Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation.

Are you talking about the Kuz? because you just made ZERO SENSE.. if so learn English, I said "WANT" not "THEY HAVE". What carrier is anyone talking about to build that would have 28 planes?.

I don't recall anyone here or me mentioning a carrier of such light size, so where are you getting this 24-28 number? Are you making this up on the spot or something?.

Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.

Isos wrote:This new Lamantin class has a lenght of 350m (330 at water lvl) so unlikely they start it anytime soon in their actual shipyards. It's even longer than Ford class and its 333m.

The only one they could start is the Shtorm KM but it's nowhere near RuN expectation. Unless they find a foreign country that wants it.

They won't be starting anything at all for at least another 15 years (if they are lucky), they went on record with this

By that time everything you see on this fanart expo will be long forgotten

It's obsolete even by today's standards




And it also demonstrates clearly that Russians have no clue about designing carriers, they seem to think that it makes sense to invest time and money into developing catapults only to build a ship around ski-ramp with catapults as an afterthought

And those ski-ramps only use like 30% of deck length for launching aircraft, it's like they are trying on purpose to be as least efficient as possible

To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft

Yes there was Syria where they lost a fighter jet because they failed to properly calculate fuel consumption

They want to have everything in one package again without thinking wether they need it or not

Reactor, reasonable size, two catapults, flat deck, that's all there is to it

Don't go stuffing weapons that are supposed to be on escorts and ski-ramps that are not needed with catapults

USA, French, Chinese figured this out already,I doubt Russians have some secret elusive knowledge about carriers that magically eluded everyone else

EM cats are a bad idea for a Russian carrier IMHO. The Americans have spent years and mucho $ on it and still can't get it to work reliably on the Ford class, plus I have read that an EM cat sends out a strong radio signal with each launch, bad if you are trying to hide. Why try to solve these problems on what will likely be a one off ship? Steam is a much more practical.

The Russians and Soviets never had a fully operational steam powered catapult system, so developing either is going to be a long expensive process. If steam is so wonderful why hasn't the current British carrier got steam cats... they know how they work...

I would suggest what you have read regarding EM cats sending out strong radio signal is the US EM cat... there is such a thing as shielding...

If they can perfect an effective and capable EM cat then it could be adapted to the Kuznetsov for use as well as on lighter helicopter carriers to allow the launch of MALE or HALE UAVs...

The technology would be useful from things like high speed trains and all electric vehicles.

Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.

Actually what they have been clear about is that all their ships need to be multirole, which means UKSK launchers for everyone.

The primary purpose of their fixed wing carriers however is not power projection, but aircover for any surface fleet anywhere in the world.

???... somethings odd here.

Probably a fisheye lens that distorts the bow to make it look short in the top picture... the lower image shows it being much longer...

the noise of it being launched would be detected by subs- sound travels through ship's haul & water better & faster than air.

Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?

As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...

Whatever they need it to clearly. A carrier is a mobile airfield, That can access areas where your land-based planes do not have range.

You are confusing the Russians with America... the Russians see an aircraft rather differently than the US sees aircraft... for the American Navy a carrier group is a group of ships supporting a carrier that carries around aircraft that deliver air strikes against enemy ground and air and sea surface threats.

For the Russians the aircraft are a layer of defence for the ships... land attack strikes and sea surface strikes will be mostly ship and sub launched... the aircraft are there to deal with enemy aircraft and missiles that try to attack the Russian ships and even then they are more early warning as a large volume attack will require a lot of ship based SAMs as well as AAMs to stop.

And it also demonstrates clearly that Russians have no clue about designing carriers, they seem to think that it makes sense to invest time and money into developing catapults only to build a ship around ski-ramp with catapults as an afterthought

Actually that suits their method of operation... their fighter aircraft don't and wont need cat launches even with full fuel and air to air weapons, so the cats are only for the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft...

They get the best of both worlds... fast launch operations with a skijump, and heavy long range AWACS aircraft via cats.

And those ski-ramps only use like 30% of deck length for launching aircraft, it's like they are trying on purpose to be as least efficient as possible

WTF else would they use it for... a nice vege garden so they can have fresh vegies on longer voyages?

To say nothing of the fact that any aircraft landing on the angled deck would risk slamming into aircraft ready for take off which is very real possibility given the Russian well documented incompetence with operating carrier aircraft

The deck shown is not an operational set up.... for fucks sake there is a helicopter sitting on the side of the fucking ski jump...

Lets assume Russian has 1 CVN with 70ktons/ So what you want to strike (assuming you got 40-50 fighters) ? 3 world country?

Better question... in what alternate reality has Russia become the US... ground strikes will generally consist of cruise missile attacks if that.

but you dont want to strike US CSGs? well then you focus on own fleet defense or I am wrong?

One converted Oscar with 72 Zircon missiles will deal with any US carrier groups...

Yes there was Syria where they lost a fighter jet because they failed to properly calculate fuel consumption

No, they lost two jets because the arrester gear system failed and they could not be recovered to land by the time they worked out the problem could not be fixed right away.

They want to have everything in one package again without thinking wether they need it or not

Reactor, reasonable size, two catapults, flat deck, that's all there is to it

Brilliant... take away the ski jump and reduce their aircraft launch rate by 80% for no advantage at all.

The only aircraft that need cat launch are the AWACS planes and the inflight refuelling plane based on the same airframe.

All the other aircraft can take off from the ramp while any other aircraft could be landing at the same time... if there are no other aircraft landing at the same time they can launch four aircraft at a time from the Ski Jump, but you think they should get rid of their ability to rapidly get fighters in the air so they can launch their AWACS platform over the bow... their AWACS aircraft is fucking useless taking off all the time... the whole point of making it heavy (with fuel) is so you launch it once and leave it up there for 6 hours doing its job... after 6 hours you might send up an inflight refuelling aircraft to top it up again so it can stay there for another 6 hours... which means on average you will be using the EM cats once every 6 hours... the ski jump and angled landing deck on the other hand will be continuously used to launch and recover all the other aircraft... but if you had your way it would take 5 times longer to launch aircraft because without a ski jump you could only launch 2 aircraft at a time and when they were being launched one of the cat positions would cover the angled deck landing run so you can't land aircraft but you can only launch 2 at a time, or land one at a time... what a bad carrier designer you would make.

[quote]Don't go stuffing weapons that are supposed to be on escorts and ski-ramps that are not needed with catapults[/qutoe]

The carrier is multi role and requires UKSK launchers and probably UKSK-M launchers.

The only aircraft that need cats are AWACS and they will only be carrying about 4, and refuelling aircraft, that might be 4 more... compared with perhaps 60 other planes that use the ski jump to operate from the carrier.

USA, French, Chinese figured this out already,I doubt Russians have some secret elusive knowledge about carriers that magically eluded everyone else

There you go.... AMERICAN DOES IT THIS WAY... RUSSIA IS STUPID TO TRY AND DO IT ANY OTHER WAY...

But guess what... Russian fighters are just that... they are fighters, so they don't need heavy air to ground ordinance loads, the Su-33 can't even carry external fuel tanks... they don't need cat assisted launches, but what they do benefit from is ski jump launches because they have the raw engine power to benefit from running up a ramp for a jump in to the air. A big heavy overloaded truck on the other hand does not benefit from a ramp launch so the cats make more sense oriented via the angled landing deck.

It is not a big deal on a Russian carrier because only the AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft need cat launches 90% of aircraft launches will be fighters via the ramp and the design with the path around the island it is even better because aircraft can be prepared for launch on the deck ready to go so launches via the ramp will be very very fast.

AlfaT8 wrote:???... somethings odd here.

Lol no kidding...

I do like the size tho... Str0nk!!!

GarryB wrote:..their fighter aircraft don't and wont need cat launches even with full fuel and air to air weapons..

Their fighter aircraft can't take off with full fuel and weapons

They have to carry minimum ordinance and they use up huge amount of fuel just to take off

This is not some big mystery

GarryB wrote:..No, they lost two jets because the arrester gear system failed and they could not be recovered to land by the time they worked out the problem could not be fixed right away...

They lost one due to arrestor gear failure, other was lost because they dropped the ball with fuel calculations so crew had to bail

GarryB wrote:...WTF else would they use it for... a nice vege garden so they can have fresh vegies on longer voyages?...

Maybe to save some fuel on takeoff by not starting from very end?

Although given the overall usefulness of Russian carrier a nice veggie garden would definitely be more useful than anything else they ever attempted doing with that bathtub

GarryB wrote:...There you go.... AMERICAN DOES IT THIS WAY... RUSSIA IS STUPID TO TRY AND DO IT ANY OTHER WAY...

Considering that Russia has been trying to do it the other way for half a century and failing miserably in the process maybe they should start getting their heads out of their asses for a change?

They are not above humiliating themselves by buying electronics from French of all people but taking pointers over something that clearly works is beneath them all of a sudden?

GarryB wrote:..But guess what... Russian fighters are just that... they are fighters, so they don't need heavy air to ground ordinance loads....

We have actual Russians here screaming their faces off about their fighters not having useful air to ground payload or anything resembling range

You may think that Russia is some hippie dreamland but reality is much different

1. Papa is right, Planes cannot take off the Kuz full weight, this is WELLLLLLLLL KNOWN. Don't pretend otherwise.

2. They lost one to arresting gears and they lost another since it couldn't land due to the broken arresting gear it was circling the carrier for a bit before it did eventually run out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.

Kuznetsov was build for Soviet navy and intgrated in their naval doctrine, i.e protect SSBN. The range and weapons of su-33 was enough to destroy p-3 and other maritime patrol aircraft trying to destroy soviet subs.

It was never intended to be used to strike land neither fight other carriers.

Their subs and bombers were supposed to destroy US carriers.


Ulyanovsk was the first carrier build for a similar role to US carriers.  


Stop comparing it with US way of using carriers.

If you want to make fun of someone, try UK and the QE class which is supposed to be a "supercarrier" as US ones but is as good at power projection as Kuznetsov but with no protection.

Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?
As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...

Sound travels in water for very long distances. Any rocket launch will be noisy. Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

Why do you think a rocket being launched from the deck of a carrier could be detected by a sub 50km away?
As opposed to all the aircraft they are launching for instance, or other activities that are going on on board...

Sound travels in water for very long distances. Any rocket launch will be noisy. Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.

Tsavor is right. The launch will be very well detected. Nato already tracked the launches of kalibr from kilo subs and corvettes from Mediteranean and have it in their database just like Tomahawks are in russian database.

But the rocket is traveling at mach 2.5, so the 50km will be made in 1 minute or so. The sub won't escape.

For morons in this thread.

Their fighter aircraft can't take off with full fuel and weapons

They have to carry minimum ordinance and they use up huge amount of fuel just to take off

This is not some big mystery

We are talking about the new carriers... with EMALS... which will either have light 5th gen fighters or upgraded Su-57s which have larger wing areas than the Su-33, and internal weapons carriage which means no external weapons drag or RCS, it also is smaller and lighter than the Su-33 with more powerful engines right now and in a year or twos time even more powerful engines... of course these fighters are going to be taking off a much bigger carrier with full fuel and air to air weapon load.

They might struggle with a full weapon load as that would be 10 tons, but an air to air weapon load with internal weapons only we are talking about 3 tons maximum with no drag... that should be bloody easy... especially considering that in addition to being lighter and smaller but with a much larger wing area and no external weapon stores drag and more powerful engines, they also will have thrust vectoring engines which should make taking off a breeze.

They lost one due to arrestor gear failure, other was lost because they dropped the ball with fuel calculations so crew had to bail

No, they lost both aircraft because the arrester gear was faulty but they didn't know it was faulty straight away.... the symptom was that the cables were snapping, which is what happens when you have faulty cables or the arrester gear is not working and there is no give in the system to reduce the strain on the cables... after several landing attempts where the cables kept breaking they realised it was an arrester gear problem so they tried to fix it... broken arrester cables don't crash planes... planes land in full AB so that if the cables break they can get airborne again and fly around and have another go because eventually the cables do break even when everything is fine... that is why there are usually four wires to catch... they don't restring it instantly as soon as one breaks... there is no time... when four break they have to recable the system... aircraft waiting to land remain in orbit over the carrier till they get a landing spot... when it is clear the arrester gear is the problem and it wont be fixed that day let alone that week then aircraft are diverted and by the time the order for diversion was made neither aircraft had enough fuel to make it to land.

Clearly with hindsight they should have immediately launched two fighters with buddy refuelling pods and refuelled the aircraft in the air and all four aircraft flown to a land base... I am sure the flight manual will get a few changes added to it... all part of the learning experience... that is what they sent the K to Syria for.. to learn how to do this sort of stuff.

Maybe to save some fuel on takeoff by not starting from very end?

They launch them right up the front because fighter jets with air to air payloads don't need 200m airstrips to get airborne.

The long launch strip can be used by the Su-33 for a full payload full fuel takeoff... that is what the long run position on the Kuznetsov is for because the AEW aircraft is a helicopter.

Considering that Russia has been trying to do it the other way for half a century and failing miserably in the process maybe they should start getting their heads out of their asses for a change?

They are finally getting what they want, there is no reason to change back to stupid now... besides if they get rid of the ramp that would render them useless for your VSTOL money sinks...

They are not above humiliating themselves by buying electronics from French of all people but taking pointers over something that clearly works is beneath them all of a sudden?

Humiliation would be using 1980s electronics that are state of the Ark, but Russian.... Using French designed more modern equipment and getting it made by a Russian company so they can learn from the new tech and start developing their own stuff so that in one generation they can rid themselves of a need to use foreign stuff makes rather more sense than being all Russian all backwards and proud.

We have actual Russians here screaming their faces off about their fighters not having useful air to ground payload or anything resembling range

For a strike role why waste time and money using Su-57s at perhaps mach 1.8 in super cruise to attack a target 2,000km away from the carrier, when a smaller ship with a UKSK launcher can move 500km closer to the target and launch a mach 10 Zircon missile to do the job much faster... instead of flying into enemy controlled airspace that Su-57 can fly 500km and protect that smaller ship as it turns and heads back to the group.... or against a more capable and better equipped enemy replace the small ship with a sub...

1. Papa is right, Planes cannot take off the Kuz full weight, this is WELLLLLLLLL KNOWN. Don't pretend otherwise.

You genius... so if we are talking about the Kuz... take the ski jump off and just use its catapult system that it doesn't even have... ?

Are you drunk?

Papa wants no ski ramp on the new EMALS equipped carriers, yet that would render them ineffective as an air defence carrier because their fighters will operate from the ramp, not the cats. It will also mean any future VSTOL fighter will be worse than useless because it will only be able to operate from cat takeoff on a flat deck.

BTW if Ramps are backward and no one has them WTF is that on the UK carriers?

These planned Russian carriers have both ramps and EMALS... sounds like the best of both worlds... higher launch rates with lighter aircraft, but heavier long range aircraft for long endurance AWACS platforms and more fuel on inflight refuelling models.

2. They lost one to arresting gears and they lost another since it couldn't land due to the broken arresting gear it was circling the carrier for a bit before it did eventually run out of fuel and crashed into the ocean.

How did the arresting gear directly make them lose an aircraft? Both aircraft ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea. Both aircraft crashed in to the sea because they were unable to land on the carrier deck.

Any rocket launch will be noisy.

Why?

I could understand a rocket launch from a sub is noisy because the noise is made in the water... tubes need to be flooded... outer doors opened and the rocket blast from launching a rocket all make noise directly in the medium of water, but a rocket launch on top of a carrier hundreds of metres away from the water... I just don't buy it.

Air ops will also be detected, even if a CVN is just drifting wit its screws not moving. CAT launches & all recoveries r noisy, as well as SAR helos that fly low.

There is a serious difference between helicopter passing overhead and torpedo in the water 700m away... there is little doubt the sub will know a rather large group of ships is nearby, but detecting a mach 2.5 rocket propelled torpedo flying on a ballistic trajectory to near its current location is nonsense... unless it has its radar sticking out of the water and operating... in which case it would expect to be attacked anyway.

Tsavor is right. The launch will be very well detected. Nato already tracked the launches of kalibr from kilo subs and corvettes from Mediteranean and have it in their database just like Tomahawks are in russian database.

NATO tracking with radar perhaps, but then any radar signals become targets too, so I doubt they would be operating them as openly in a situation where a Russian carrier will be launching torpedoes at submarines...

Since a full load is not always needed, most of the time they start from the "short" takeoff position (95m?), partially fueled and equipped, leaving so the angled deck free for landings.

Air to air payloads are less than half max weapon payloads, normally they operate with less than full fuel, but in combat they should be able to take off with a full AA load and full fuel from the short run.

That is what they designed the Kuznetsov for.... MiG-29s and Su-33s operating without catapults... its size is scaled to allow normal operations at full load of fuel and air to air weapons.

The Ulyanovsk was slightly bigger to allow the fitting of cats to allow AWACS platforms to operate too but it had a ski jump as standard as well.



-------
Since too many posts were made, this topic has been divided automatically. You can find the rest of this topic here :
https://www.russiadefence.net/t9029-future-russian-aircraft-carriers-and-deck-aviation