Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

And you pretend to look serious calling "propaganda" the Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015?

Do not have you the Su-57 in front of you? The first unit is done and the serial production will begin when Russia wants.

And you are known because of?

Surface fleet

In the first phase Russia's Admiral Gorshkov-class (Project 22350) frigates and Steregushchy-class (Project 20380) corvettes and their variants will become the core of the surface force for long- and short-range operations.

In the mid term a new-generation destroyer featuring advanced strike, air defence and missile defence capabilities will become the navy's main oceangoing ship. Between 2021 and 2030 a new class of modular multirole surface combat ship will be designed and enter series production as the successor to the Project 22350/20380 classes. It is envisaged that these will be armed with novel weapon systems and will carry unmanned vehicles of various sorts.

The marine rapid-response force is intended to be capable of conducting missions in the maritime, aerial and land domains in any part of the world. For this, new aircraft carriers will be the core of its capability, along with multirole landing ships. Work to design a new class of Russian aircraft carrier is to be completed before 2020, with construction and entry into service planned for the second phase of the doctrine (2021-2030).

Unlike the heavy aircraft cruisers of the previous generation of Russian aircraft carriers, the new carrier design will be multirole. It is envisaged to be equipped with manned and unmanned combat systems operating in the air, at sea, underwater and possibly in space. The carrier's air groups will include radar surveillance and C2 aircraft, alongside reconnaissance and strike UAVs.

Naval Aviation

For the Russian Naval Aviation the focus in the first phase will be the development and serial production of an advanced maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) by 2020.

Additionally, Russia will look to develop and produce a new shore/ship-based multirole helicopter (to replace the Ka-27) and acquire a ship-based combat helicopter (the Ka-52K). Russia will also seek to develop advanced airborne strike systems.

The second phase will see the deployment of the new Russian ship-based radar surveillance aircraft, ship-based UAVs, and ship-based strike aircraft. The 2021-2030 period will see the Russian Naval Aviation transition to optionally piloted aircraft, including those derived from existing manned aircraft. Obsolete aircraft are to be replaced by modern, multirole manned and unmanned aircraft. During the 2031-2050 phase naval aviation focus will switch to a new generation of multirole aircraft and UAVs and field a new generation of airborne precision weapon systems.

Isos wrote:

And you pretend to look serious calling "propaganda" the Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015?

Do not have you the Su-57 in front of you? The first unit is done and the serial production will begin when Russia wants.

And you are known because of?

Yeah it got its official engines, oups I mean it got its 1 ENGINE last week and is testing it right now ... and for you Su-57 is ready. I've also never heard of testing weapons from weapon bays but it's ok if you say we see that in front of us it means it is ready.

I assume in your head things are as easy as putting in service a 100 million $ fighter on a 10 billion $ carrier as fast as you draw it on a paper but in reality it doesn't happen like that.

Russian Maritime Doctrile of 2015 represent what they want not what they will get. That's just bullshit made by Ministry of defence to put pressure on the government but when you want a carrier first you check with the Ministry of Economy and according to what they say (most probably in the next 10 years they will laugh at Choigu when he will ask for the money for a carrier) and then they discuss the real needs and then start studies about that and then present many concept and then chose one and then choose a shipyard ...

You don't just ask 2 or 3 high ranked military guys and put an article on sputnik and build it.

VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that work is under way on a new VTOL plane design. Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade. Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them. Borisov's remarks follow revelations this summer that the MoD has been discussing the issue of a new VTOL design with Russia's military aircraft manufacturers, and that the plane could be "a development of the Yak line."

The Yak-38, first introduced in 1976, quickly became the USSR's most heavily-produced VTOL aircraft, and enjoyed widespread deployment aboard the Soviet Navy's fleet of Project 1143 heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, including the Kiev, the Minsk, the Novorossiysk and the Baku.

The Yak-38 garnered a poor reputation among pilots due to a high accident rate (with several dozen of the 231 Yak-38s built destroyed or scrapped following accidents). As military observer and RIA Novosti contributor Vadim Saranov pointed out, the planes' capricious nature limited flight time aboard aircraft-carrying Navy ships to a paltry 40 hours a year.

"The planes' combat characteristics were also questionable," the journalist wrote. "Due to the lack of on-board radar, it was only conditionally able to engage in aerial combat. The Yak-38's use as a pure attack aircraft looked rather ineffective, since its combat radius in VTOL mode amounted to just 195 km, and even less in a hot climate."

Given their less-than-stellar record, production of the Yak-38 was stopped in 1989. Gradually withdrawn and scrapped throughout the 1990s, the remaining VTOL Yaks were retired from the Russian Navy in 2004.

Owing to the Yak-38's difficult operational history, Soviet designers almost immediately began development of a new aircraft – the Yak-141.

Considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.

A New VTOL for the 21st Century

Speaking to Saranov about the prospects for a new Russian VTOL design, Russian Navy captain first rank (ret) Konstantin Sivkov said that if the aircraft were developed and fielded, they would become a boon not just to the Navy, but to Russian military aviation as a whole.

"The main problem in contemporary aviation today is that a jet fighter requires a good runway," Sivkov explained. "There are very few airfields of this kind, and it's quite easy to destroy them through a first-strike attack. Aircraft equipped with VTOL can be dispersed, to a clearing in the woods, for example. The use of VTOL by combat aviation would give it exceptional staying power."

Not everyone agrees. Oleg Panteleev, editor-in-chief of Russian aviation news agency Aviaport.ru, said that VTOL fighters' heavy consumption of fuel on takeoff, combined with the flexibility of traditional aircraft designs, makes fielding a large fleet of air force VTOL fighters impractical.

"Conventional fighters can carry out combat missions in conditions of partially destroyed airfield infrastructure from shortened airstrips of less than 500 m," the analyst noted. "The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational."

The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.

Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.

In any case, Saranov pointed out that the case of the F-35 offers a warning about the potential costs involved in the creation of a new VTOL-capable fighter plane, with that program reaching a staggering $1.3 trillion estimated price tag. The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.

"The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted.

At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."

These problems notwithstanding, the observer noted that if the Ministry of Defense does go ahead and approve the creation of a new VTOL aircraft, the aviation industry will be able to come up with an appropriate design.

In the meantime, the military has already offered hints about its vision of the future of Russian naval aviation. The MoD plans to lay down the Project 23000E Shtorm heavy aircraft carrier sometime between 2025 and 2030. By that time, the Navy expects to receive two new Priboy-class universal helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships. These, it can be safely assumed, would be perfectly capable of carrying any new VTOL project the aircraft industry throws their way.

VTOL for the 21st Century: Why Russia's Working on New Vertical Takeoff Fighter

Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov has confirmed that work is underway on the design of a new vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft. Military observer Vadim Saranov outlines what's driving the military's interest in this class of aircraft, and considers whether Russia's aviation industry has the resources and know-how to build it.

Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry confirmed that work is under way on a new VTOL plane design. Deputy Defense Minister Borisov said that the naval aviation variants of the MiG-29 and Su-33 fighters in use by the Navy today face becoming obsolete in the next decade. Accordingly, he said, it's logical to start development of a new plane to replace them. Borisov's remarks follow revelations this summer that the MoD has been discussing the issue of a new VTOL design with Russia's military aircraft manufacturers, and that the plane could be "a development of the Yak line."

The Yak-38, first introduced in 1976, quickly became the USSR's most heavily-produced VTOL aircraft, and enjoyed widespread deployment aboard the Soviet Navy's fleet of Project 1143 heavy aircraft carrying cruisers, including the Kiev, the Minsk, the Novorossiysk and the Baku.

The Yak-38 garnered a poor reputation among pilots due to a high accident rate (with several dozen of the 231 Yak-38s built destroyed or scrapped following accidents). As military observer and RIA Novosti contributor Vadim Saranov pointed out, the planes' capricious nature limited flight time aboard aircraft-carrying Navy ships to a paltry 40 hours a year.

"The planes' combat characteristics were also questionable," the journalist wrote. "Due to the lack of on-board radar, it was only conditionally able to engage in aerial combat. The Yak-38's use as a pure attack aircraft looked rather ineffective, since its combat radius in VTOL mode amounted to just 195 km, and even less in a hot climate."

Given their less-than-stellar record, production of the Yak-38 was stopped in 1989. Gradually withdrawn and scrapped throughout the 1990s, the remaining VTOL Yaks were retired from the Russian Navy in 2004.

Owing to the Yak-38's difficult operational history, Soviet designers almost immediately began development of a new aircraft – the Yak-141.

Considered a highly promising design by Soviet and Western observers, the Yak-141 program was canceled after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lockheed Corporation entered into a partnership with Yakovlev with the official aim of funding the program. Years later, many Russian observers suggested that Lockheed, already working on its X-35 F-35 prototype, effectively bought out the Yak-141's technical documentation for about $400 million.

A New VTOL for the 21st Century

Speaking to Saranov about the prospects for a new Russian VTOL design, Russian Navy captain first rank (ret) Konstantin Sivkov said that if the aircraft were developed and fielded, they would become a boon not just to the Navy, but to Russian military aviation as a whole.

"The main problem in contemporary aviation today is that a jet fighter requires a good runway," Sivkov explained. "There are very few airfields of this kind, and it's quite easy to destroy them through a first-strike attack. Aircraft equipped with VTOL can be dispersed, to a clearing in the woods, for example. The use of VTOL by combat aviation would give it exceptional staying power."

Not everyone agrees. Oleg Panteleev, editor-in-chief of Russian aviation news agency Aviaport.ru, said that VTOL fighters' heavy consumption of fuel on takeoff, combined with the flexibility of traditional aircraft designs, makes fielding a large fleet of air force VTOL fighters impractical.

"Conventional fighters can carry out combat missions in conditions of partially destroyed airfield infrastructure from shortened airstrips of less than 500 m," the analyst noted. "The military's plans to build a carrier fleet is something else entirely, however. There, the use of VTOL aircraft would indeed be highly rational."

The VTOL design would enable strike aircraft to be deployed even aboard small aircraft-carrying cruisers, perhaps even foregoing the need to build a new, expensive, conventional aircraft carrier.

Sikvov emphasized that Russian design bureaus have no time to lose for creating a new VTOL design. "Aircraft with VTOL capability can be based not just on conventional carriers, [but on much smaller ships.] For example, a tanker equipped with a ramp becomes a kind of aircraft carrier; we had similar projects during the Soviet era," the analyst said. "Furthermore, VTOL aircraft can be used aboard helicopter-carrying combat vessels such as frigates," he added.

In any case, Saranov pointed out that the case of the F-35 offers a warning about the potential costs involved in the creation of a new VTOL-capable fighter plane, with that program reaching a staggering $1.3 trillion estimated price tag. The journalist noted that creating a plane with performance characteristics comparable to the F-35B will require finding solutions to a series of design problems, including miniaturization of avionics, new generation on-board systems, and a new airframe taking into account the requirements of a VTOL aircraft.

"The Russian aviation industry has opportunities in this direction, particularly since many systems can be unified with the Su-57 fifth-gen fighter aircraft," the journalist noted.

At the same time, according to Panteleev, the specially-designed engine may prove to be the new plane's biggest problem. "The developer of the engine for the Yak-38 has ceased to exist. While the technical documentation about the Yak's thrust nozzles, including its afterburner, is probably still around, the specialists with the practical experience to create these components probably aren't around anymore. Here, we've probably lost our expertise."

These problems notwithstanding, the observer noted that if the Ministry of Defense does go ahead and approve the creation of a new VTOL aircraft, the aviation industry will be able to come up with an appropriate design.

In the meantime, the military has already offered hints about its vision of the future of Russian naval aviation. The MoD plans to lay down the Project 23000E Shtorm heavy aircraft carrier sometime between 2025 and 2030. By that time, the Navy expects to receive two new Priboy-class universal helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships. These, it can be safely assumed, would be perfectly capable of carrying any new VTOL project the aircraft industry throws their way.

Tsavo Lion wrote:"So why build heavy carriers if you are going to waste money on a VSTOL piece of crap?
The whole point of the VSTOL aircraft is so you don't need to build real carriers... VSTOL aircraft are a waste of time and energy... a super carrier even more so.... for Russia."
That's my point: they r reviving STOVL for small TAKRS/CVs as a stop gap before CVNs r built, & in (very likely) case those get delayed/cancelled, at least they'll have something instead of nothing!
On land, STOVL fighters can use portable airfield sections designed to withstand extreme heat & perhaps ski ramps dropped/brought by heavy lift planes/helos, similar to these:
https://www.airspacemag.com/multimedia/these-portable-runways-helped-win-war-pacific-180951234/
http://www.megadeckrigmats.com/portable-airfield-mats.php

What they really need r small nuclear powered artificial islands made of concrete, capable of handling all kinds of aircraft, that can be moved & anchored when/where needed.

On land, STOVL fighters can use portable airfield sections designed to withstand extreme heat & perhaps ski ramps dropped/brought by heavy lift planes/helos, similar to these:

Right! Harriers at US bases use concrete pads & strips

Arctic bases are made from concrete blocks, because there is too cold for asphalt. Not all arctic bases, specially those on Arctic islands, will have full airfields with 2 km to 3 km long runways.

Tsavo Lion wrote:Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.  

Because they can use shorter stretches of roads &/ concrete pads + better fit on smaller CV/Ns w/o CATs. Building & maintaining long airstrips is expensive anywhere; in the Russian North, Siberia & the RFE many times more.

Siberia below the Arctic Circle will be used as deep rear staging/repair area. There r lakes, reservoirs & rivers on which flattop ships/barges could be placed for STOVL fighters. Believe me, the Russians will find a safe way to operate them w/o damaging anything with hot downwash.

They could even equip them with floats/skis for water landings & take offs!

Azi wrote:Why not developing a VTOL aircraft? Ok, clear a VTOL aircraft have only 80 - 90 % perfomance compared to normal aircraft, that's why a "replacement" would be very specific.

But another idea...
For me the evolution of helicopters is coming to a dead point! They are planning new "high speed helicopters" with speeds above 400 km/h per hour, but they are investing from my view too much for only achieving a few more km/h. Why not using VTOL for the role of the ordinary helicopter!? A new AH-64 Longbow has a system price of 65 million US-$, a F-35B is NOW available for 120 million US-$. A VTOL aircraft can easy have 5 times and more the speed of a helicopter and even the payload and range is greater. It is nearly better in every characteristic. The main problems would be the costs and the complexity of the system...but let's see what the future brings