drone... it will be subsonic and speed would not be critical so it could be fitted with external fuel tanks that could also be filled during refuelling to maximise the time it can operate without requiring more refuelling... when taking off from an airfield these tanks could be empty to allow easier takeoffs and higher transit speeds, but once it is over the carrier group the more fuel you can put in it the less often you need to refuel it.

Without the Russians there the Iranians would have to take a more aggressive stance and might send aircraft and SAMs to the area... they might as well... it makes more sense for them to fight Israel from Syria than from Iran when they have destroyed Syria.

The only thing that keeps israel calm are russians. If they were not there Iranians would be destroyed as soon as they land in syria. They already attacked them even with russians there.

The thread is about aircraft development for the Russian navy... why would we ignore developments the navy intends.

Who cares what the US is doing with their carriers now... take that to the "America is so wonderful and they can do no wrong and everyone should do what they say" thread.

Even right now the SAM systems on the currently available Kirov class cruisers are based on the S-300 system. Their newer ships have Poliment/Redut, which is S-350, which uses technology from the S-400 system that the F-35s of the future are afraid of right now.

The navy also wants a supercarrier and won't get it before one or two decades.

Russian navy cares about what US navy is doing right now.

They have one kirov actually. When nakhimov will go in service, PtG should go on modernization so they will still have 1. They have two ships with poliment redut build.

They plan 2400 f-35. Their carrier can carry something like 60 of them. They can use them to destroy these 2 or 3 S-300 and poliment redut. They may loose some f-35 but at the end if they destroy the ships they win.

Are you an idiot?

A Rafale detecting the Ka-31 at 90km? at 200km? The Ka-31 will be operating a radar... a Rafale will probably detect the Ka-31 at 1,000km... who cares?

The ships the Ka-31 is operating above have all sorts of ESM and EW equipment and that Rafale will need to get past the SAM defences of a half a dozen ships to take down that Ka-31... and even if it manages to do that the second Ka-31 gets airborne and the ships start launching Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles at the nearest French ships until France says sorry...

Again I said I see no problem operating it avove your fleet to extend the radar coverage.

The problem is that the system is old even russian version and new threat are hard to detect. You can use it against new anti ship missiles but if it detect the missiles at 10km from the ship while new ship's own radars detects them at 20km it is useless. And if it has 150km against old fighters and less than 80km against stealthier ones then it won't detect the launches. That's the reality.

In syria they used A-50U to monitir launches from western air forces not ka-31.

Oh dear... so you are claiming it does not work but they use it because they don't have anything better... right.

After the Falklands conflict was over and it appeared that the British had lost quite a few modern ships to exocet missiles... on paper the Sea Wolf and Sea Dart should have stopped every attack, but they didn't... and they had no excuse... they had exocet missiles in their own inventory, so they couldn't claim they didn't know anything about it... they actually had the balls to say it was OK because the Soviets didn't have anything in service as dangerous as Exocet!!!!!

When the Udaloy was first seen many western observers were surprised because the SS-N-14 was an anti sub weapon with a torpedo... they couldn't understand the Soviets putting such a large ship into service that had no anti ship capacity... it was only later that they found out that the model missile carried was fully dual capable... it could attack subs or surface ships...

You see the Russians aren't nearly as stupid as some like to think they are... The Ka-31 is not for decoration and is certainly no sitting duck either.

You can see my previous answer ^.

It's not threats from soviet times anymore. It's newer ones while ka-31 is the same.

If exocets worked against british air defences that should have had 100% success against it, what makes you think russian navy is safe against the newer one with less rcs with its same ka-31 in the air ?

Ka-31( or 35, first time I hear it was named ka-35) is outdated against modern threats. A new 6m AESA with last generation GaN modules would do better. A new yak 44 for Kuz would be one hundreds times better.

Borschty wrote:
If you put in that sense; yes it would make sense to have VTOL aircraft instead of helicopters; but at the same time it depends on the role they'll perform. Will it be similar to that of the F-35? or would it perform more specific role such as short-ranged fighter or a bombing/Close-Air Support role (To which KA-52 is capable of doing - Close air support anyway).

Additionally it also depends on how the LHD Priboys are gonna be designed; whether its gonna be similar to that of the Kuznetsov (I.E It can defend itself) or more towards the western style (Requires an escort of several ships)

These are very relevant questions. And there are different missions and needs. I think that that's the reason why Russians are turning towards modularity. Having a choice between helicopters and VTOLs for Priboy is a must.

GarryB wrote:They don't need to be able to invade some country, but to operate surface ships with adequate air cover so they can do their job.

Russians aren't ignorants and army is used also to show you care about the world and foreign interests and humanitarian disasters. UN white helmets didn't stop genocides in Bosnia or Uganda! And no invitation is needed for that, except for UN Security council mandate.

Did US misuse this excuse because of monopoly? Yes. Should Russia and China be more active in this field and engage crisis perhaps jointly with the US? Definitely! Don't you feel safer now when US couldn't do whatever they wanted in Syria and Ukraine?

Exactly... what country will trade with Russia if it thinks the US is going to impose a naval blockade on their main ports until they buy Patriot instead of S-400?

As much as I like geoeconomics, it's not the only part of geostrategy. US and France weren't able to stabilise Central African republic in 5 years. If Russia can fix humanitarian and security situation there with 300 instructors, they'll get more respect, partners, trade in the entire continent. Soft power elements go beyond profit maximizing. This is not McDonalds business plan.

it is not interested in regime change.

Except for the biggest regime change in the history in 2016 in US . We shouldn't be romantic about Russian good guys and American bad guys. It's the opposite, its about realism. Russians are better strategists and have clear goals and strategy and don't have to look for exit strategy for 17 years like US in Afganistan.

Actually the Kirovs were supposed to be the capital ships that operated with the new aircraft carriers they were building, and if they intend to continue with carriers some sort of replacement would be needed.

Russian concept of navy isn't American. They never had a proper CV, for a good reason. Kirov's reason for existance and strategic meaning is CVN-killer.

Except that for a landing force having 12 helicopters would be much more useful than a couple of VTOLs...

Do you expect D-day amphibious warfare in 2018? With no element of surprise because of satellites and radars? Packing 12 VTOLs for campaigns like Syria and creating air superiority is more important than extra CAS.

If you can't have many would it be better if they were MiG-21s or Su-57s?

Why couldn't they have many Priboys? 2 are to be commissioned by 2026.

GarryB wrote:


If Russia wants any sort of independent future then it needs the global power and reach to ensure that with its own assets without relying on any other country... because not only would the US Navy not help, odds are they would actively try to hinder.

They don't need to be able to invade some country, but to operate surface ships with adequate air cover so they can do their job.

What I'm getting at is; Russia doesn't need to be actively patrolling the globe like the US; and only protect its interests near its borders.

The Ka-31 has had all its anti sub equipment removed to allow the radar assembly and equipment to be fitted.

Regardless, my point is it still has a role it can play aside from AWAC and even if it was for AWAC it's a helicopter not a plane. Both have different layouts & frames

No.

S-500 is a dedicated ABM system, the S-300 is the standard long range air defence system against bombers and aircraft and cruise missiles and big UAVs and UCAVs out to long range and it will be replaced with a combination of S-400 and S-350 in the Aerospace Defence Forces and likely S-300V4 and BUK in the Army.

Somewhat correct; it is still set to replace the S-300; but work together with the S-400.

I also want to add that Russia itself is already outnumbered in terms of population and density. The population of Russia is 140 Million and the US is 300million; adding in NATO allies that might as well bring it up to about approx. 500mil? (Or more? Just making estimates).

Yeah... in the 1930s Japan occupied China and Korea... what would the population ratios say in that case?

When the Germans were marching across europe was it because they had more people than all the rest of europe, or because they had an army with better tactics? They didn't even really have better equipment most of the time. [\quote]

What I'm getting at is that in an equal technological and training scenario; Russia doesn't have a chance on its own to be an aggressor.

They have invested enormous amounts of money upgrading and expanding shipyards and continue to do so...

And with modern systems... ie weapons/sensors, a destroyer sized vessel can have the fire power of an old battle cruiser... a battle cruisers fire power and capabilities are going to be very very interesting.

At the end of the day it depends what the Russian government wants to do; either modernize the Kirov's or to R&D the new Lider-Class. Both are nuclear powered after all (atleast it is assumed Lider will be).

Isos wrote:

Without the Russians there the Iranians would have to take a more aggressive stance and might send aircraft and SAMs to the area... they might as well... it makes more sense for them to fight Israel from Syria than from Iran when they have destroyed Syria.

The only thing that keeps israel calm are russians. If they were not there Iranians would be destroyed as soon as they land in syria. They already attacked them even with russians there.

Like in Lebanon?

Time to assume and digest the defats of Israel in Syria and Lebanon, because more is coming.

Isos wrote:

The thread is about aircraft development for the Russian navy... why would we ignore developments the navy intends.

Who cares what the US is doing with their carriers now... take that to the "America is so wonderful and they can do no wrong and everyone should do what they say" thread.

Even right now the SAM systems on the currently available Kirov class cruisers are based on the S-300 system. Their newer ships have Poliment/Redut, which is S-350, which uses technology from the S-400 system that the F-35s of the future are afraid of right now.

The navy also wants a supercarrier and won't get it before one or two decades.

Russian navy cares about what US navy is doing right now.

They have one kirov actually. When nakhimov will go in service, PtG should go on modernization so they will still have 1. They have two ships with poliment redut build.

They plan 2400 f-35. Their carrier can carry something like 60 of them. They can use them to destroy these 2 or 3 S-300 and poliment redut. They may loose some f-35 but at the end if they destroy the ships they win.

Comparing US plans with the Russian reality, just after despising Russian plans?

Borschty wrote:What I'm getting at is; Russia doesn't need to be actively patrolling the globe like the US; and only protect its interests near its borders.

Need has changed. What we're witnessing is dramatic shift in Russian foreign policy. Away from EU and towards diversification. Since 2014, they consolidated their relations with Central Asia and Japan, befriended Turkey, allied with China and focused on Africa. Have you counted visits between leaders of Russia and N. Sudan, Eritrea, Mozambique, Madagascar, CAR, S. Congo? Or increased naval presence in Indian ocean? Before destroyer Severomorsk there was frigate Yaroslav Mudry patrolling for months.

They are also establishing a base in Eritrea.

At the end of the day it depends what the Russian government wants to do; either modernize the Kirov's or to R&D the new Lider-Class

They already decided for modernisation of 2 Kirovs. Taking into account increasing gap between defensive and offensive needs, they need a platform that can serve in both foreign intervention, as well as mainland defence. Kirov class ship could be used both offensively in a task group with Priboy (because of her land attack capabilities) and defensively (anti-ship capabilities). The question is how different will Lider be. Any chance of modularity on that big ship or will it simply go full scale multi-role?

verkhoturye51 wrote:

At the end of the day it depends what the Russian government wants to do; either modernize the Kirov's or to R&D the new Lider-Class

They already decided for modernisation of 2 Kirovs. Taking into account increasing gap between defensive and offensive needs, they need a platform that can serve in both foreign intervention, as well as mainland defence. Kirov class ship could be used both offensively in a task group with Priboy (because of her land attack capabilities) and defensively (anti-ship capabilities). The question is how different will Lider be. Any chance of modularity on that big ship or will it simply go full scale multi-role?

Both are compatible. The modernization of the mid age ships is a need, and the development of modern ships is also a need. A simultaneous modernization of the current >10000 tons warships and the production of the first unit of the Project 23560 is very likely.

The only thing that keeps israel calm are russians. If they were not there Iranians would be destroyed as soon as they land in syria. They already attacked them even with russians there.

The Iranians are playing the bigger picture... a few killed here or there does not matter if the ultimate goal of kicking the Americans out of Syria is achieved.

...Keep in mind while America and Israel are bitching about Iran being in Syria and Iraq, the US is also in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan... so they are actually in Irans back yard knocking on the door.... and of course we also remember that the US actually interfered in a few Iranian elections in the past too... and certainly not with the interests of the Iranian people at heart...

The navy also wants a supercarrier and won't get it before one or two decades.

I would not call it a super carrier, they don't want to invade countries, they want to be able to sail surface ships and subs anywhere they please with adequate air cover... which means a slightly bigger Kuznetsov... rather than a Kiev class or smaller.

Russian navy cares about what US navy is doing right now.

Of course they do, but for the forseeable future their remedy for a US carrier group off their coast will be a mix of Tu-22M3Ms with four Kinzhal missiles each plus an internal rotary magazine with 6 Gurza missiles, and a few MiG-31s with one Kinzhal each.

They plan 2400 f-35. Their carrier can carry something like 60 of them. They can use them to destroy these 2 or 3 S-300 and poliment redut. They may loose some f-35 but at the end if they destroy the ships they win.

60 per carrier, but what happens when those carriers are sunk by Zircon?

How many waves of F-35s will it take to get through the air defences of every ship in the Russian group and can they do it before Zircon missiles destroy all the ships in the carrier group they came from?

A surface group of Russian ships is very very well protected but the protection level would be enormously increased with a fixed wing carrier with AWACS platforms and modern fighters.

The Russian navy is not currently in a condition to operate anywhere in the world in anything like safety... they need carriers for that. That wont make them completely safe, but will make them much much safer.

The problem is that the system is old even russian version and new threat are hard to detect. You can use it against new anti ship missiles but if it detect the missiles at 10km from the ship while new ship's own radars detects them at 20km it is useless. And if it has 150km against old fighters and less than 80km against stealthier ones then it won't detect the launches. That's the reality.

Are missiles used on land less stealthy? Because the Russian Army bought some Ka-31s as a battlefield airborne radar system to monitor the battlefield for low flying threats... now if it can't see stealthy stuff it would probably be rather useless... yet they didn't have to buy it... it is not like they are a huge customer of Kamov... I mean a couple of Ka-50s and a few Ka-52s is about it for the Army... they don't have Ka-29 transports so having a Ka-31 makes no sense to add a new type that is totally different from the other helos they operate... except if it works...

In syria they used A-50U to monitir launches from western air forces not ka-31.

Don't be so stupid... A-50U is a much bigger much better MUCH MUCH more expensive platform... of course they will use an A-50U over 20 or 30 Ka-31s... DUH.

It's not threats from soviet times anymore. It's newer ones while ka-31 is the same.

And the Su-35 is just an Su-27 so it will be shit as well... the thing about the Russians is that they stick with old stuff... no wasting money on upgrades or improvements... but then if the Ka-31 is the same as the old Ka-31... why are they now calling it the Ka-35? PR?

If exocets worked against british air defences that should have had 100% success against it, what makes you think russian navy is safe against the newer one with less rcs with its same ka-31 in the air ?

Because the British were arrogant that thought they just had to turn up and they would win.

A new yak 44 for Kuz would be one hundreds times better.

It would be absolutely rubbish... why don't you just say... a new A-100 for the Kuz would be a million times better... because neither would get off the deck safely.

Ka-31( or 35, first time I hear it was named ka-35) is outdated against modern threats. A new 6m AESA with last generation GaN modules would do better.

Ahh, this is the crux of it... you don't like it because it uses a radar array that is not an AESA or PESA... might come as a shock to you but even old generation radar antennas can still track targets and pass on target data...

Russians aren't ignorants and army is used also to show you care about the world and foreign interests and humanitarian disasters. UN white helmets didn't stop genocides in Bosnia or Uganda! And no invitation is needed for that, except for UN Security council mandate.

As the west keeps pushing Russia away it will need to look to the rest of the world for partners and growth and development... but Russia needs to be able to prove to these nations that it can protect them from the reaction they will get from the west for trading with Russia...

Don't you feel safer now when US couldn't do whatever they wanted in Syria and Ukraine?

Honestly... down here in NZ we haven't really been effected by American fuckups like Libya and Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, but europe has seen a migration tsunami because of the chaos they created... ironic that the Europeans are still listening to the US after getting that sort of backlash from following the instructions of Washington... but they are so used to it they don't know any different these days...

As much as I like geoeconomics, it's not the only part of geostrategy. US and France weren't able to stabilise Central African republic in 5 years. If Russia can fix humanitarian and security situation there with 300 instructors, they'll get more respect, partners, trade in the entire continent. Soft power elements go beyond profit maximizing. This is not McDonalds business plan.

There are a lot of countries in the ME and elsewhere who saw Russian actions in Syria and were impressed... but not just the military professionalism, but also the negotiating skills of talking to Israel and Turkey and Iran and Syria and getting things done with the minimum of fuss, the minimum of cost... I mean they are supporting an ally from what is basically their exercise budget....

Except for the biggest regime change in the history in 2016 in US Very Happy . We shouldn't be romantic about Russian good guys and American bad guys. It's the opposite, its about realism. Russians are better strategists and have clear goals and strategy and don't have to look for exit strategy for 17 years like US in Afganistan.

Actually the Russians are the good guys... they don't whip other countries into following their morals and to meet their rules or demands.

The Americans are the loud white teethed tanned preachers telling you you are a sinner and you need to do exactly what they say or you will go to hell... and then you find out they live in a multi million dollar house with 10 fancy expensive cars, and that they do drugs and sleep around and are the opposite of what they are telling you to do.

The Russians just get on with things... they don't tell you what to do and don't really appreciate it when you tell them what to do. They keep themselves to themselves. They don't judge you and don't expect you to judge them.

Now which of these two types should I idolise and respect?

You say the TV evangalist... go right ahead... he will sleep with your wife the first chance he gets and he will kick you out of the church if you object...

Russian concept of navy isn't American. They never had a proper CV, for a good reason. Kirov's reason for existance and strategic meaning is CVN-killer.

Really, because the Chinese bought some incomplete hulls of carriers the Soviets were making... the last one was supposed to be fitted with a catapult...

The Russian navy isn't the American... they weren't going to build 10 carriers to send to all corners of the globe to control the sea, their carriers were intended to operate with a surface action group to protect that group by controlling the air space above it.

The Ships and subs would carry the anti ship missiles, while the carrier would protect the ships and subs.

In the US navy it was the aircraft that were supposed to attack the enemy ships and the friendly ships were there to protect the carrier...

Do you expect D-day amphibious warfare in 2018? With no element of surprise because of satellites and radars? Packing 12 VTOLs for campaigns like Syria and creating air superiority is more important than extra CAS.

I expect the Russian naval infantry to want to land on beaches... and their helicopter carriers carrying fighter planes does not make it easier to land forces... it would be like the VDV giving up their Il-76s for Su-30s... it would mean the enemy ground forces would be much better suppressed but the whole point is to land ground troops and ground equipment... an Il-76 or a helicopter are much better at doing that than a Harrier type aircraft.

Any attack that involves the Russian naval infantry will also include a CV or CVN so why waste space with a Harrier when you could have a MiG-29KR or Su-33 offering much better fighter cover and Ka-52s offering close air support...

Also with disaster relief or humanitarian intervention like in Yemen helicopters including transports and attack types would be vastly more useful than fighter aircraft.

Why couldn't they have many Priboys? 2 are to be commissioned by 2026.

Why would they need more than 2-4 or them?

They would be useful in the north, but most of the time they will be training... their capacity as a ship for humanitarian aide... go to the Pacific islands and offer medical assistance to the locals... do the same down the coast of Africa and central and south america and asia... help in places damaged in floods or hurricanes etc etc, but I suspect much of its time will be exercising in the far north in the arctic...

These helicopter carriers wont be replacements for aircraft carriers... even if they got 2 into service in 2026 there is no chance of a STOVL fighter to be operational before 2030...

What I'm getting at is; Russia doesn't need to be actively patrolling the globe like the US; and only protect its interests near its borders.

I very much agree with you for now, but with the west pushing Russia away it can't just rely on being the silk trade route for china to the EU and back for making a living. It needs to expand its trade partners to Africa and Asia and central and south america... but to do that it needs to be able to send ships there without fear of interference or blockade.

The US has already said it is looking at blockades against Russia if it buys up Irans surplus oil and tries to trade it internationally (to bypass US sanctions on Iranian oil sales).

They have also said a lot of other stupid things like wanting to attack weapons Russia has which it says violate the INF treaty in a pre-emptive strike...

Regardless, my point is it still has a role it can play aside from AWAC and even if it was for AWAC it's a helicopter not a plane. Both have different layouts & frames

Well actually I agree... in a fleet of ships in a surface group you will have most of your ships together in a cluster, but you might have some ships positions in a sort of picket role in directions you expect trouble from... having a fixed wing AWACS platform around the main cluster of vessels makes sense, but having an AEW aircraft over a picket frigate or destroyer could be useful too... though as I keep mentioning an airship with a tether could also be used on Destroyers in that sort of role too...

Somewhat correct; it is still set to replace the S-300; but work together with the S-400.

Whereever the S-500 will be used it will likely integrate with the nearest S-400 system, so in a sense it would be replacing the S-300, but replacing it in the sense that a Helicopter replaces walking as a means of transport...

S-500 is not just adding some bigger and more capable missiles to S-400 it has its own dedicated radar types for detecting very high angle space objects... at enormous distances...

What I'm getting at is that in an equal technological and training scenario; Russia doesn't have a chance on its own to be an aggressor.

The Russian military is only a fragment in size to what the Soviet forces were, but I genuinely believe they are a much better trained and much more professional force today than they were during the cold war... and it has not happened by accident.

I don't think any western military force could have pulled off what they did in the Crimea... and I don't mean getting a win... I mean doing it without murdering anyone who objected to what they were doing. Obviously it helped greatly that it was clearly the will of the people to leave the Ukraine and rejoin Russia.

Equally their performance in Syria has been very impressive too, and with a fraction of the resources western countries were using with much better results.

At the end of the day it depends what the Russian government wants to do; either modernize the Kirov's or to R&D the new Lider-Class. Both are nuclear powered after all (atleast it is assumed Lider will be).

I think part of the problem is that most large ships have very long lifespans, yet when the Kirovs were originally designed the technology was totally different.

Upgrades actually make them much more multirole... instead of 20 Granits that could only be used against ship targets they will get 80 launch tubes that can carry anti sub weapons, anti ship weapons, and land attack weapons in any combination. The number of SAMs can be enormously increased and new AESA radar arrays means more targets can be detected and tracked and engaged than ever before.

The thing is that sometimes if costs more to upgrade a house than it does to just build a new house instead and get everything brand new... and that is their decision...

Need has changed. What we're witnessing is dramatic shift in Russian foreign policy. Away from EU and towards diversification. Since 2014, they consolidated their relations with Central Asia and Japan, befriended Turkey, allied with China and focused on Africa. Have you counted visits between leaders of Russia and N. Sudan, Eritrea, Mozambique, Madagascar, CAR, S. Congo? Or increased naval presence in Indian ocean? Before destroyer Severomorsk there was frigate Yaroslav Mudry patrolling for months.

They are also establishing a base in Eritrea.

And why not... these african countries are not super rich, but they want to trade and they don't want to tell Russia how it should treat its own citizens, or accuse it of things without any proof. Russia trading with poor African countries makes them richer and Russia richer... you can basically grow and develop together... the west wants to sell stuff to Russia, and it wants raw materials from russia like energy and other things, but it does not want Russia to develop and get rich from it... they want to keep every country down so they can enjoy dominance...

They already decided for modernisation of 2 Kirovs. Taking into account increasing gap between defensive and offensive needs, they need a platform that can serve in both foreign intervention, as well as mainland defence. Kirov class ship could be used both offensively in a task group with Priboy (because of her land attack capabilities) and defensively (anti-ship capabilities). The question is how different will Lider be. Any chance of modularity on that big ship or will it simply go full scale multi-role?

The new Lider design will be modular so it will have redut and UKSK and other standard systems, so in a sense the upgrades of the Kirovs will make them more like Lider will be, but at the end of the day I think they will keep the upgrades of the Kirovs modest without being too expensive and spend money on the Liders to make them really very powerful vessels...

Kirovs were always rather powerful ships and the upgrades are going to make them even more powerful and multirole.

their helicopter carriers carrying fighter planes does not make it easier to land forces

The importance of air superiority can be seen when your opponent has air force. In such case landed forces, accompanied with tank-killers Ka-52 would be fried.

Take e.g. repeat of Syrian scenario in N. Sudan in 2030. Pro-Russian oil rich N. Sudan is on verge of collapse due tu attack of pro-US protesters, S. Sudan and Uganda. Uganda has Su-30. Will you land your forces on beach and let Su-30 make mashed potatoes out of them? You can't bomb Ugandan cities afterwards and lose foreign and domestic support. So land even more forces? Russians probably wouldn't want to complicate with some long term Afghanistan-like scenario.

Why would they need more than 2-4 or them?

Not in helicopter version, but extra 0,5 bn ship with 12 VTOL would be worth every penny in 2030. Nobody said they wouldn't have to construct a CV later on.

The importance of air superiority can be seen when your opponent has air force. In such case landed forces, accompanied with tank-killers Ka-52 would be fried.

So you are suggesting an airforce powerful enough to easily take down attack helos with ground based air defence and sea based air defence including S-400, could be broken with 6 Harrier type aircraft?

I would suggest that if the air was contested the Russians would send the Kuznetsov too... and probably both Kirovs, as well as their new helicopter carriers... that way they could have real air cover and more helos to support their landing operation.

Take e.g. repeat of Syrian scenario in N. Sudan in 2030. Pro-Russian oil rich N. Sudan is on verge of collapse due tu attack of pro-US protesters, S. Sudan and Uganda. Uganda has Su-30. Will you land your forces on beach and let Su-30 make mashed potatoes out of them? You can't bomb Ugandan cities afterwards and lose foreign and domestic support. So land even more forces? Russians probably wouldn't want to complicate with some long term Afghanistan-like scenario.

I doubt Uganda would attack Russian landing forces without words... any Ugandan Su-30 approaching the conflict zone would be warned off and would probably find their AAMs don't work against Russian targets. But at the end of the day any Su-30 firing on Ka-52s will be shot down with naval S-400s and the airbase it flew from will be Kalibred to death....

Not in helicopter version, but extra 0,5 bn ship with 12 VTOL would be worth every penny in 2030. Nobody said they wouldn't have to construct a CV later on.

If you want cheap and assume you will have VTOL aircraft to operate from it then why not a flat decked container ship... when you are not at war it can move containers and earn money, but in case of a conflict it can be called in to service... with empty locations have TOR systems and Pantsir systems installed and perhaps an ESM or ECCM modules fitted and the flat deck and lower decks used for aircraft as well as supplies.

So you are suggesting an airforce powerful enough to easily take down attack helos with ground based air defence and sea based air defence including S-400, could be broken with 6 Harrier type aircraft?

They need Ka-52s, but that they need VTOLs, too.

Without them, what will happen after the landing? The range of S-400 will stop a half way to Khartoum. It would be complicated for the Russians to occupy domestic damaged airport and send Su-35 there, considering supply&repair lines dificulties. So LHD-borne VTOLs seem quite a good choice for the job.

Yes, you can Kalibr their airports one after the other and wait till they send men with MPADs in the forests and cities, or wage 8 year war, but this are all second best solutions. As Sun Tzu said, battles should be done fast. The supremacy should be full - at sea, in the land and in the air.

So if first Priboy would be loaded with Ka-52s, the next one should have VTOLs. Kuz would be good enough for the job, but having extra VTOL carrier rather than second LHD would be a better addition to the navy and allow Kuz to go somewhere else. It could be based in the Black sea and allow Russians to reach the Red sea faster.

If you decide for container ship with helicopter deck, how long does it take to get it ready for the battle and how obvious is it? In the peacetime, do you even have a pilot unit ready? Where do they train? Insufficient training leads to something like Alraigo accident.

They need Ka-52s, but that they need VTOLs, too.

The only advantages a VTOL fighter would have over a Ka-52 would be speed and altitude and range... none of which are really important to CAS aircraft.

When operating in the air to air combat mode a VTOL fighter wont be any use to the troops landing, so rather than replacing a Ka-52 or Ka-29... it would make rather more sense if that fighter was a MiG-29KR or Su-33 and is properly armed and already in service.

Having to take three helicopter carriers so one carrier can carry a Harrier like VSTOL fighter makes little sense when you have the Kuznetsov already that can deliver real fighters to deal with enemy airpower that might try to interfere with a landing and of course dozens of ships with Calibr that can deal with the airfields enemy aircraft can operate from...

Without them, what will happen after the landing? The range of S-400 will stop a half way to Khartoum. It would be complicated for the Russians to occupy domestic damaged airport and send Su-35 there, considering supply&repair lines dificulties. So LHD-borne VTOLs seem quite a good choice for the job.

By the time VTOLs become available the Kuznetsov will likely be back in service... why not use that?

So if first Priboy would be loaded with Ka-52s, the next one should have VTOLs. Kuz would be good enough for the job, but having extra VTOL carrier rather than second LHD would be a better addition to the navy and allow Kuz to go somewhere else. It could be based in the Black sea and allow Russians to reach the Red sea faster.

ISIS doesn't have any air power and the vast majority of countries the Russians would try to land forces in wouldn't have one either, but if they did then why are you talking about using extra helicopter carriers with VSTOL aircraft that don't exist when they have the Kuznetsov with MiG-29KR and Su-33s that do exist?

If you decide for container ship with helicopter deck, how long does it take to get it ready for the battle and how obvious is it? In the peacetime, do you even have a pilot unit ready? Where do they train? Insufficient training leads to something like Alraigo accident.

So building Mistral type ships and then modifying one for VSTOL aircraft that don't exist yet is going to be simpler and faster and cheaper than developing a container ship where you can put already publicly shown TOR type container launcher systems. Pantsir also has a shelterised version you can place on things for defence too...

A pure helicopter carrier does not need heat resistant tiles for helos to operate... if you want to operate VTOL aircraft you will need to completely redesign it to allow for these aircraft to operate from them...

But I still don't see the benefit... a helicopter carrier with fighters on it means it is no longer an effective helicopter carrier... and is perhaps 1/12th or 1/20th of a real fixed wing carrier... if you want to ad hoc make a half arsed carriers there are a lot of other vessel types that are much cheaper and can be used for the job.

Did you mean GZUR? (GiperZvukovaya Upravlyaemaya Raketa) - hypersonic guided missile. For me unlikely to carry 4 Kinzhals + 6 GZURs. The ide of GZUR is to have longer loitering time/ and/or range.

From a Backfire the Kinzhals range is likely to be about 1,500km so it would be able to launch both at the same target group... and firing 10 missiles would be a more effective attack than just firing 4 missiles.

The idea of Gzur is to destroy enemy ships.

GZUR unlike Kinzhal is to be anti-ship only. (no official confirmation tho)

What makes you think that? No current Russian "anti ship" missile is now anti ship only anymore... they all now have land attack capability... except the Kh-31 anti ship model... Kh-35, Granit, Vulkan, Onyx, and likely Zircon all have secondary land attack capabilities now, don't think they would change their policy now.

PR: Ka-31SV (aka Ka-35) lol1 lol1 lol1 was upgraded and in 2016 tested in Syria.

Upgraded in 2016, which is also about the time the Russian Army adopted them...

[qutoe]Chinese? China's economy is 6xRussian size, US one is 5xsize. You would be a great leader bankrupting your economy chasing"future African " dreams tome. You reject to recognize that in 2030s concepts of 1980s are not really new anymore. But can be costly and inefficient. protect own ship grouping no need for large ships nor catapults. [/quote]

Going off on a tangent as usual... the person I was speaking to was suggesting that the Soviets/Russians were not interested in carriers and carrier groups and that the Kirov class cruisers were supposed to operate on their own as the head of a surface action group.
I pointed out that the Soviets had plans for new and larger carriers that ended up being bought incomplete by the Chinese, but the Kuznetsov had a sister ship and there was a bigger carrier class being worked on too that was going to be fitted with catapults... the ship the Yak-44 would have operated from... so to say the Kirovs were going to operate on their own instead of carriers is just wrong.

in 2030s there will be no MiG-29k and no Su-33s anymore. BTW why do you think that MiG-19 style fighter bombers will be better than Harrier ones?

They have had Su-33s on the ship since it entered service and now they are getting MiG-29KRs that are brand new and will likely remain operational on the K for at least two decades... but I agree, without serious spending they wont still have Su-33s operational.

Of course when they build their first new CVN it will likely come with a budget to populate its decks with new aircraft and they will likely tag on the back of that order another order for more aircraft to fill the hangar of the Kuznetsov too... it might even include a couple of VSTOL aircraft too.... who knows.

and in Russia's security council they already answered that this is a declaration of war. No CV is gonna change this. BTW Words were spoken by 3rd grade deputy-minister of natural resources of alaska and hawai , Im not sure if Russia wants to pour billions on equipment every time when an idiot farts like that ;-)

It reflects the American exceptionalist mentality... it wont change for a while so Russia needs to be prepared to defend itself at home and at sea.

It is not ready for a fight outside of its land based air reach right now, but certainly getting more upgraded ships into the water would go a long way to help the situation.

Differently designed then Yak-41 family. Looking similar to future Korean fighter KFX ;-)

Not really that different from the Yak-41... take the canards and shift the wing forward and put the canards on the back like tail surfaces and you pretty much have a Yak-41...

Characteristics on pair with MiG-29k but longer range. And of course VSTOL. Mind that Yak-141 was supposed to be able to start STOL in 70m MTOW (MiG-195m+skijump), wiki says about experimental 6m STOL. Taking into account Vertical landing this makes ship requirements really modest.

Numbers very good... but what happens when they get something into service and actually have to deliver on those promises...