Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

@Isos

you 60 fighters and when they build 400 and increase serviceability to 30 % there will be 120 already.

GarryB wrote:Better hope any new Russian VSTOL fighter is better than the F-35 family of aircraft:

as long as its not gonna ot be bombtruck it has good chances. Under Borisov supervision |Im sure its gonna be good one.

GB wrote: Maybe the Su-33 and MiG-29KR will be fine in 10 years time on Russian CV and CVNs...

for next 10 years for sure, replacemtn will come later perhaps with first new  CVN.

Tsavo Lion wrote:The US will put weapons in space sooner than many expect, as they r behind Russia in B/CMs, CVNs loose their utility, closed seas around Eurasia r no longer being controlled, & the Arctic outside of Alaska, Canada & Greenland is de-facto off limits to NATO surface warships.

That's sounds realistic prognosis to me.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.

Not maneuverable??? Blasphemy! You have no off-hand accuracy testing data to come to that conclusion, all we know is that it's derived from Iskander-M (which actually maneuvers through flight   ) which has a CEP of 5-7 meters, besides 100k aircraft carriers stick out like a sore thumb.

http://www.pravda-tv.ru/2019/03/22/412050/ispytaniya-rossijskih-raket-kinzhal-vstrevozhili-razvedku-ssha

In February of this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported that the MiG-31, equipped with Dagger missiles, carried out 380 flights over the waters of the Black and Caspian Seas. Including hypersonic rockets passed tests in adverse weather conditions, hitting a training target the size of a passenger car at a distance of 1000 kilometers.

GarryB wrote:
If Russia was ever in a situation like Britain was in the Falklands conflict a carrier that can carry 90 fighters, but more often 60 fighters plus AWACS and other useful platforms including unmanned ones makes a hell of a lot more sense than one that can only carry 24 fighters.

Russia was already in such situation in Syria. In Syria there have been 8 fighters?  perhaps 10 tops one time.  What proved to be   more then enough

GB wrote:The initial price difference would not be enormous and would be spread over the decade it would take to go from laying them down to getting them into operational service.

The problem is that difference is enormous at start and every year maintenance adds to make it even bigger. So far every decision in Russian Mod proves costs are cold calculated.

GB wrote:

looks like nice fantasy not realistic tho. MiG-35 for RuAF have no AESA. Nobody is gonna waste money to put Su-57 top radar for old 29k. Assuming this would be technically possible at all.
KUZ will be back in 2-3 years. In 10 years Kiznhal likely and 29k surely will on way out. Same with 29. Replaced by Su-30SM first.

AESA elements start out expensive but over time the cost goes down and the performance gets better... right now it is hard to justify, but over time on different platforms AESA radars are going to mature and over time as production increases it is going to get much much cheaper and smaller and lighter... in 5 years time they might be rather cheaper and offer rather better performance and become worth fitting to aircraft.

Photonic radar might make current AESA radars obsolete so they might be waiting for that to become available instead and skip a generation...

MiG-35 was to have AESA last 5 years of so but still doesn't have it. At least MoD is silent about batch of 12 in 2023 wont heve it either. You see on even older 29k photonic ones? well congrats your optimism.

GB wrote:

Soin comparison F-22 which requirements were gathered in late 80s with almost 20 years later Su-57 - Su is better. If it was worse i'd be shocked.

The F-22 had a range of problems with its design and equipment and systems, and most of those problems remain... they have done very little at all to upgrade and improve the aircraft... in comparison the Russians have massively upgraded their Flankers and seem set on making the Su-57 as good as it can possibly be, while at the same time also improving the Su-35.

The Americans love what is hot right now, they don't love the F-22 any more, the new thing is the F-35 but it has quite a few problems of its own that are not getting sorted out either... what are they actually doing?

USN/NATO fighters are less advanced then average Rusisan ones? I doubt it. Su-35 is great but there are 80 of them. While USN alone has 800 fighters + 330 USMC .
You assume US cannot sort out problems with F-35 , Im not sure why do you assume that neither that they soon gonna field new models.

GB wrote:

So far there are 80 Su-35 (?) and no Su-57 in line and over F-35 300 build and 189 F-22 in line.

They might have 300 already produced, but you can't call them operational ready to go aircraft...

neither 80 Russian ones is 100% serviceable. As for F-35 , every year they build 100 , will be form 2023 160 p/a. till 2018 ther was 300. Next year there will be 500 F-35, serviebility will grwo so with 30-40% you to 150-200 F-35 + 189 F-22 Vgen fighters

GB wrote:And countries are cancelling or reducing orders for F-35... Germany doesn't want them,

yeah, that's funny that Germane decided to be French vassal and loose own aerospace expertise to become France "junior partner" to build VIgen fighter.    

GB wrote:
An LHD is most useful for landing armour and deploying helicopters... what they are not useful for is mini aircraft carriers... which is a role they are shit for... the British know because they had the Hermes and Invincible... they are tiny ships much cheaper than the 70K ton ship they are using now.... the Russians also know they had the Kiev class carriers that were also small ships that were cheaper than the Kuznetsov... do you see a trend?

Kuz standard displacement is 46,5 ktons 59ktos full,  not 70. Recent Krylov proposal  was 37/44ktons CV. Yes I can see the trend. It gets downwards

 

GB wrote:
Think he means no carrier aircraft will likely be carrying Kinzhal... but then carrier aircraft probably will carry Zircon, with half the range of Kinzhal and almost the same flight speed an air launched model would at the very least add 1,000km to the flight range of the aircraft... probably double that...

Zircon is 1000+ km , Kiznhal (missile) has range ~1,300km. Since there is no indications so far about airborne Zircon I rather suspect that Su-33 will get Kinzhals. With new fighter perhaps GZUR will come.
In turn  airborne hypersonic  missiles, under development in Russia now, should have 1,500km range.

The USN was lucky that its CVs were not in/near Pearl Harbor on 12/7/41.

Actually the Japanese were lucky the USN CVs were not there, because they could have very quickly put up an air threat that could have blunted and turned back the attack... making them think twice about taking on the Americans in the pacific.[/quote]

US flattops weren't there simply because US govt knew about attack, but needed something for masses to start war and join winning side.  Japan with tiney percentage of industrial and agricultural potential of USA, was simply no match .
If Germany were closer to Japan...war could look different for US. Imagine German technology and industry pacific front how many B-17 would fly over Me-262?  Ta-183/152 ? of Do-213 . Or XXI sub or FLAK 8,8cm  or panzerfausts vs Us tanks.

I rather suspect that Su-33 will get Kinzhals.

They would have tried them on Su-30/34s by now if that was the case.
Subs have a better chance against CSGs compared to planes & AShMs launched from them & surface ships, except perhaps Zircons.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's not well suited against moving ships since it's not maneuverable & won't be accurate, so a nuclear warhead will be needed.

Not maneuverable??? Blasphemy! You have no off-hand accuracy testing data to come to that conclusion, all we know is that it's derived from Iskander-M (which actually maneuvers through flight   ) which has a CEP of 5-7 meters, besides 100k aircraft carriers stick out like a sore thumb.

http://www.pravda-tv.ru/2019/03/22/412050/ispytaniya-rossijskih-raket-kinzhal-vstrevozhili-razvedku-ssha

In February of this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu reported that the MiG-31, equipped with Dagger missiles, carried out 380 flights over the waters of the Black and Caspian Seas. Including hypersonic rockets passed tests in adverse weather conditions, hitting a training target the size of a passenger car at a distance of 1000 kilometers.

It should be noted that the Lotus-S satellites within the Liana recon system are not only able to passively detect and target ships by detecting their radar and closed communications emissions, but they can also detect/track (and presumably target) objects as small as 1 meter in length. When you combine the high-accuracy of the two systems, combined with the very effective passive detection capability, you get a very potent system.

Russia was already in such situation in Syria. In Syria there have been 8 fighters? perhaps 10 tops one time. What proved to be more then enough

Really?

Are you trying to compare Russias police action in Syria against ISIS who has no air power at all, with the British fighting the Argentine Air Force?

If the British only had 10 fighters they would have lost most of their ships...

The problem is that difference is enormous at start and every year maintenance adds to make it even bigger. So far every decision in Russian Mod proves costs are cold calculated.

Most of the costs of maintaining a nuclear powered carrier is refuelling, so if the reactor they use doesn't need refuelling for the life of the carrier then it suddenly got much much cheaper... certainly cheaper than 4-5 smaller CVNs that all need to be maintained and mostly stored for potential use.

MiG-35 was to have AESA last 5 years of so but still doesn't have it.

That is right, it doesn't, which suggests it is not the most urgent of things for them... the cost does not justify the result... especially right now when new technologies are being explored...

At least MoD is silent about batch of 12 in 2023 wont heve it either. You see on even older 29k photonic ones? well congrats your optimism.

Mr Glass half empty... perhaps their silence means the opposite of what you are inferring.

Maybe instead of blowing a lot of cash on immature conventional AESA for the next 3-4 years while the Kuz is in overhaul, they might have invested that money into new technology radar arrays that will also be immature to start with but offer much more future growth potential and performance.

Maybe they are waiting for more F-35s to be produced before they reveal it is no more stealthy than an F-16 for a fraction of the cost and in many ways much better performance... the western countries of NATO will be pissed off and the poorer eastern european nations of NATO will be so happy... their future will no longer look as bleak as the F-35 will be removed from it.

You assume US cannot sort out problems with F-35 , Im not sure why do you assume that neither that they soon gonna field new models.

You assume they care it doesn't work.... they are more interested in making shiny packaging and making sure Turkey doesn't reveal it is crap before they can produce more aircraft and supply customers with this aviation equivalent of fast food.

neither 80 Russian ones is 100% serviceable. As for F-35 , every year they build 100 , will be form 2023 160 p/a. till 2018 ther was 300. Next year there will be 500 F-35, serviebility will grwo so with 30-40% you to 150-200 F-35 + 189 F-22 Vgen fighters

How many F-22s are serviceable... Norway has grounded its F-35s because it can't afford the hours to train pilots to be current on the aircraft with its low ready rates and high operational costs, not to mention problems... it seems the software was written by experts from Microsoft and they were expecting the users to find the faults... they were going to get an operational aircraft by service pack 11 at least... maybe...

Maybe Norway is not happy about beta testing...

yeah, that's funny that Germane decided to be French vassal and loose own aerospace expertise to become France "junior partner" to build VIgen fighter.

Which clearly shows what sort of quality the F-35 exudes if the Germans are prepared to play second fiddle to the French, but then it makes sense as the French have more experience in making modern aircraft than the Germans have on their own. Germany was part of Eurofighter Typhoon, but the French pretty much made all of the Rafale... funny we are told they are super planes yet not good enough today... which is weird because typhoons and rafales are so superior to Su-35s and Su-57s and MiG-35s etc etc.

Kuz standard displacement is 46,5 ktons 59ktos full, not 70. Recent Krylov proposal was 37/44ktons CV. Yes I can see the trend. It gets downwards

55K tons standard, practically 60K tons full, which is a bit heavier than the Kiev class weight of max 45 tons... and they have said they want slightly better capacity than Kuznetsov... which generally means heavier.

If they can get slightly better capacity in a lighter ship that is fine I have no problem with that... double hull or triple hull... don't care... if they can make it lighter that is a good thing ONLY if they get the capacity requested...

Proposals are smoke and mirrors... if they actually create a real design they can prove will meet all the requirements then that is what is important, if they can make it lighter then all the better.

Zircon is 1000+ km , Kiznhal (missile) has range ~1,300km. Since there is no indications so far about airborne Zircon I rather suspect that Su-33 will get Kinzhals.

Couple of points:

1) Kinzhal is an army weapon adapted to airforce use... it is a stopgap that uses old technology to do the job... very clever and into service incredibly quick... there must have previously been plans to do such a thing that had been shelved for lack of need.

2) Zircon is a navy weapon that replaces the Onyx and will fit all the same launchers the Onyx fitted.

3) Onyx is what the Yakhont and Brahmos were based upon and it was intended for all of them to be air launched too, but there was no funding for that... only Brahmos has been adapted to an actual air launched version, paid for by India. I have seen video of a very large missile being launched from an Su-34 that might have been Moskit (Air launched Sunburn SS-N-22) or could have been Onyx.

4) Zircon has a scramjet motor and would therefore benefit most from an air launch flight profile...

With new fighter perhaps GZUR will come.
In turn airborne hypersonic missiles, under development in Russia now, should have 1,500km range.

For lighter fighters the GZUR makes a lot of sense, but I would expect an airborne version of Zircon is as natural as mention of a light Zircon for use on smaller displacement boats that they mentioned... it could end up like Brahmos... where you can choose with a bigger aircraft like a Flanker between one big missile down the centreline or 5 smaller missiles, or with smaller aircraft like MiG-29KR four big missiles on the inner four weapon pylons... still very potent if shorter ranged.

US flattops weren't there simply because US govt knew about attack, but needed something for masses to start war and join winning side. Japan with tiney percentage of industrial and agricultural potential of USA, was simply no match .
If Germany were closer to Japan...war could look different for US. Imagine German technology and industry pacific front how many B-17 would fly over Me-262? Ta-183/152 ? of Do-213 . Or XXI sub or FLAK 8,8cm or panzerfausts vs Us tanks.

Slack code security meant the Americans knew what the Japs were doing before the Japs in the field did themselves. No way to win a war.

No sympathy though, they were ruthless bastards...

They would have tried them on Su-30/34s by now if that was the case.

With no carrier at sea what is the rush... why not wait for the next gen of missiles that are not rushed into service and are designed for the job at hand.

Subs have a better chance against CSGs compared to planes & AShMs launched from them & surface ships, except perhaps Zircons.

Which actually makes the best solution 13 plus Poseidons most of the time...

Tsavo Lion wrote:

I rather suspect that Su-33 will get Kinzhals.

They would have tried them on Su-30/34s by now if that was the case.
Subs have a better chance against CSGs compared to planes & AShMs launched from them & surface ships, except perhaps Zircons.

not necessarily, There are enough MiGs on land but no better carrier on deck.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

It should be noted that the Lotus-S satellites within the Liana recon system are not only able to passively detect and target ships by detecting their radar and closed communications emissions, but they can also detect/track (and presumably target) objects as  small as 1 meter in length. When you combine the high-accuracy of the two systems, combined with the very effective passive detection capability, you get a very potent system.

damn if USN builds >1m CVNs Russians wil have problems to detect them

GarryB wrote:

Russia was already in such situation in Syria. In Syria there have been 8 fighters?  perhaps 10 tops one time.  What proved to be   more then enough

Really? Are you trying to compare Russias police action in Syria against ISIS who has no air power at all, with the British fighting the Argentine Air Force?

If the British only had 10 fighters they would have lost most of their ships...

See, your problem is that you still live in 80s. Now we are talking about 50+ years later reality. BTW did you really checked Syria scenario? Those 8 fighters were against whole Turkish AF and US 3 CSGs alike.
If any small country so stupid to attack Russian ESG then 200-300 CMs carried is enough to send them to middle ages. And ensure no airbases are left.

Let's assume great luck for aborigines. Not all airbases are destroyed by Zircon/Kinzhal salvo. What's more they posses kamikaze pilots. Then a suicidal mission can start. Couple of F-5 level fighters takes off. With up to 200km range harpoons/Exocets/RBS? Ships have S-400/S-500. Russian fighters might to even need to take off really. With KS-172 for example.

Would you say that Russian loose all their ships ?!

GB wrote:

The problem is that difference is enormous at start and every year maintenance adds to make it even bigger. So far every decision in Russian Mod proves costs are cold calculated.

Most of the costs of maintaining a nuclear powered carrier is refuelling, so if the reactor they use doesn't need refuelling for the life of the carrier then it suddenly got much much cheaper... certainly cheaper than 4-5 smaller CVNs that all need to be maintained and mostly stored for potential use.

Numbers say otherwise. No wonder Russia was looking for smaller CVN models recently.

Cost:
Ford $14B
QE2 = $5,2B


Crew costs
QE2 = 670 including airwing
Ford = 4300

difference -> 3600.
Avg salary RN is $40k. yearly differences is $144m p/a

Ford 90 aircraft. i assume 30 F-35 + comparing with QE2 , cost difference is is $300m (30x50,000$/hrx200hr)

Cost of extra people fighters alone per year is $440m 10% of costs



UK Sailor ranges form GPB 20-40k (petty officer). Lest simplyfy not playing stats, median avg is 30 in simplified scenario. So $40k. 1000 extra is

https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Royal-Navy/salaries
http://www.uscarriers.net/cvn78.htm

GB wrote:

MiG-35 was to have AESA last 5 years of so but still doesn't have it.

That is right, it doesn't, which suggests it is not the most urgent of things for them... the cost does not justify the result... especially right now when new technologies are being explored...

explored for sure but not necessarily not for outgoing fighters. BTW suddenly you see cost effectiveness but in CVN question you dont? wow

GB wrote:

At least MoD is silent about batch of 12 in 2023 wont heve it either. You see on even older 29k photonic ones? well congrats your optimism.

Mr Glass half empty... perhaps their silence means the opposite of what you are inferring.

Im sure it means. Especially that for India's tender is offered clearly with AESA.




[quote="GB"]

neither 80 Russian ones is 100% serviceable. As for F-35 , every year they build 100 , will be form 2023 160 p/a. till 2018 ther was 300. Next year there will be 500 F-35, serviebility will grwo so with 30-40% you to 150-200 F-35 + 189 F-22 Vgen fighters

How many F-22s are serviceable...

https://iz.ru/705884/2018-02-08/istrebitel-su-35-otlichno-proiavil-sebia-v-sirii

Surely 65 Su-35 ready to fly.
125 F22 ( 67% serviceability)
76 F-35 ( 358x20%) - with 30% is already 100+ with 40% 140+ its gonna only grow

F-35 is build with 100-160 units p/a with growing serviceability you gonna be flooded with ready to strike fighters.


https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-most-serviceable-reliable-fighter-aircraft 126 can fly.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/analysis-f-35-production-ready-to-soar-in-2019-455123/

GB wrote:

Kuz standard displacement is 46,5 ktons 59ktos full,  not 70. Recent Krylov proposal  was 37/44ktons CV. Yes I can see the trend. It gets downwards

55K tons standard, practically 60K tons full, which is a bit heavier than the Kiev class weight of max 45 tons... and they have said they want slightly better capacity than Kuznetsov... which generally means heavier.

Kuz by design was to carry 26 fighters, Krylov :pocket CV" 28 max


Водоизмещение 61 390 т наибольшее[1]
59 100 т полное[1]
53 050 т нормальное[1]
46 540 т стандартное[1]

GB wrote:

Zircon is 1000+ km , Kiznhal (missile) has range ~1,300km. Since there is no indications so far about airborne Zircon I rather suspect that Su-33 will get Kinzhals.

Couple of points:

1) Kinzhal is an army weapon adapted to airforce use... it is a stopgap that uses old technology to do the job... very clever and into service incredibly quick... there must have previously been plans to do such a thing that had been shelved for lack of need.

a) AF not army
b) Su-33 is outgoing gen too yet will serve 10 years or so, before GZUR and Zircons in numbers come

BTW with Kiznhal can make Kuz kick ass.

GB wrote: 4) Zircon has a scramjet motor and would therefore benefit most from an air launch flight profile...

yet neither Zircon nor Onyx are air launched , or any plans announced.

GB wrote:

With new fighter perhaps GZUR will come.
In turn  airborne hypersonic  missiles, under development in Russia now, should have 1,500km range.

For lighter fighters the GZUR makes a lot of sense, but I would expect an airborne version of Zircon is as natural as mention of a light Zircon for use on smaller displacement boats that they mentioned... it could end up like Brahmos... where you can choose with a bigger aircraft like a Flanker between one big missile down the centreline or 5 smaller missiles, or with smaller aircraft like MiG-29KR four big missiles on the inner four weapon pylons... still very potent if shorter ranged.

Whinge GZUR materialists this would be strange if Zircon is not related. Besides its clear waste of resources it to build 2 different hypersonic missiles for the same job and both airborne .
BTW When GZUR is service accepted neither Su-33 nor 29k will be in service.

GB wrote:No sympathy though, they were ruthless bastards...

George1 wrote:This thread also became a BS one like russian aircraft carriers

Unfortunately for you Im not here to blame me...

Obviously, Im not the BS creator...

See, your problem is that you still live in 80s. Now we are talking about 50+ years later reality. BTW did you really checked Syria scenario? Those 8 fighters were against whole Turkish AF and US 3 CSGs alike.
If any small country so stupid to attack Russian ESG then 200-300 CMs carried is enough to send them to middle ages. And ensure no airbases are left.

So what you are saying is that 8 to 10 Russian fighters were all they needed to face down and defeat 3 US carrier groups, plus the whole Turkish air force, so why bother with aircraft carriers at all if Russian forces are so potent just the promise they will come if you misbehave will surely be enough...

Would you say that Russian loose all their ships ?!

Your rose tinted glasses are great... Russia doesn't even need to develop new aircraft because even existing MiGs and Sukhois seem to do the job against top NATO countries and US carrier groups...

Numbers say otherwise. No wonder Russia was looking for smaller CVN models recently.

Cost:
Ford $14B
QE2 = $5,2B

American figures are not real figures and are not useful for anything really.

Russian costs will be totally different but operational costs with a small carrier are not that much less than a bigger more effective carrier because they would both need a similar number of support ships and each of those small carriers needs support ships too... which requires more support ships and leads to more down time for the other cheaper smaller carriers... which are not cheaper in the end.

explored for sure but not necessarily not for outgoing fighters. BTW suddenly you see cost effectiveness but in CVN question you dont? wow

Sadly you don't understand the concept of investing funds wisely.... it means spending money to get the capabilities you want, without wasting it on shit that is cheaper but doesn't do the job which makes it worse than nothing because at least nothing is free.

Especially that for India's tender is offered clearly with AESA.

They are demanding AESA radar... so they get to pay for it if that is what they want... sounds like a win win for the Russian military...



Regarding the F-35:

Watchdog: US Navy's F-35s Nowhere Near Combat Ready
AP Photo / Lefteris Pitarakis

Despite reaching initial operating capability status in February (on the very last day of a much-extended deadline), the US Navy's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program isn't anywhere near ready for combat, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), an independent watchdog group, said in a Tuesday report.

Largely citing a 2018 report from the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) regarding the program, POGO analysts say the Navy's F-35 fleet "continues to dramatically underperform in crucial areas including availability and reliability, cyber-vulnerability testing and life-expectancy testing."

"Despite years of patches and upgrades, the F-35's most combat-crucial computer systems continue to malfunction, including the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) maintenance and parts ordering network; and the data links that display, combine and exchange target and threat information among fighters and intelligence sources," the report reads.

It goes on to point out that F-35 fleets assigned to both the US Navy and the US Marines have experienced "so many cracks and received so many repairs and modifications that the test planes can't complete their 8,000-hour life-expectancy tests."

Documents obtained from the US Navy by POGO show that the fully mission capable rates of both the Marines' F-35B and the Navy's F-35C were far lower in 2018 than they were in 2017. The mission capability rate determines the percentage of fighter jets that are fully functional at any given time.

"The F-35B's fully mission capable rate fell from 23 percent in October 2017 to 12.9 percent in June 2018, while the F-35C plummeted from 12 percent in October 2016 to 0 percent in December 2017, then remained in the single digits through 2018," POGO analysts determined.

Furthermore, the F-35 program has also been unable to provide necessary resources to "build, test and validate onboard mission-data files that control mission accomplishment and survival."

"The fact that the Navy is pushing ahead with the aircraft in spite of evidence that it is not ready for combat and could therefore put at risk missions, as well as the troops who depend on it to get to the fight, comes at the same time as the Pentagon's annual operational testing report for fiscal year 2018 shows that the entire F-35 program, the most expensive weapon system in history, is not ready to face current or future threats," the report states.

Turkey May Let Russia’s S-400 Destroy US’ F-35 Project ‘From Within’ – Report

F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin, naturally, paints a rosier picture.

In a statement to Military.com, the company revealed that both its F-35C and F-35B variants were proving strong in test performances, and that mission capable rates were on the rise as technicians and pilots become more acquainted with the fighter jet.

"As more aircraft enter service, we are optimizing resources across the fleet and leveraging data across hundreds of thousands of flight hours to identify and invest in the biggest drivers to improve readiness and reduce costs," Lockheed said. "For example, we are improving supply availability and turnaround time; further enhancing system reliability and maintainability; implementing advanced analytics tools; enhancing [the Autonomic Logistics Information System]; conducting supply chain competitions; buying parts in bulk up front; accelerating modifications of earlier aircraft; and supporting the stand-up of regional warehouses and customer repair depots."

The defense contracting giant also contradicted POGO's capability rate calculations, saying the F-35C fleet was in fact maintaining a 60 percent mission capable rate. The outlet noted that Lockheed used a "different measure than the fully mission capable rates" reviewed by POGO.

According to Military.com, the US Navy presently has a fleet of 27 F-35 jets in its lineup, just a small portion of its order of 273 such aircrafts.

From: https://sputniknews.com/military/201903201073410541-watchdog-report-us-navy-f-35-troubles/

How many F-22s are serviceable...

How many are operationally sitting in their air conditioned hangars too expensive to fly...

a) AF not army

It is an Iskander, it is an Army weapon that was rapidly adapted for the Air Force.

Do you think its development was as an air force weapon?

BTW with Kiznhal can make Kuz kick ass.

I doubt it would be compatible with the ski jump ramp and I don't think the gap between the engines is big enough to fit the missile up high close to the weapon pylons down the centreline.

yet neither Zircon nor Onyx are air launched , or any plans announced.

SS-N-22 air launched missile version called Moskit mounted under the belly of an Su-33, with the Yakhont, which is the export model of the Onyx on the ground in front...

Zircon is replacement for the Onyx but I totally understand what you are saying... why waste energy making air launched versions of a very potent missile... kinzhal on an Su-33 would kick ass was what you said, but of course a Zircon would be a waste of time and money I guess...

Whinge GZUR materialists this would be strange if Zircon is not related.

You mean like the liquid propellent Kh-32, the solid propellent Kinzhal, and the scramjet powered Zircon... why do you believe the Gzur needs to be related?

Kh-32 replaces the almost identical Kh-22M, Kinzhal looks rather a lot like the Iskander with same propulsion and flight options, and the scramjet powered Zircon replaces the ramjet powered Onyx... that in turn replaced the ramjet powered Granit...

Besides its clear waste of resources it to build 2 different hypersonic missiles for the same job and both airborne .

You mean like having two flat deck fighter aircraft, or two attack helos... or it could be that the final products are different enough to be useful for different purposes...

BTW When GZUR is service accepted neither Su-33 nor 29k will be in service.

It is going to be a 5m long 1.5 ton weapon that most likely will be their replacement for the Kh-15 Kickback.

Most likely it is going to be used by bombers to take out threats in front of them like active SAM sites or airfields... the Blackjack will be able to hold 12 missiles in each bomb bay, so its normal load would be 12 Gzurs and 6 Kh-102s...

GarryB wrote:

Please pay attention: no US CVN carries 60 fighters.

The number they carry is irrelevant because unless they stay in port and get dealt with via the god of the sea, they wont be operating any fighters from the sea floor.

It is not relevant close to Russia, where they can be dealt with by means of Tu-22M§ and MiG-31K, but far from its cover the CSG cannot be really countered nowadays by Russia.

An LHD is most useful for landing armour and deploying helicopters... what they are not useful for is mini aircraft carriers... which is a role they are shit for... the British know because they had the Hermes and Invincible... they are tiny ships much cheaper than the 70K ton ship they are using now.... the Russians also know they had the Kiev class carriers that were also small ships that were cheaper than the Kuznetsov... do you see a trend?

If tiny little ships with VSTOL fighters were so fucking cheap and so fucking great why are the British and the Russians not building them?

Perhaps because when all is said an done an LHD is not a CVN and vice versa, so by all means build a couple of LHDs but for goodness sake build CVNs so they will actually be able to operate safely and not be butchered like the big container ships they are with out proper air support.

Yes we agree in the last part

A LHD will be your HQ in a deployment where no CV is needed, allowing you to deal with more conflictive situations for less money. I think that is the reason why Russia is showing interest in them and even saying they will not be pure LHDs but mulls a singe design with several capabilities, carrier being among them. Not every conflict demands the absolute maximum capabilities, and actually more often than not just having military presence is enough of an statement to stabilise a situation.

So a LHD can transport soldiers and material, house an hospital, ensure peace keeping and do many more functions. For several of these, a plane is a plus. It can fly higher, faster and further with more payload and stand overloads in other completely different category to helicopters, so the use is clear. Many air forces in the world still have to get by with MiG-23s and the like without proper maintenance and support, so a decent small fighter operated and supported competently and with some serious SAM and land attack missiles from the fleet would be enough for deterrence. Other situations would call for the presence of the CVs of course.

A very compact light plane that is not a PoS in terms of reliability and costs (here I admit the STOVL needs to deliver better than until now) WOULD be useful. Say 6-10 planes in one ship would bring a completely different set of capabilities to what you could do only with helos, at least from today's perspective..

From point of view of reliability, it is not known to me that F-35Bs are falling from the sky. It is and will be more expensive and less capable than CTOL and CATOBAR versions, but that is known and acceptable for their role. There it comes the thorny issue, that for a CV you want performance (as many fighters and as good as possible), while for the LHD you just need a plane, not necessarily in numbers and as compact as possible. So I don't see unification of these aircraft on the one hand, and on the other the economies of making just a handful of STOVL look terrible.

From the point of view of propulsive technology of a STOVL plane, I think the best solution is actually the one used in F-35B. Its thrust augmentation system through increase of BPR is both simple (no more engines needed) and safe due to use of cool air. In hover mode it almost matches the performance of the engine in wet settings without using the afterburner. But then, a LHD with springboard could maybe operate light, especially designed STOL planes too, so the decision is not so clear. Would the Yak-130 qualify for STOL? I an sure Yakovlev did research a lot it terms of STOVL and is eager to show what can be done so we keep hearing about such planes for Russia. Politics and industrial base is also a reason for pushing a program, even when not strictly mandatory from a military perspective.

Yeah... what do you mean by reasonable cost... any operational CV is going to need a billion dollars support each year... the carrier group that operates around a CV costs over a billion dollars to keep operational... and for what... so it can sit ready in case it is needed... that is a shit load of money for just in case.

This sounds a lot like you are against CV by the way  
Russia needs to be more cost conscious but if you decide you need carriers you need to have enough of them to make them worth the effort. Three or four I am not sure, but what I am confident is that having one regularly deployed in the Western hemisphere makes all sense.

Two new CVNs plus the Kuznetsov means one can be given a decent overhaul and upgrade and there should be at least one carrier available for anything needed and most likely two will be available most of the time... which is enough.

May be. But I think this would make it easy for US to exploit your lack of vessels to unleash conflicts you cannot take care of. Three available carriers would allow to stay geographically close to most world regions at all times. A matter of need evaluation and budget availability, cannot discuss much about it.

Some Mistralski LHDNs in the northern fleet and the pacific fleet that make regular visits to the med and spend time in tartus make sense... but spending money on the northern fleet base and the pacific fleet base is already happening... basing a total of three CV/Ns there plus two LHDNs makes sense and at nuke power speeds they can go where they are needed quickly enough anyway... most operations will be planned months in advance, but if an emergency crops up generally it will take weeks for them to get to where they are needed anyway, so taking a few weeks to load them properly so they are prepared makes sense too... they are never going to be the US with carriers positioned everywhere able to arrive within a few days... that is simply not an option.

Well they don't need that. Russia's landmass allow them, with their naval bombers and air launched missiles, to hold land and naval assets at risk all over Europe and most Asia. In future with IRBMs even more. But Western Hemisphere is too far to intervene fast enough. From Murmansk to South America it is a hell of a journey, Russia should need to accept a policy of accomplished facts by US there.

There was discussion about a possible Russian base in the Caribbean, actually keeping it on an island would be a good idea. A fleet regularly there could be used to support allied governments in the Caribbean and South America. Think of Nicaragua opening a channel between Pacific and Caribbean and what a geostrategic hot spot that would turn into. Or maybe Brazil going left again and nationalizing the oil. There is a lot going on there and in the long term Russia should consider having presence there. This would a use for which the navy would be really necessary.

They will have a few years to decide whether they want a naval 5th gen Su-57 heavy naval fighter, or a brand new light 5th gen land and sea fighter... the latter being quicker and easier and cheaper and simpler to make if it is just STOL... 5th gen light fighters will be low drag large wing high thrust aircraft that would suit CATOBAR and STOBAR operations.

A bit late to start developing a 5G fighter. And the looks are that Russia will go for a UCAV instead. In any case no light fighter needed for naval use if you have Su-57.

Think he means no carrier aircraft will likely be carrying Kinzhal... but then carrier aircraft probably will carry Zircon, with half the range of Kinzhal and almost the same flight speed an air launched model would at the very least add 1,000km to the flight range of the aircraft... probably double that...

Yeah, it does not matter the name of the missile as far as it has that kind of capabilities. A big fighter will be needed, one that USN cannot field in something like 15 years.[/quote]

GarryB wrote:

See, your problem is that you still live in 80s. Now we are talking about 50+ years later reality. BTW did you really checked Syria scenario? Those 8 fighters were against whole Turkish AF and US 3 CSGs alike.
If any small country so stupid to attack Russian ESG then 200-300 CMs carried is enough to send them to middle ages. And ensure no airbases are left.

So what you are saying is that 8 to 10 Russian fighters were all they needed to face down and defeat 3 US carrier groups, plus the whole Turkish air force, so why bother with aircraft carriers at all if Russian forces are so potent just the promise they will come if you misbehave will surely be enough...

Please read with understanding. 8-10 fighters were enough to deter US aggression. Otherwise other means would be used by Russia. This was in 2015-2018.

With long range or even global reach hypersonic precision weapons this refers to any scenario, anywhere. Russia doesn't need really need CVNs for other purposes then Syria like operations and flag waving.

GB wrote:

Numbers say otherwise. No wonder Russia was looking for smaller CVN models recently.

Cost:
Ford $14B
QE2 = $5,2B

American figures are not real figures and are not useful for anything really.

Russian costs will be totally different but operational costs with a small carrier are not that much less than a bigger more effective carrier because they would both need a similar number of support ships and each of those small carriers needs support ships too... which requires more support ships and leads to more down time for the other cheaper smaller carriers... which are not cheaper in the end.

You know what is percentage and ratio? then focus, this example with costs for RN or USN. But neither ratio nor % of price for RuN will be much different.
Real world evidence is says contrary to your opinion. So far all navies, including Russian one, consider small carrier because of costs...

BTW Support ships? are needed for ESG anyway.

GB wrote:

explored for sure but not necessarily not for outgoing fighters. BTW suddenly you see cost effectiveness but in CVN question you dont? wow

Sadly you don't understand the concept of investing funds wisely.... it means spending money to get the capabilities you want, without wasting it on shit that is cheaper but doesn't do the job which makes it worse than nothing because at least nothing is free.

Well, you understand half of stuff then. Concept of wasting is more less understood. But the half you dont grasp is about Russian military .
Waste is spending on large, expensive and form point of doctrine, useless ships. BTW rendered obsolete by Zircons/Kiznahls/Avangards.


ESG for Midway battles is only your dreams not Russian doctrine tho.

GB wrote:

Especially that for India's tender is offered clearly with AESA.

They are demanding AESA radar... so they get to pay for it if that is what they want... sounds like a win win for the Russian military...

if MiG-35 wins perhaps , if not MiG-35 is likely out for good. No need for RuAF for more orders.

GB wrote:

a) AF not army

It is an Iskander, it is an Army weapon that was rapidly adapted for the Air Force.
Do you think its development was as an air force weapon?

so? it is AF weapon no Army's one. Point.

GB wrote:

BTW with Kiznhal can make Kuz kick ass.

I doubt it would be compatible with the ski jump ramp and I don't think the gap between the engines is big enough to fit the missile up high close to the weapon pylons down the centreline.

it is of course such possibility exists but then it means Kuz battle worth not much more then flag waving ship.

GB wrote:

yet neither Zircon nor Onyx are air launched , or any plans announced.

SS-N-22 air launched missile version called Moskit mounted under the belly of an Su-33, with the Yakhont, which is the export model of the Onyx on the ground in front...

https://www.uacrussia.ru/ru/aircraft/lineup/military/su-33/#aircraft-specific
So you know something UAC doesnt or just tosh?. Website of manufacturer above



Kh-41 never happened. Onyx for Su-33 never happened either . Kh-41 was offered and planned tho, but cancelled.
http://oruzhie.info/raketi/266-kh-41-moskit

GB wrote:
Zircon is replacement for the Onyx but I totally understand what you are saying... why waste energy making air launched versions of a very potent missile... kinzhal on an Su-33 would kick ass was what you said, but of course a Zircon would be a waste of time and money I guess...  

Do you understand notion of timeline or readies level? Kinzhal exists and can me integrated pretty much right away, Zircon is to 2023-24 enter service, airborne version coud be 2-3-4-5 years later?

GB wrote:

Whinge GZUR materialists this would be strange if Zircon is not related.

you mean like the liquid propellent Kh-32, the solid propellent Kinzhal, and the scramjet powered Zircon... why do you believe the Gzur needs to be related?

GZUR air-breathing and is under construction. An airborne Zircon not even planned.
if you believe the Russian will make 2 parallel unrelated airborne hypersonic missiles just for fun, without real need. You have full right. Nonetheless this might nor affect reality. Costs/resources you know.

GB wrote:

BTW When GZUR is service accepted neither Su-33 nor 29k will be in service.

It is going to be a 5m long 1.5 ton weapon that most likely will be their replacement for the Kh-15 Kickback.
Most likely it is going to be used by bombers to take out threats in front of them like active SAM sites or airfields... the Blackjack will be able to hold 12 missiles in each bomb bay, so its normal load would be 12 Gzurs and 6 Kh-102s...

not only Kh-15. Yes it is to fit bomb bays, but it is light (lighter then Onyx or Zircon. With long range. An assumption that light long range missiles wont be used by deck aviation is, not very likely.

LMFS wrote:

GarryB wrote:

Please pay attention: no US CVN carries 60 fighters.

The number they carry is irrelevant because unless they stay in port and get dealt with via the god of the sea, they wont be operating any fighters from the sea floor.

It is not relevant close to Russia, where they can be dealt with by means of Tu-22M§ and MiG-31K, but far from its cover the CSG cannot be really countered nowadays by Russia.

With Zircons/Gzurs /Avangards they can. With fighters is not even planned.

GB wrote:

They will have a few years to decide whether they want a naval 5th gen Su-57 heavy naval fighter, or a brand new light 5th gen land and sea fighter... the latter being quicker and easier and cheaper and simpler to make if it is just STOL... 5th gen light fighters will be low drag large wing high thrust aircraft that would suit CATOBAR and STOBAR operations.

A bit late to start developing a 5G fighter. And the looks are that Russia will go for a UCAV instead. In any case no light fighter needed for naval use if you have Su-57.

that we dont know yet if VSTOL is gonna be light one or heavy one.

L wrote:Think he means no carrier aircraft will likely be carrying Kinzhal... but then carrier aircraft probably will carry Zircon, with half the range of Kinzhal and almost the same flight speed an air launched model would at the very least add 1,000km to the flight range of the aircraft... probably double that...

Yeah, it does not matter the name of the missile as far as it has that kind of capabilities. A big fighter will be needed, one that USN cannot field in something like 15 years.[/quote]
[/quote]

FAXX will be sooner then Russians CVNs BTW and no you dotn need any heavy fighter to carry then. GZUR is to weight ~1500-2000kg . 1,500km range add 500km radius for fighter.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:This is called wishful thinking to me. Perhaps they are less effective but over order of magnitude and Russian costs will be growing with salries too.

BTW  Russia is trying to defend herself not to control all world with such effective budget Russian would control everything already.

Go to the facts. Russia has convincing nuclear triad, in fact in many respects better than US. They have countered US ABM threat. Their AD is essentially the best in the world, they have been the firsts with hypersonics and have in fact put naval warfare upside down with their new weapons. Both strategically and conventionally Russia is ahead in many ways so they don't need to grow their budget absurdly big. Keeping 800 bases around the world is insanely expensive and is impossible to keep controlled and beyond the reach of corruption. Russia does not need nothing of this. 5 or 6 foreign bases, a military based around defence and robust nuclear deterrence make it easy for Russia to be respected without needing to go the US way.

would you say Nimitz carrying 90 aircraft has 40 helos and AWACS? OK Im not specialist on USN

Me neither, but we frequently oversimplify the carrier operations and end up thinking they have 90 fighters on board. From wiki:

The current U.S. Navy carrier air wing consists of:

   Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each, or ten F/A-18C Hornets each (over forty strike fighters total). The typical mix is one F/A-18F (two-seat) Super Hornet squadron, and three single-seat F/A-18E Super Hornet squadrons or a mix of F/A-18E Super Hornet and F/A-18C Hornet squadrons, though some air wings have two F/A-18F (two-seat) squadrons. In two airwings one of the F/A-18C Hornet squadrons is a U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Attack (VMFA) Squadron.
   One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.
   One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D "Advanced" Hawkeyes
   One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks
   One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks, 3–5 of which are typically based in detachments on other ships of the carrier strike group.
   A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds;

So if you manage to carry 3 sqdn fighters and to cover the rest of the functions needed you already have quite a big carrier most probably.

then deterrence you want to build up till US navy size? they you lost war already by bankrupting .   Real example we had in Syria proved that 8 fighters were more then enough.

Russia has already reached conventional deterrence close to their borders with their new missiles. All they need to do is to put them in service at the naval aviation and support with some decent air control capability. This is all within reach. I have been explaining why the already available qualitative edge allows to avoid needing the USN size.

USN needs global presence (geography doesn't help them there, unlike what happens with Russia which has the worlds biggest landmass within reach) and very high strike volumes to be capable to intervene against the armed forces of complete countries. Russia needs nothing of that. As far as current capabilities look like, a salvo of more than 8-10 Kinzhal or Zircon against a CSG would be overkill, so tell me how many planes or missiles does Russia need for deterrence.

1) no I dont, I say not more fighters did the trick, as you insist, but other means of "signalling"  

Close to Russian border navy is not needed. A MiG-31K can take off at any time and sink a USN vessel in minutes (in theatre conventional deterrence). Far from Russia it is not like this. Again I am not insisting in hundreds of fighters but on qualitative edge of those, so I don't understand your insistence.

2) You kept saying spend more on arms regardless if you can afford or not.

You are not the guardian of Russian budget. Hell, these years they were no even capable of expending what they have allocated for navy due to lack of industrial capacity. They have laid clear their intent of developing a blue water navy in their naval strategy, who am I (or you, for the like) to question that? This means extra funding for things like 223050M, Lider, LHDs, carriers, air control planes, naval fighters and UCAVs, not to talk about subs. This will be all new and it is not me who is ordering it  

3) bigger CVN does it all according to you? I disagree

A basic LHD without any expensive systems and weapons is useful for what, according to you? You keep talking about "big" and "small" and I don't know what you mean. I laid down already what I think would be good enough.

same random guys that were fighting Erdogan, AFAIK ~30k military were prosecuted

Some "random" 30,000??   Or rather their armed forces had been co-opted by US?

if US wants war they dont need any provocation. For whom if world wont exist anymore?  and you Russia should do this? I can answer you already: you cannot. Besides ensuring US motherfucking elites  know they will be  killed  till last  one of  them.

They want to keep the conflict conventional, I am saying this in my post but if you read 50% the discussion is difficult.

any example of escalation now? i fail to see any, help is appreciated

Do you see sanctions against Russia being removed or quite the contrary? INF? Test of new missiles? Space Force and test of neutron weapons? Deployment of B-52s to Europe? Where do you think this is all going?

you cannot be serious with that, can you?

Dead serious. They are not sane, hadn't you noticed?? These kind of gloomy scenarios don't count for the psychopathic adventurist that is so sought after for plotting US foreign policy. Whereas the thing authoritarian people hate the most is their authority being questioned. Top that in the US elites' case with an irrational faith in their inherent superiority. They don't think in getting killed and if all, who will live to see their defeat? We will die all.

1) OK NIMITZ carries 40 fighters and 52 helos or 48 fighters and 42 helos

See above a realistic USN air wing composition

2)  36 Su-57k iin 2040s?  (which wont happen anyway ), would deal with 3x48 F/AXX + tens  of drones  and basically would be dead

I go one step forward and you, before knowing the immediate future, go for USN air composition post F-35C, which is only now being declared operational? Well let me go one step further and anticipate the Su-57K successor... a truly constructive discussion

3) defeat 2 CSGs ? wow ? Russian admirals dont seem to be on your level of optimism.

Based on currently available or soon to be commissioned equipment, say 10 years in the future max, what means would USN have to defeat a potential Su-57K exactly? What long range AAMs to counter Russian R-37M and Izd. 180? What equivalent to Kinzhal or Zircon to pierce ADs from stand off ranges? How does the comparison regarding range, speed, flight altitude, weapons payload, manoeuvrability look like for USN fighters? It is not a matter of numbers anymore but of qualitative difference. USN would have no arguments IMHO. Exchange ratios of 4:1 are nothing special if you listen to Americans and their Red Flag stories  

I did Royal navy, Italian navy or  Japs Navy.  They all use (or plan to) exclusively  VSTOL.

I mean navies of countries that make their foreign policy themselves and not Western poodles. US, China, Russia, India qualify, maybe some others too that I omitted but most will lack size and capability. To RuN is of no interest if the navy of San Marino wants to paint a container ship in grey and put some STOVL on top. They need real capabilities, not being supporting acts.

You will see that:
> Those navies have STOBAR or CATOBAR. Most of them have even confirmed EMALS for the future
> Some of them have or consider STOVL for their expeditionary forces. This is the classical approach.

Everybody understands that a STOVL fighter looses something in exchange in order to gain the STOVL performance. Besides, what makes sense in a LHD is a really compact plane, just the fact of having a jet aircraft is already boosting their capabilities immensely compared to only  helos, and if it is supersonic and can be reasonable capable in the A2A role then it is a full success. Whereas in a full blown carrier you need to be on par with the best a potential enemy can throw at you so compromises are not really acceptable.

BTW Borisov said "undoblty VSOTL is future of all deck aviation" looks lie Russian MoD is not sharing your views either.

 
He said they were developing STOL or possibly STOVL as a base for all the naval aviation. I am not going to throw all what my common sense (or lack thereof) tells me just because of one preposition more or less in a statement from Borisov, related to decisions that Russian military has not yet officially taken.

what about that Im just realistic and understand that you need to live withing your resources?

We all think our guesses are doable and reasonable, that is the fun of this.

Ask yourself why many of my "defeatist guesses" were then somehow confirmed by Russian MoD decisions?  

I better ask yourself. I have some hits to boast about too, but success in a past "guess" proves nothing for the future. Do you claim you never failed a prognosis?

hmm if you check timeline and geopolitics then you'd realize they didnt really . Their assumptions were based on political decisions. Now when they need to counter technological enemies they start and get there very soon in terms or geopolitical eras.

B-2, F-22, F-35, FCS, Litoral Combat Ship, Zumwalt, Ford carrier, railgun, ABM, hypersonics just to name a few concrete programs and areas that took ages to realize and produced mixed results at best. They concentrated on neo-colonial uses of the military and fell in surreal levels of corruption while neglecting real technology, because they (politically, you are right) thought the history had come to a conclusion with their "full spectrum dominance". This is a blunder of insurmountable consequences now, even if they catch up they have lost initiative.

Perhaps this would explain your uberoptimism wrt US countering.

23 MiG29k in service + 19 Su-33 = 42

USMC = 330
USN = 800
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

Ratio 1030/42 = 24,5 :1

Sorry  I was wrong. It's more then 20:1

Great, you suggest they will somehow manage to have all those planes at the same spot to counter a Russian carrier? And why you submit that I consider current RuN a match for USN, do you think I am mad? They don't even have a carrier...

..it is of course such possibility exists but then it means Kuz battle worth not much more then flag waving ship.

It could act as a command ship capable of supporting marine landings, conducting CSAR, IRSC4, land strikes, & emergency evacuations, hum. assistance/disaster relief. Besides, it has a huge value as a realistic seagoing training platform as oppose to NITKA.
1-2 SSGNs or SSBNs on detachment to the ESG will be more useful & lethal than deck fighters with Kinzhals that operationally may not even fit in the shipboard environment.

More on forest fires in Siberia: https://iz.ru/859136/evgeniia-priemskaia/nevypolnennaia-forma-u-pozharnykh-v-zabaikale-nekhvatka-snariazheniia

Tilt-rotors could definitely help there.

The current U.S. Navy carrier air wing consists of:

Four Strike Fighter (VFA) Squadrons, with twelve F/A-18E/F Super Hornets each, or ten F/A-18C Hornets each (over forty strike fighters total). The typical mix is one F/A-18F (two-seat) Super Hornet squadron, and three single-seat F/A-18E Super Hornet squadrons or a mix of F/A-18E Super Hornet and F/A-18C Hornet squadrons, though some air wings have two F/A-18F (two-seat) squadrons. In two airwings one of the F/A-18C Hornet squadrons is a U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Attack (VMFA) Squadron.
One Electronic Attack (VAQ) Squadron, made up of five EA-18G Growlers.
One Carrier Airborne Early Warning (VAW) Squadron, with four E-2C Hawkeyes or five E-2D "Advanced" Hawkeyes
One Helicopter Sea Combat (HSC) Squadron of eight MH-60S Seahawks
One Helicopter Maritime Strike (HSM) Squadron of eleven MH-60R Seahawks, 3–5 of which are typically based in detachments on other ships of the carrier strike group.
A Fleet Logistics Support (VRC) Squadron Detachment of two C-2A Greyhounds;

Then you list how many tonnes of bombs, missiles and fuel they stock inside the carrier for all that and you find out that even a hit of a single kh-35 launched by some houtis supported by russia can send that carrier to the bottom.

It's subsonic & the CIWS mounts will take care of it; the damage control on CVNs is very good.

Tsavo Lion wrote:It's subsonic & the CIWS mounts will take care of it; the damage control on CVNs is very good.

They are not mighty weapons. And I said one hit not one missile. Israel proved that low speed cheap weapons can be effective against air defences designed to take out those same weapons bby overwhelming attacks. Carrier defences have nothing special.

You can check on video what it is like when an ammunition depot explode. Damage control won't help.

Have u been on a USN CVN during a general quoters drill? I have.
Missiles r armed only on the flight deck before take off. The fire on the USS Forestall with bombs & missiles exploding, planes & fuel burning didn't sink it. Ammo depot is deep below decks. The only way to blow it up is a HSM hit penetrating all those decks or a HE torpedo/mine exploding underneath the CVN's bottom.

It is not relevant close to Russia, where they can be dealt with by means of Tu-22M§ and MiG-31K, but far from its cover the CSG cannot be really countered nowadays by Russia.

Primary anti carrier weapon for the Soviets was the Oscar class subs and still is SSGNs...

A LHD will be your HQ in a deployment where no CV is needed, allowing you to deal with more conflictive situations for less money.

But when would you want to "land troops" and not have air power?

You might not need a helicopter carrier, but any significant surface group will need air cover to operate... with no CV or CVN how will an LHD detect low flying tomahawk missiles or aircraft attacking it until it is too late?

I think that is the reason why Russia is showing interest in them and even saying they will not be pure LHDs but mulls a singe design with several capabilities, carrier being among them. Not every conflict demands the absolute maximum capabilities, and actually more often than not just having military presence is enough of an statement to stabilise a situation.

They stated when the ordered the two Mistrals that they wanted them for the Arctic (northern fleet) and the Kuriles (Pacific fleet)... and they had them modified to allow a higher hangar roof for Kamov helos... Ka-29 transports and Ka-52K attack helos, and also reinforced hull structures to cope with ice.

So a LHD can transport soldiers and material, house an hospital, ensure peace keeping and do many more functions. For several of these, a plane is a plus. It can fly higher, faster and further with more payload and stand overloads in other completely different category to helicopters, so the use is clear. Many air forces in the world still have to get by with MiG-23s and the like without proper maintenance and support, so a decent small fighter operated and supported competently and with some serious SAM and land attack missiles from the fleet would be enough for deterrence. Other situations would call for the presence of the CVs of course.

So you are trying to say you would still have fixed wing carriers... just that you would only deploy them when you really really needed them... couldn't you say the same about destroyers and cruisers... most of the time you could send corvettes and frigates with big support ships that have fuel and ammo and food and accommodation that the crews of the frigates and corvettes could rotate to and from so it is nice and comfortable.... only having corvettes and frigates will make it much cheaper than big expensive destroyers and cruisers... and when you are not using them as support ships those support ships could earn money as cruise liners... it could have big LAN suites for large scale games like shooters or even flight simulators.... a 1,000 person LAN party recreating the battle of britain or something...

A very compact light plane that is not a PoS in terms of reliability and costs (here I admit the STOVL needs to deliver better than until now) WOULD be useful. Say 6-10 planes in one ship would bring a completely different set of capabilities to what you could do only with helos, at least from today's perspective..

So compact and light and good and reliable and cheap... any other demands?

I mean you are only asking for something that no one has ever delivered before in a conventional land based aircraft and you want a naval STOVL aircraft?


6-10 of them on a helicopter carrier will mean bugger all helicopters or vehicles will fit, so you might as well take an extra ship and call it a fighter support CVN and put 20 of the useless little money pit crash machines on that and have helicopter carriers there too to do the real job of landing troops and supporting the op.

From point of view of reliability, it is not known to me that F-35Bs are falling from the sky.

The last figures I have seen they don't get into the sky for that to be a serious risk.... the F-35B had availability rates of 12% in 2017 and worse in 2018...

It is and will be more expensive and less capable than CTOL and CATOBAR versions, but that is known and acceptable for their role. There it comes the thorny issue, that for a CV you want performance (as many fighters and as good as possible), while for the LHD you just need a plane, not necessarily in numbers and as compact as possible. So I don't see unification of these aircraft on the one hand, and on the other the economies of making just a handful of STOVL look terrible.

You are deluding yourself if you think you can have a global navy with a carrier force on the cheap and also have an effective force... because they are two different things.

The English tried the 20K ton Hermes and Invincible carriers with the sea harrier... which has been the best STOVL fighter ever made to date, yet its performance figures show most of its ability came from its rather capable radar... in the early 1980s it was poor... it only had sidewinders and was lucky in combat to only come up against an enemy that also had short range sidewinders as a weapon choice... and an older version that needed a tail lock for any chance of a kill, while the missiles the Brits stole from the NATO stocks were all aspect and of much better performance.

Taking on the Soviets... even a MiG-23 with R-23R and R-23T missiles would have been a problem for the Brits as they could have launched attacks at standoff ranges and then turned and headed home without ever coming in to within visual range and risk a dogfight with short range missiles like sidewinder or R-60.

The R-23R and R-23T are ordinary weapons with a fairly low PK... although the IR guided R-23T probably would have been rather dangerous because the engine exhaust is visible from the side on the Harrier so it would be vulnerable over much wider angles than most fighters... firing one of each could have been a rather successful tactic...

Politics and industrial base is also a reason for pushing a program, even when not strictly mandatory from a military perspective.

They also talk about Ekranoplans too, but it has a fundamental flaw too... flying low is not efficient due to the thick air restricting flight speed and jet engine performance is not great at lower altitudes, so any advantage in lower drag from no wingtip vortexes is lost in burning more fuel through the thicker air for longer at a lower flight speed.

It is the same for VSTOL fighters... they can take off from anywhere and land anywhere... no they can't. You will save billions on a smaller ship... but spend billions on a funky plane you might put on as many as four ships... and those small ships are not so useful for a global force reach which is the whole purpose in the first place...

This sounds a lot like you are against CV by the way

A carrier surface group is going to cost tens of billions... the CVN on its own will cost 5 billion at the very least and rather more if I got my way... and a couple of 20K ton cruisers, not to mention some destroyers and a helicopter carrier and support vessels... not to mention a couple of SSN somewhere near by... you probably wouldn't get much change from 20 billion for the lot including aircraft and all those missiles these ships are going to be able to tote around... and it would probably cost a billion dollars a year just to operate them around the place... there is not going to be anything like cheap to do with this... but what is the alternative... to sit back and let countries who have spent the money like the US or UK or France or China or India dictate to you about global situations.

Having 13 carrier groups didn't allow the US any extra strength in Georgia in 2008, and I rather doubt having a carrier in Syria really made all that much difference, they don't guarantee anything... but would you operate a ground army unit without air support?

So why would you deny your navy air support or air control when it is beyond the reach of the Russian AF?

Russia needs to be more cost conscious but if you decide you need carriers you need to have enough of them to make them worth the effort. Three or four I am not sure, but what I am confident is that having one regularly deployed in the Western hemisphere makes all sense.

I am neither suggesting 100K ton carriers nor that they get 13 to match the US or 14 for superiority... I am suggesting they build perhaps 2 CVNs with slightly bigger aircraft capacity to the Kuznetsov... that means more fighters, but also AWACS aircraft, so we are not looking at just 10,000 tons more... more like 20K tons more... in the 70-80K tons range... now if clever design with new compact NPPs and thrust pod engines and a multi hull design can get that into a 45KT sized hull I am all for that... it is not the weight I want it is the capacity to carry aircraft.... fighters and AWACS platforms... if they do a good job perhaps India and China might want some too and perhaps even South Korea... who knows.

Regarding STOVL fighters... sure... try and make them but be honest and be fair... if they don't stack up to a more conventional design then they get cut... the money spent can be recovered in UAV design perhaps using the failed technology perhaps it scales down better...

Helicopters for helicopter carriers... if the enemy has fighters then you should have CVNs... for self defence a Ka-52K with an AESA radar and R-77s should be enough for most enemies and in time the new AAMs developed for the Su-57s will make them even more potent...

For the CVN a new light 5th gen fighter could be developed... perhaps two versions... one STOL and the other STOVL and testing can determine which wins, but the STOL for use on land would make more sense than a STOVL anyway as it is simpler and cheaper and should have more internal space (with no big internal lift fan) for fuel and weapons... even if it is not as fast as the Su-57 or with as long a range... and also make an Su-57K... and you can pick which goes ahead for naval use based on performance and cost...

May be. But I think this would make it easy for US to exploit your lack of vessels to unleash conflicts you cannot take care of. Three available carriers would allow to stay geographically close to most world regions at all times. A matter of need evaluation and budget availability, cannot discuss much about it.

But having four half arsed little helicopter carriers with VSTOL fighters and they wouldn't dare right? but with the logic of one in dock one in training and one operational that would mean you would need at least 6 little carriers to ensure 4 were available and then there can be accidents or problems so you would need 7, plus you would need more because that is 7 CVN equivalents... you would also need helicopter carriers for the actual landings... how is this saving money again?

America has 13 carrier groups with CVNs... they also have quite a few marine carriers equivalent to what you are suggesting for Russia on the cheap... about 10 actually, so their capacity to exploit Russias lack of vessels is pretty solid no matter what Russia does.

There is a lot going on there and in the long term Russia should consider having presence there. This would a use for which the navy would be really necessary.

Without decent air power such a presence is going to be tenuous at best...

A bit late to start developing a 5G fighter. And the looks are that Russia will go for a UCAV instead. In any case no light fighter needed for naval use if you have Su-57.

Why?
Effectively a 5g light fighter is a numbers fighter that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate but with modern sensors and systems and self defence electronics and modern weapons... the Americans have really made it look hard because they want their light 5th gen fighter to basically replace their F-22 heavy stealth fighter because it was considered too expensive to be built in numbers... in effect making the F-35 worse than the crap it is supposed to replace...

The Russians can do what America did when it designed and built the F-16 and just make a simple but sophisticated and up to date agile little fighter... give it two engines, make it semi stealthy but cheap to operate and simple to maintain... purely plug and play... the naval model can have a bigger wing with larger control surfaces that folds up real small and a nice big wing with big powerful engines and thrust vector control and the ability to pitch the nose up and get max lift from those wings while accelerating to above stall speed in normal flight it could probably have a very short operating length even without chocks and arrester wires.

Please read with understanding. 8-10 fighters were enough to deter US aggression. Otherwise other means would be used by Russia. This was in 2015-2018.

But was it really all 8-10 of them or could you get away with a Ka-52K helicopter and an AESA radar and R-77s with solid rocket boosters to increase performance?

With long range or even global reach hypersonic precision weapons this refers to any scenario, anywhere. Russia doesn't need really need CVNs for other purposes then Syria like operations and flag waving.

Gzur II is supposed to be a mach 12-14 missile with global reach so really there is no need for the Russian navy to piss around worrying about attacking US carrier groups with carrier groups of their own... which is actually a dreadfully inefficient way of doing it anyway...

Russian carrier groups can busy themselves with global trade with Russia and any country that wants to trade... and opening out launch position options for Russian SSBNs and of course new arsenal subs based on the Akula SSBN design equipped with Petrel and Calibre and other exotic tools for making the orange piggy squeal...

So far all navies, including Russian one, consider small carrier because of costs...

Yeah, they consider smaller carriers... and then the UK buys a 65K ton QEII, and 65 K ton Prince of Wales, and the French went with a 43K ton CdG, and the Americans are going from the 100K ton Nimitz to the 100K ton Ford class... even their "light marine carriers" are heavier than the French carrier...

Waste is spending on large, expensive and form point of doctrine, useless ships. BTW rendered obsolete by Zircons/Kiznahls/Avangards.

No they aren't... the Russians are the first to introduce hypersonic manouvering anti ship missiles and their air defence MIC... which I think you will agree is the best in the world on land... and soon to be at sea soon too with new AESA radars and new naval S-400 and S-500 missiles as well as naval versions of S-350 and new TOR and new Pantsir and 9M100.

How much time before they develop a defence against hypersonic threats... it might take 10 years but it might take the US 10 years to develop widely deployed and useful hypersonic missiles anyway... and to be honest... looking at Russian land based air defence... there is none better any where else and it continues to improve... are you honestly saying the response the Russians should take to the potential of intermediate range hypersonic manouvering US missiles based in europe or japan is to give up the Russian air force and not have big bases or big targets as you call them and just spread everything out to require more missiles to take out?

Really?

ESG for Midway battles is only your dreams not Russian doctrine tho.

You are the one talking about Russian carrier groups taking on US carrier groups... I have already stated several times that Yasen class SSGNs could do that job on their own with Zircons... which is why they will probably be getting them first.

if MiG-35 wins perhaps , if not MiG-35 is likely out for good. No need for RuAF for more orders.

I doubt the US could promise no congress would ever block parts for any of their aircraft and the Typhoon is out because there is no way europe would ignore US demands sanctions against India when it gets S-400 missiles... France wont allow ToT or local production it seems... what else is there?

The purchase of AKs shows it takes time but they will take the obvious choice eventually...

so? it is AF weapon no Army's one. Point.

You mean like the AK-74s used by the guards at the air force base are air force weapons... but only because the air force paid to buy them... not develop them...

it is of course such possibility exists but then it means Kuz battle worth not much more then flag waving ship.

Don't forget sabre rattling...

So you know something UAC doesnt or just tosh?. Website of manufacturer above

It was promoted as an option for any country willing to spend the money to integrate the weapon... the original Moskit is 4.5 tons and would likely not be very carrier launch friendly. The air launched version of Onyx is only 2.5 tons, but mainly offered for export as an air launched weapon (in the form of the Yakhont from Russia or Brahmos from India/Rus.)

Only India has gone to the expense of integrating the Brahmos and that was with their Su-30MKI, but the method of integration would be pretty standard... some sort of  structure to hold the missile in flight and to ensure on release it doesn't take out either engine nacelle... preferably with an arm that thrusts it down and ensures a clean separation at launch... and with two belly pylons there should be plenty of scope to manage that...

Zircon is such a higher performing weapon that its carriage on an Su-33 becomes rather attractive... but not guaranteed... As I repeatedly tell you the fighters on the K are fighters... they shoot down Anti ship missiles and enemy aircraft, they are not there to launch attacks against enemy ships and they are really not equipped to do that either... but why would you start listening to me now?

Kh-41 never happened. Onyx for Su-33 never happened either . Kh-41 was offered and planned tho, but cancelled.

Duh, they were options for potential export customers like China or India who might like an attack or anti ship role for their carrier based aviation... unlike the Russian navy that just wants air defence aircraft... which is why the multirole MiG-33 was initially rejected for the bigger Su-33 that was only an interceptor/fighter.

Do you understand notion of timeline or readies level? Kinzhal exists and can me integrated pretty much right away, Zircon is to 2023-24 enter service, airborne version coud be 2-3-4-5 years later?

Yes, but do you realise if ships and subs are testing Zircon this year that Su-33s could also be testing air launched versions this year too and the 2023-2024 service entry date for Zircon would be just fine... Kuznetsov is going to be in dry dock for a while yet anyway...

But the real problem is that the Russian Navy don't want multirole fighter attack strike aircraft... they just want fighter interceptors, so that is likely the real reason they wont bother, but they might put Zircon on their land based Su-34/32s and their Su-30s as a navy replacement for Kinzhals... which might result in the Tu-22M3M getting Zircons instead of Kinzhals... the MiG-31s will likely keep the Kinzhals as the extra speed and height would have more effect on the performance of a rocket based system than a scramjet powered one.

GZUR air-breathing and is under construction. An airborne Zircon not even planned.
if you believe the Russian will make 2 parallel unrelated airborne hypersonic missiles just for fun, without real need. You have full right. Nonetheless this might nor affect reality. Costs/resources you know.

If you are trying to imply Gzur is an air launched Zircon... good luck with that... if it was scramjet powered why is it so damn slow.... mach 6 is pathetic for a scramjet powered missile... even Brahmos II will have better speed than that...

not only Kh-15. Yes it is to fit bomb bays, but it is light (lighter then Onyx or Zircon. With long range. An assumption that light long range missiles wont be used by deck aviation is, not very likely.

Su-34s might carry it, but if they have not bothered to fit Moskit or Onyx or Zircon to Su-33 why do you think they would bother with GZUR?

Su-33 is an interceptor fighter... it wont be attacking ships...

that we dont know yet if VSTOL is gonna be light one or heavy one.

Heavy VSTOL just makes everything worse and is even harder than light VSTOL...

FAXX will be sooner then Russians CVNs

The purpose of Russian air power is as a screen for enemy airpower (land or sea based) and also as an outer screen for missiles threatening the group as well as early warning of low level attacks.

BTW and no you dotn need any heavy fighter to carry then. GZUR is to weight ~1500-2000kg . 1,500km range add 500km radius for fighter.

GZUR II is a further 10 years after GZUR but is a mach 12-14 weapon with global flight range... so why not just wait for that?

Both strategically and conventionally Russia is ahead in many ways so they don't need to grow their budget absurdly big.

Really only behind numerically... which would easily blow their budget so they need to be smart...

So if you manage to carry 3 sqdn fighters and to cover the rest of the functions needed you already have quite a big carrier most probably.

But unlike US carriers Russian carriers will be fighters and AWACS platforms and some ASW helicopters... they wont have strike aircraft... and they wont need to waste fighters to escort strike missions...

A basic LHD without any expensive systems and weapons is useful for what, according to you? You keep talking about "big" and "small" and I don't know what you mean. I laid down already what I think would be good enough.

Expensive things like radar and air defence?

Sometimes expensive things are worth it... or would you like the cheapest pace maker available?

Tilt-rotors could definitely help there.

More trucks and more helos would be more practical than yet to be invented tiltrotors...

It's subsonic & the CIWS mounts will take care of it; the damage control on CVNs is very good.

So it is safe from houthi rebels in jandals with AKs... how about Onyx missiles that have been in production for two and a half decades now... mach 2.5, so about the speed of a rifle bullet...

The fire on the USS Forestall with bombs & missiles exploding, planes & fuel burning didn't sink it.

That fire was on top and not started by an explosion of several hundred kgs of HE like an anti ship missile...

Submariners like to say a torpedo letting in water underneath is more effective than an anti ship missile letting air in the top, but the reality is that anti ship missiles let in something rather more deadly than air... they let in fire... and they shift things around when they explode so sometimes important things stop working... they can cut power for example...

People are talking about smaller carriers and cheaper VTOL fighters... there is no such thing as a cheap AND effective navy... if you want cheap don't bother because cheap means less capability... to the point where you are putting your people at risk... if you don't want to be a global power with a say in international affairs then save your money and stick to a brown water navy... just don't expect to get a say or a chance at having your way in international affairs... just rely on one vote in the UNSC and a veto, but as we have seen they can just completely bypass the UN when it suits because might makes right and you have decided you can't afford might.


Again... I repeat... pointlessly I guess... it is not a dick competition... I don't think Russia needs bigger carriers to match US carriers, I don't think they need more carriers to match the 23 odd aircraft carriers that the US operates, Russia needs air power to support naval operations that occur beyond the range of Russian land based airpower... not to invade or attack any country, but to ensure the protection of Russian ships in foreign areas around the globe... if ships need to be sunk then a Yasen SSGN makes more sense than carrier aircraft, if you want WWIII with the US then Boreis are the soldiers for that sad task of eliminating humanity from the gene pool of life on this planet, but if you want disaster relief or a range of other missions... including just exercises with a new ally to deal with local pirates or to help a country out, or something to challenge a foreign naval blockade with a balanced and capable force rather than just some ships.

Ground forces in Syria benefitted from air power... including and especially UAVs... why would the Russian navy not benefit from air power that might include an increasing number and range of UAVs too and what better to base those UAVs than on a floating air field with real modern fighter aircraft to protect them and their base and to extend the detection and identification range of your force.

A ship on its own with the best radars available detects an incoming blip on its radar... he contacts it by radio and gets no response until finally the commander of the ship has to make the decision... launch a SAM and defend the ship, or let it pass over the ship and risk getting attacked by the enemy... a US AEGIS class destroyer with state of the art AESA radars shot down the target... an Airbus.... sending the ships helo would be pointless because it could not climb to the altitude the incoming aircraft was at and would take too long anyway... if there had been a carrier with that cruiser a group of interceptors could have been launched and the target approached and identified one way or the other and warned off or ignored when identified as civilian flying on a civilian flight route and emitting a civilian IFF code as normal.

In war time such information is invaluable... if the single target had split up into multiple bogeys and attempted to shoot down the planes sent to investigate then you could order you planes to defend themselves or withdraw and engage them with ship based SAMs with a clear and clean conscience.

There is a risk to the fighters you send out, but they can look after themselves too...

As a manager and a planner the surface group commanders job becomes much less stressful being able to send out patrols of fighters and AWACS platforms to identify things and also be able to fight immediately well away from the ships if needed.

GarryB wrote:Primary anti carrier weapon for the Soviets was the Oscar class subs and still is SSGNs...

Nothing against subs here. And as said the increasing range and speed of the Russian ASMs only work in favour of their strike capability, which will be extremely high when Zircon is operational and more SSNs are operational. I am sure future strategy places a big focus on them. But no good strategy is based on a single "silver bullet" weapon, specially when you opponent has more resources available to counter it. Subs and surface groups complement each other and will in the future too, with naval aviation countering enemy ASW efforts and boosting own ones. Russia has a tradition of not leaving weak spots open for the enemy to exploit easily, relying only in subs for anti carrier fight was maybe the only way in the past but not anymore.

But when would you want to "land troops" and not have air power?

The amount and capacities of the air support necessary would vary a lot depending on the mission. The LHD as said would head the effort in a variety of missions from humanitarian to combat of insurgencies, terrorism or piracy for which top of the line air cover is maybe not necessary. The air wing of the LHD would comprise a lot of helos (or similar) for transport, fire support, rescue and ASW and if needed jet fighters for AD and strike with increased capabilities. Since these vessels are not going to be cheap or abundant or fast to replace once built, it is best to have the flexibility in them to cope with different missions.

You might not need a helicopter carrier, but any significant surface group will need air cover to operate... with no CV or CVN how will an LHD detect low flying tomahawk missiles or aircraft attacking it until it is too late?

Again depends on the mission. If the only possible attack you expect is some non-state proxy receiving some random ASM you don't need protection against saturation attack or high performance weapons. You can carry AEW helicopters on the LHD and spread your fleet enough to have a good view of the area, and you can use your fighters on CAP too for that matter. If the threat are for instance USN CSGs then you better bring your own CVs to the theatre, we agree there.

They stated when the ordered the two Mistrals that they wanted them for the Arctic (northern fleet) and the Kuriles (Pacific fleet)... and they had them modified to allow a higher hangar roof for Kamov helos... Ka-29 transports and Ka-52K attack helos, and also reinforced hull structures to cope with ice.

Interesting info, had not read about it.

So you are trying to say you would still have fixed wing carriers... just that you would only deploy them when you really really needed them... couldn't you say the same about destroyers and cruisers... most of the time you could send corvettes and frigates with big support ships that have fuel and ammo and food and accommodation that the crews of the frigates and corvettes could rotate to and from so it is nice and comfortable.... only having corvettes and frigates will make it much cheaper than big expensive destroyers and cruisers... and when you are not using them as support ships those support ships could earn money as cruise liners... it could have big LAN suites for large scale games like shooters or even flight simulators.... a 1,000 person LAN party recreating the battle of britain or something...

Hahaha good idea, not only you don't expend money but lease it as a huge casino in international waters... actually not but wait Trump read about the idea. Oligarchs would love betting in the hangar of an aircraft carrier    

But now seriously it is obvious that you will size your fleet with as many small vessels as possible and as few big expensive ones as necessary. Anything you can cover with a corvette does not need deploying a cruiser which will be much more expensive to operate. Then imagine a carrier with the huge crew and logistics they need. Cheaper to have 4 LHDs and 3 CVs for instance than 6 CVs and will cover more conflictive areas.

So compact and light and good and reliable and cheap... any other demands?

Where did I say good??  
It just needs to reuse available tech wherever possible and be cheap to operate.  The Harrier was unreliable and little capable. F-35B is too big and too expensive, but it is a great advance in terms of capability and AFAIK (I may be wrong) is not unreliable. For the proposed plane, no VLO, only basic shaping and signature management. Make a simple airframe with a well-known, reliable and decent modern engine like a AL-41F1S for instance (maybe Izd. 30 would make more sense at the time the plane would be ready) and attach the lift fan and roll posts to it. Airframe needs to be small and relatively flat to accommodate the fan without major impact in drag. Weapons bays unnecessary or just for 2 x MRAAMs (+2x SRAAMs would be great though and maybe feasible), actually more for aero and export than anything. Basic radar, maybe a FGA from MiG-35. Should be doable in two versions, one with Chinese and other with Russian engines and avionics. Don't have the feeling this is completely crazy.

I mean you are only asking for something that no one has ever delivered before in a conventional land based aircraft and you want a naval STOVL aircraft?

Don't see it so. This is essentially a F-16 or Grippen but in STOVL version, after F-35B I think the propulsion issue has been solved at least to have a supersonic reliable plane. Higher order capabilities are not needed. Range would be small, payload too, but that is the price if you want to deploy them on LHDs without detracting too much of the other capabilities of the vessel.

Finally: I am not submitting this issue of LHD air wing should be solved like this, only that this is a reasonable possibility to me. Financial analysis needs to make sense considering shared development and export potential. Also considering other options like high-speed helos, UCAVs, tiltrotors or even advanced STOL planes.

6-10 of them on a helicopter carrier will mean bugger all helicopters or vehicles will fit, so you might as well take an extra ship and call it a fighter support CVN and put 20 of the useless little money pit crash machines on that and have helicopter carriers there too to do the real job of landing troops and supporting the op.

Folded MiG-29 is reported by Rosoboronexport as 5.9 m wide, this plane should be designed with focus on small footprint so I think a <5 m target is doable. Multihull design will be used on LHDs too (in fact Lavina already has it somehow) and will allow substantial increases in internal capacity without a burden on displacement and propulsion needs

As said, this solution of LHDs with limited independent air cover + CV is not anything new and is thought to be cheaper than covering all such needs with carriers.

The last figures I have seen they don't get into the sky for that to be a serious risk.... the F-35B had availability rates of 12% in 2017 and worse in 2018...

Availability rates for F-35 in general are poor. This has to do with how many spares are available, how many crews can work proficiently on the planes and what the command demands from the fleet. What I mean is that they are not crashing too much. Whether this is due to them being operated extra-carefully or because of good design is something I cannot know.

You are deluding yourself if you think you can have a global navy with a carrier force on the cheap and also have an effective force... because they are two different things.

Carrier force on the cheap no, but you have to be cost conscious and save where savings are reasonable. I advocate for capable CVs (few) with top-notch fighters and assume RuN is hinting to LHDs that could be optimized with STOVL fighters. I could see it if they are developed without excess expenses.

The English tried the 20K ton Hermes and Invincible carriers with the sea harrier... which has been the best STOVL fighter ever made to date, yet its performance figures show most of its ability came from its rather capable radar... in the early 1980s it was poor... it only had sidewinders and was lucky in combat to only come up against an enemy that also had short range sidewinders as a weapon choice... and an older version that needed a tail lock for any chance of a kill, while the missiles the Brits stole from the NATO stocks were all aspect and of much better performance.

Taking on the Soviets... even a MiG-23 with R-23R and R-23T missiles would have been a problem for the Brits as they could have launched attacks at standoff ranges and then turned and headed home without ever coming in to within visual range and risk a dogfight with short range missiles like sidewinder or R-60.

The R-23R and R-23T are ordinary weapons with a fairly low PK... although the IR guided R-23T probably would have been rather dangerous because the engine exhaust is visible from the side on the Harrier so it would be vulnerable over much wider angles than most fighters... firing one of each could have been a rather successful tactic...

Such an engagement today would require the presence of the CVs in my view. I am not rooting for Russia to fight state forces only with a few STOVLs from LHDs

It is the same for VSTOL fighters... they can take off from anywhere and land anywhere... no they can't. You will save billions on a smaller ship... but spend billions on a funky plane you might put on as many as four ships... and those small ships are not so useful for a global force reach which is the whole purpose in the first place...

I don't have figures, but in order to make this work you need as said co-development, good export chances and a very uncomplicated design and test process. That is not compatible with top-notch capabilities but Su-57K would be there to fill that need. Only strong focus would need to be on propulsion technology.

A carrier surface group is going to cost tens of billions... the CVN on its own will cost 5 billion at the very least and rather more if I got my way... and a couple of 20K ton cruisers, not to mention some destroyers and a helicopter carrier and support vessels... not to mention a couple of SSN somewhere near by... you probably wouldn't get much change from 20 billion for the lot including aircraft and all those missiles these ships are going to be able to tote around... and it would probably cost a billion dollars a year just to operate them around the place... there is not going to be anything like cheap to do with this... but what is the alternative... to sit back and let countries who have spent the money like the US or UK or France or China or India dictate to you about global situations.

Having 13 carrier groups didn't allow the US any extra strength in Georgia in 2008, and I rather doubt having a carrier in Syria really made all that much difference, they don't guarantee anything... but would you operate a ground army unit without air support?

So why would you deny your navy air support or air control when it is beyond the reach of the Russian AF?

I really hope Russia is capable of getting this done way cheaper but admit the costs will be high and I agree they are needed for the remote sea areas of the world. CSG group should be smaller in number of ships compared to USN and rely on deterrence as said, not look for superiority IMO.

I am neither suggesting 100K ton carriers nor that they get 13 to match the US or 14 for superiority... I am suggesting they build perhaps 2 CVNs with slightly bigger aircraft capacity to the Kuznetsov... that means more fighters, but also AWACS aircraft, so we are not looking at just 10,000 tons more... more like 20K tons more... in the 70-80K tons range... now if clever design with new compact NPPs and thrust pod engines and a multi hull design can get that into a 45KT sized hull I am all for that... it is not the weight I want it is the capacity to carry aircraft.... fighters and AWACS platforms... if they do a good job perhaps India and China might want some too and perhaps even South Korea... who knows.

Agree and that is also what Krylov guy said...

Regarding STOVL fighters... sure... try and make them but be honest and be fair... if they don't stack up to a more conventional design then they get cut... the money spent can be recovered in UAV design perhaps using the failed technology perhaps it scales down better...

Experience of F-35 shows how a simple design is preferable to a jack of all trades. The kind of plane I refer may make a decent light fighter for the export market in the CTOL version but that is not what I would make a priority.

Helicopters for helicopter carriers... if the enemy has fighters then you should have CVNs... for self defence a Ka-52K with an AESA radar and R-77s should be enough for most enemies and in time the new AAMs developed for the Su-57s will make them even more potent...

It could be, in fact Ka-52 should be capable of carrying even R-37Ms...

For the CVN a new light 5th gen fighter could be developed... perhaps two versions... one STOL and the other STOVL and testing can determine which wins, but the STOL for use on land would make more sense than a STOVL anyway as it is simpler and cheaper and should have more internal space (with no big internal lift fan) for fuel and weapons... even if it is not as fast as the Su-57 or with as long a range... and also make an Su-57K... and you can pick which goes ahead for naval use based on performance and cost...

I would prefer some sort of trick to the landing gear of the Su-57 so it can be raised and lowered enough to accommodate them in relatively high density in the hangars without a wing fold instead of a new fighter. You have already a massively performing plane, developed and which needs to be built in numbers in order to get cheap and reliable. Such a plane in naval version should be available in short term and for a very low cost, I would not even bother with a light 5G design for which no clear market and need even in Russia exists.

But having four half arsed little helicopter carriers with VSTOL fighters and they wouldn't dare right?

No, read what I said. LHD/STOVL without CV air cover are for low intensity fighting.

but with the logic of one in dock one in training and one operational that would mean you would need at least 6 little carriers to ensure 4 were available and then there can be accidents or problems so you would need 7, plus you would need more because that is 7 CVN equivalents... you would also need helicopter carriers for the actual landings... how is this saving money again?

See above, the amount of LHDs + carriers is bigger than the same price in CVs alone and attends more of the real world needs, which are frequently half-arsed conflicts

America has 13 carrier groups with CVNs... they also have quite a few marine carriers equivalent to what you are suggesting for Russia on the cheap... about 10 actually, so their capacity to exploit Russias lack of vessels is pretty solid no matter what Russia does.

Deploying CVs and LHDs to main regions, using Russian reach in Eurasia and considering the number of parallel conflicts that we normally see, 3-4 CVs + 4-5 LHDs should allow to be close enough. USN LHA/LHD on their own are also not a huge threat, land based SAMs and ASMs owned by the corresponding threatened countries should be enough in most cases.

Without decent air power such a presence is going to be tenuous at best...

What do you call decent air power? I am referring to CV + Su-57K + AEW/AWACS + long range air launched ASMs + eventually UCAV + IFR +

Effectively a 5g light fighter is a numbers fighter that is cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate but with modern sensors and systems and self defence electronics and modern weapons... the Americans have really made it look hard because they want their light 5th gen fighter to basically replace their F-22 heavy stealth fighter because it was considered too expensive to be built in numbers... in effect making the F-35 worse than the crap it is supposed to replace...

I am in favour of such plane but in the current situation I don't think it is likely:

> Russia has already Su-57, for which economies of scale are going to be an issue. So better build it in numbers that disrupt its production with yet another fighter
> A newer plane would be expensive. As discussed previously, modern avionics mean that the cost of the newer planes is not a linear function of the weight. And economies of scale would be much worse since the Su-57 is already there so it would be very difficult to compensate the development costs even considering export potential
> Countries are already developing 6G, it is too late to start with a 5G design now IMO.
> Russia is already developing UCAVs. For a low cost complement of the Su-57 they are much better in cost, capabilities and expendability than a newer manned fighter. The gap will be covered with the MiG-35, they would not be pushing for it as they are doing it they wanted to develop the LMFS in my opinion...

So I would maybe see a newer fighter but it would be 6G and developed already as unmanned plane preferentially. Nothing is short term.

The Russians can do what America did when it designed and built the F-16 and just make a simple but sophisticated and up to date agile little fighter... give it two engines, make it semi stealthy but cheap to operate and simple to maintain... purely plug and play... the naval model can have a bigger wing with larger control surfaces that folds up real small and a nice big wing with big powerful engines and thrust vector control and the ability to pitch the nose up and get max lift from those wings while accelerating to above stall speed in normal flight it could probably have a very short operating length even without chocks and arrester wires.

I would love to see that stealth-F-16 but it is not likely in the current conditions as said above.

Regarding the last part, I agree, that is the way Su-57 followed, and it seems as discussed it may land even without arresting gear or close to that... that may be a revolution for naval operations:

> Planes that can land maybe even without arresting gear could select other landing spots or trajectories in case the deck has been damaged. This is massive because current carriers are extremely vulnerable in that regard.
> Maybe a light fighter using that landing method could even be based on a LHD and avoid the development of the STOVLs altogether

I am eager to see if our understanding about this landing mode gets confirmed

Gzur II is supposed to be a mach 12-14 missile with global reach so really there is no need for the Russian navy to piss around worrying about attacking US carrier groups with carrier groups of their own... which is actually a dreadfully inefficient way of doing it anyway...

Russian carrier groups can busy themselves with global trade with Russia and any country that wants to trade... and opening out launch position options for Russian SSBNs

I don't know if I understand this. How do they "busy themselves with global trade" if they are not capable of breaking an USN blockade or deterring their strikes? How do they "open launch positions" for the SSBNs if they cannot fight in open sea with CSGs and their naval aviation? I am honestly not sure I get you.

As I repeatedly tell you the fighters on the K are fighters... they shoot down Anti ship missiles and enemy aircraft, they are not there to launch attacks against enemy ships and they are really not equipped to do that either

This is not accurate sorry. Only combat mission of the K had its fighters engaging mainly strike role. MiG-29K IS multirole. Su-33 is going to be updated to be multirole too. RuN seems to have a clear opinion in regards of wanting multirole naval fighters.

Blue water navy is your footprint in remote areas, why would you want your only available "air force" in such spots to be limited to single role? And what better way to protect your global trade than keeping threatening carriers at arm's distance with your naval aviation?

But unlike US carriers Russian carriers will be fighters and AWACS platforms and some ASW helicopters... they wont have strike aircraft... and they wont need to waste fighters to escort strike missions...

Partially agree:

> No expected "bomb you into the stone age" missions for RuN, agreed.
> Strike role is present already in MiG-29K and desired for Su-33 (SVP-24 already installed).
> Naval strike role is crucial to defend the fleet.

Expensive things like radar and air defence?

Sometimes expensive things are worth it... or would you like the cheapest pace maker available?

That is what I would like to know. I read about the incredible savings between CV and LHD and don't really understand where the savings come from. Specially considering most estimations originate from the scenario where the CV is complex and capable and the LHD is to operate under its protection. If the "LHD-TAKR" or whatever its name needs SAMs, fighters, LACMs, ASMs etc etc etc then the only thing you are saving is some gears and cables to stop planes... not seeing how this is magically going to save Russia from bankruptcy.

America has 13 carrier groups with CVNs... they also have quite a few marine carriers equivalent..

No, we have 11, incl. the USS Ford which isn't deployable yet, + 10 LHA/Ds.

..relying only in subs for anti carrier fight was maybe the only way in the past but not anymore.

They had the Tu-16s & later Tu-22Ms for that job too.

Russian carrier groups can busy themselves with global trade with Russia and any country that wants to trade... and opening out launch position options for Russian SSBNs

Other surface ships & subs + land based forward deployed aviation  can be used to protect SLOCs- any attack on them means war with nuclear armed member of the UNSC. As I said, her maritime trade won't be that big, since most of it will be overland with the OBOR & N-South Road networks + the NSR already or soon to be in place.
TAKRs, NAF, & SSNs were enough to protect Soviet SSBNs; with more active bases all along the coast, they can secure those bastions with SSKs, SSNs, FFGs, DDGs, U/CAVs, MPA, AShMs, & fighters even w/o any TAKRs/CVNs.

If the "LHD-TAKR" or whatever its name needs SAMs, fighters, LACMs, ASMs etc etc etc then the only thing you are saving is some gears and cables to stop planes... not seeing how this is magically going to save Russia from bankruptcy.

Expensive EMALS, CTOLs & Yak-44 AWACSes/CODs + their crews won't be needed on them. IMO, 3-4 of these multi-role ships will be more than enough for both LHD & CV missions.
With some modifications, 1 of them may later replace the Adm K.
Her economy is smaller than France's which has only 1 CVN + 3 LHDs, & which, unlike Russia, doesn't need land based ICBMs, & NPed & naval icebreakers:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Ships

Tsavo Lion wrote:They had the Tu-16s & later Tu-22Ms for that job too.

Tu-160 is not a naval strike bomber. Tu-22M3 does not have IFR and, besides, if you send such planes across the oceans to bomb USN 10.000 km away you are just sending them to a certain death, since they could be easily intercepted and you would have no means to cover them. So no, I don't think you can use those to substitute shipborne aviation. Their role is to protect the Russian coast.

Expensive EMALS, CTOLs & Yak-44 AWACSes/CODs + their crews won't be needed on them. IMO, 3-4 of these multi-role ships will be more than enough for both LHD & CV missions.
With some modifications, 1 of them may later replace the Adm K.
Her economy is smaller than France's which has only 1 CVN + 3 LHDs, & which, unlike Russia, doesn't need land based ICBMs, & NPed & naval icebreakers:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Ships

EMALS: would depend on the planes carried. Fighters will not need them, even when Western media repeats until falling asleep that STOBAR limits the load of the planes, this is currently not true anymore due to modern engines. If a CV would use EMALS and LHD wouldn't, that means that the planes used in the former have some sort of advantage, otherwise nobody would bother with the technical complexity and extra expenses. So it is not a difference between LHD and CV but between different types of planes with different performance. Ideally a STOBAR carrier should do and a way would be found to cover air control, transport, strike (UCAVs) and refuelling without catapults but if this is the only way to keep parity then it will be necessary to develop them.

CTOLs: these would be actually cheaper than the STOVLs the LHD would carry, no savings for the LHD

AWACS/CODs: will tiltrotor versions cover the same function as good and as cheap as CTOLs? I don't think so, so no saving here either

Numbers and capabilities: if the LHDs don't carry certain planes or very limited versions in very limited numbers, how will they do the same as a full blown carrier? It may be that the carrier is not needed after all, but not that it is exchangeable with LHDs.

Regarding Russian economy: yes it is the size of Italy or whatever but those "developed" countries don't have the biggest nuclear arsenal and complete military independence or space technology and many other strategic assets Russia has. That is why the GPD farce does not say that much about elements of national power. Iran, North Korea or Syria have more sovereignty than any country in West Europe and their economy is tiny compared to them. Ones grow as nations despite all difficulties, the others are just herded and grow each time more ignorant from how real world works. They have money but they don't have a spine, and what is the advantage for the populations of such economic development? You can earn ten times more than a Russian but the things you buy cost 20 times more, where is the great deal there?

Tu-160 is not a naval strike bomber. Tu-22M3 does not have IFR and, besides, if you send such planes across the oceans to bomb USN 10.000 km away you are just sending them to a certain death, since they could be easily intercepted and you would have no means to cover them. So no, I don't think you can use those to substitute shipborne aviation. Their role is to protect the Russian coast.

I'm talking about the Tu-16M AV-MF maritime strike version, Tu-16KS,
Tu-16K-10, Tu-16K-10-26, Tu-16K-11-16, & Tu-16K-26.
They had an operational range of 4,850km (with 2 missiles underneath the wings):
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/bomber/tu-16.htm

No need to go 10K km, interdicting CBGs in the N. Atlantic/N/W. Pacific & Med. Sea from land bases was well within their capabilities.
Even w/o IRPs, the Tu-22M3s have even longer operational range of 7,000 km:


Their Combat radius of 2,410 km (1,500 mi; 1,300 nmi) with typical weapons load is a lot more than is needed just to defend the coast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-22M#Specifications_(Tu-22M3)

With INF treaty dead, they may get IRPs.

Ideally a STOBAR carrier should do and a way would be found to cover air control, transport, strike (UCAVs) and refuelling without catapults but if this is the only way to keep parity then it will be necessary to develop them.
CTOLs: these would be actually cheaper than the STOVLs the LHD would carry, no savings for the LHD
AWACS/CODs: will tiltrotor versions cover the same function as good and as cheap as CTOLs? I don't think so, so no saving here either

Parity is not the name of the game here. Asymmetry is.
CTOLs/AWACS/CODs on CATOBAR CV/Ns will need to have airframes/landing gear strengthened, won't last as many hours as STOLs or STOVLs, & some will still crash (killing pilots), thanks to CATOBAR issues. Besides, training for carrier qualifications will add Ks of hours at sea & gallons of fuel, adding to the ownership costs.
Tilt-rotors & new helos may not be as good, but only marginally, since most of the time these ships won't be too far from land.

..if the LHDs don't carry certain planes or very limited versions in very limited numbers, how will they do the same as a full blown carrier?

If its op-tempo is similar to TAKR's, not a big deal that they won't be as capable as a CV/N, nor do they need to be. Russia can compensate it with her other assets & tactics, like she did in Syria, where Adm. K was only partially successful & didn't change anything at sea & on the ground.

Regarding Russian economy: yes it is the size of Italy or whatever but those "developed" countries don't have the biggest nuclear arsenal and complete military independence or space technology and many other strategic assets Russia has.

She also has big internal problems & must keep her people docile.
With CVNs, to justify their keep, there'll be a temptation to use them (& possibly loosing them) in neo-colonial wars &/ against peer adversaries making conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine & Syria pale in comparison. The Russian Empire overextended herself in Alaska + small colonies in California & Hawaii that she eventually had to sell/abandon; now she must defend her perimeter, adjust borders,  & protect Ms ethnic Russians around it, not engage in overseas adventures as the US did. After all, she doesn't need some1 like Trump moving into Kremlin.