Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 2326
    Points : 2324
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 43
    Location : Merkelland

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Hole on Sat May 19, 2018 5:22 pm

    A ship of the size of the old Gorshkov (Baku), which they sold to India. With nuclear propulsion. Smaller island. Silos for missiles around the flight deck. 2 or 3 catapults plus sky jump. Should be able to carry 12 x Su-57K + 3 x Yak-44 AEW&C aircraft and a few helicopters. Or 24 MiG-29K + 3 Yak-44 + a few helicopters. Or 40 - 50 helicopters (Ka-27/-29/-31/-52). Or a lot of combat and rec drones.
    George1
    George1

    Posts : 13869
    Points : 14364
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  George1 on Sat May 19, 2018 5:43 pm

    Five questions about the new aircraft carrier


      Recently (16.05), after a long break, specific information appeared on the design of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy. An anonymous source in the defense industry said that before the end of 2018 USC (read - Nevskoye Design Bureau) should present to the customer several variants of the finalized technical proposal (the term according to GOST, synonyms - a preliminary design, pre-design project), one of which has a (total) displacement of 75,000 tons. The information about the initial funding of the aircraft carrier and the estimated duration of the construction of "about 10 years", which were laid in the GPO 2018-2027, do not deserve - the beginning of the development of the technical project in 2019 and the laying of the main ship in 2021-2022. (ref. 1). After choosing a variant of the preliminary design, sketch design should begin and only then the technical one, which will move the mentioned terms to the right for several years (to the second half of the GPO).

       Below is the author's version of the article published in "Vzglyad" on March 23, 2013 (ref. 2). Much of the above is already mentioned in the blog, but the topic of creating new system-forming ships for the Russian Navy is so important that it is not a sin to repeat what has been said over and over again - in order to remind against the background of a dreary news line, full of messages about the construction of intercontinental and anti-sabotage boats, and the main thing we need to strive for (even if the aspirations exceed what is achievable at the moment).

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 57148_900
    Perspective aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy (based on the image - a model with a screenshot from the news release of the TV channel "Russia-1" on 10.11.2012 with militaryrussia.ru)


       No matter how bitterly it is to lose 10 years to build a "coastal defense fleet" (ref. 3), a pause in the development of the ocean component of the Russian Navy, taken for the period of the GPO 2018-2027, still promises to be of use to the cause. Even for the scant information that is brought to the public, it can be judged that the Supreme High Command, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and the Navy's commander-in-chief are not going to abandon the ocean fleet - the implementation of the program of its creation is planned to begin already in the second half of the recently adopted LG.

       A key element of the ocean fleet is to become an aircraft carrier of a new project, which is soon to be launched by a variety of people - Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov (ref. 4), Deputy Navy Commissar for Armament V. Bursuk (Ref. 5), Chief of the Institute of Shipbuilding and Armament of the VUNTS Navy Maximov (reference 6) and others. There is practically no information on the real appearance of the new AB in the media, so let's try to form it in a logical way, answering the five main questions: why, what, how much, where to build and at what price?


    What for?


    The question "why" land "(continental) aircraft carriers?" belongs to the category of entrenched misunderstandings. There are well-founded fears that those fellow citizens who ask it are unlikely to be converted into the right faith. Nevertheless, we will try to do this.

    Scenarios with carrier-based battles with the AUAG of the US Navy during the Third World War are best left to the authors of anti-utopias, since there will primarily be used other forces and means (although the Russian CAG, which has survived somewhere in the Arctic, may well become a weighty argument in the post-war world order). Therefore, consider not apocalyptic, but more ordinary variants of the development of events.

    First, let's imagine that Iran and Iraq would not provide Russia with an air corridor for the delivery of military cargo to Syria, and Turkey would block the Bosporus and Dardanelles for transports with weapons. Next, imagine a situation similar to the Syrian one, with some peculiarities making the deployment on the foreign territory of the airbase impossible or temporarily impossible (before the maritime amphibious operation). At the same time, Russia would be bound by international obligations, the renunciation of which would have catastrophic consequences for the country's prestige in the world arena. How in this situation to do without a ship carrier group, reinforced by an amphibious group led by the UDC?

    Who can guarantee that the Americans and their NATO partners will not once again, in circumvention of the UN Security Council, free from the oppression of the "totalitarian" regime any third world state with which we are linked by close partnership relations? Would not it be better, instead of useless note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to send our nearest CAG to the shores of this state and prevent armed intervention, as was the case during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 (with the difference that there was not a CAG but an IBM)?

    Suppose that the Russian business has invested very large money in the creation of industrial production on some islands, and the CIA has begun there one of the special operations to change the power and drive out competitors from the zone of their national interests. Another option: at the request of the US Justice Department, the authorities of a certain seaside state detained a Russian citizen (as it was already countless times) and are going to extradite him to American justice. More: a commercial or fishing vessel belonging to Russia (remember the story of the trawler "Oleg Naidyonov") was detained near the banks of the banana republic, disrespect for the Russian flag was shown. Do you want to give this case to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or, after all, to the CAG? I think there are enough examples.

    Which one?

    Since today there is not even a tactical technical task (TTZ), but only an unfinished "perspective study of an aircraft carrier for the needs of the Russian Navy" (from the NPCB report for 2016 - reference Cool, it will be necessary, as mentioned above, to call for help logic.

    The little-aesthetic (two-edged) giant concept-project of the Krylov Scientific Center (23,000 "Storm"), widely known for publications of the media, should not be taken seriously because of wide popularity (the development approved by the military would be kept strictly confidential) and conceptual (the design of aircraft carriers is a specialization not of KGNC, but exclusively of the NPKB).

    The new aircraft carrier can not be smaller than Kuznetsov and more than Nimitz. It can not be less for a number of reasons: 1) we will not be able to surpass the potential enemy by the number - only by quality (TTX); therefore, there must be a competitive air group on AB, which requires a lot of space to accommodate; 2) the Kuznetsov hangar is already small - no more than 70% of the air group is located in it, and the new AB will have to operate in the Arctic; 3) the school of Russian carrier pilots was formed on the "Kuznetsov" (there were simply no other options), the dimensions of its flight deck (305x70 m) - a kind of standard (like the size of a football field); 4) from considerations of prestige, we can not afford to yield to the Chinese or the British. To build AB more than American would be diligence not on reason and not afford, therefore, most likely, the full displacement of the aircraft carrier of the new project will fit into the range of 60,000-100,000 tons. and will be located closer to its middle (80,000 tons) - almost like 11437 (75,000 tons).

    As for the air group, we must definitely "put" on the deck of the Su-57. Taking into account the disastrous state of the Super Hornet Park (reference 9), the plans for their updating (reference 11), partial replacement on the F-35C and the full one for the new generation F / A-XX (not earlier than 2020) -2030-ies), the Russian Navy has every chance to beat competitors in a bend. At the same time, information (if we consider it as disinformation) about the planned development of flawed VCVP (vertical / shortened takeoff and landing aircraft) is at least meaningful (reference 12) - so that competitors are not too rushed to implement the F / A-XX program.

    The projected number of the air group of TAVKR av. 11437 was 68-70 aircraft, which roughly corresponded to the conventional norm of 1000 tons of [normal?] Displacement per aircraft (Ref. 13). It seems reasonable to leave the same number of vehicles on the new aircraft carrier as on 11437, but to distribute them by analogy with the proven structure of the aircraft wing of the Nimitz type aircraft, which has been tested for years and combat experience. In this case, we would have 4 three-link (4x12) Su-57 squadrons (three with self-tracking and one for the long-range aviation cover of the CAG), four AWACS aircraft, four specialized EW aircraft and one mixed squadron of helicopters from 12 different vehicles. A total of 68 aircraft.

    On the battlefield in the Arctic latitudes (on the Northern Sea Route), the size of the air group will be determined by the size of the hangar, which certainly should be more roomy than on the Kuznetsov (according to various estimates, 32-36 cars out of 46-50) - say: 1x12 and 2x8 Su-57 , 4 AWACS, 2 EW, 8 helicopters, totaling 42 aircraft.

    Taking into account the fact that the decision to use the nuclear power plant on new destroyers has already been adopted (ref. 14), the aircraft carrier will undoubtedly also be an atomic carrier. The springboard will be mandatory, electromagnetic catapults, most likely, too (their development, according to the former director general of the Nevsky PCB, S. Vlasov, has already begun - reference 15). Displaced in the stern is a compact "island", at least three aircraft lifts (on Kuznetsov two), of weapons, apparently, only ZRK and ZRPK near and near the border will remain - that's all you can judge by reading Vlasov's interview and looking on the model, from time to time falling into the newscasts and information-cognitive television programs. Other details are not so important.

    How many?

    It is clear that we can not afford the same large (huge) military fleet as the US, which is the foundation of the security of the richest country in the world. Accordingly, 10-12 super-aircraft carriers with wings, escort ships and infrastructure for us: a) un-affordable, b) are redundant.

    In order to assess the number of AC necessary and sufficient for the Russian Navy, we will be guided by a simple and understandable quantity - the number of aircraft carrier groups providing the projection of force on any area of ​​the World Ocean permanently on combat duty. Obviously, there must be two such groups (operational squadrons) - from the North and Pacific fleets, the first of which controls the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, the second - the Indian and Pacific Oceans (the Arabian Sea with the Persian Gulf, the Arctic Ocean and the newfound Southern Oceans can be considered zone of responsibility of both ACGs).

    In order for one aircraft carrier, which is a system-forming element of the ACG, to be permanently in the sea (say, on a semi-annual BS), it is necessary that the other, when the time comes, be ready to replace it, and before that it would restore technical readiness, and his crew was resting and practicing combat training before another BS. The third aircraft carrier, in turn, must undergo a lengthy medium repair with modernization. Thus, in order to react promptly to the challenge thrown to us by someone in distant waters, it is necessary to have six aircraft carriers in the fleet's combat staff.

    Theoretically, with a well-planned schedule of medium repairs, you can manage with five aircraft carriers, but one of them will have to wander from one fleet to another. With four AXs (and even less with fewer of them), continuous BSs in two regions of the World Ocean far from each other are no longer possible, and in which case we will have to mobilize all our naval forces in an emergency mode, as was the case with the English during the Falklands War.

    Where to build?

    When looking at the panorama of the Northern Machine Building Enterprise (Sevmash, Severodvinsk), the first thing that strikes us is the fact that one of its ellings (shop 55) is twice as high as the other (shop 50). For what, it would seem, in the first half of the 1970s it was necessary to erect a cyclopean structure, which, according to the Military Acceptance, is larger than the Red Square (330x75 m) and above the Cathedral of St. Basil the Blessed (65 m), if the overall height of the Borea RPLSN prospect 955 and 955A) with retractable devices does not exceed 30 m?

    The thing is that they built "on growth". The modernization of the enterprise allowed in the long term to use a wide dock of a new workshop for the construction of large aircraft carriers. Before the collapse of the USSR, this need did not arise (the aircraft carriers built in Nikolaev), but now the Soviet legacy will be very useful for us, although for its use it will be necessary to reconstruct the launching complex (the pool) and, possibly, the gate of the boat, 17). As for the main (boat) products of Sevmash, after the completion of the series "Boreev-A" and "Yaseney-M" (approximately in 2023-2025 - just before the start of production preparation for the construction of a new AB) for "Boreyev-B" and "Husky" should be enough for eight (?) plant sites in the shop 50.

    In favor of Sevmash, the fact that it is the only Russian shipyard that has practical experience of realignment (and in fact, built from scratch) of a ship of this class for the Indian Navy, speaks. However, one SMP will be small. Ships should be built serially and in parallel - for the sake of economy of means and acceleration of updating of ship structure. The second real contractor, the Baltic Plant (who knows how to build large ships with nuclear power plants), is in doubt, since it is densely occupied by the icebreakers of Pr. 22220, whose construction is, moreover, delayed (not through the fault of the BZ), and in the future even more powerful "Leaders "(item 10510). The Northern Shipyard is clearly out of the game, because its main products (after "warming up" in the form of two UDCs) should be other "Leaders" (destroyers pr. 23560).

    If nothing happens with the Baltic plant (it would be very unfortunate, since this is an ideal option), the second carrier shipyard may become the shipbuilding complex Zvezda in Primorye, which is not yet available, but the voiced potential is impressive (ref. 18). I would like to believe that in the near future we will be able to build warships and civil vessels of all classes and types, not only in the west, but also in the east.

    At what price?

    In 2014, in two of his interviews, Vlasov outlined the upper limit of the cost of a prospective aircraft carrier for the Russian Navy at 250-300 billion rubles. (ref. 13, ref. 15), recalculation by the inflation factor for April of this year. There are reports that of the 19 trillion rubles planned for rearmament in the GPO 2018-2027, "each type and type of troops [SV, VKS, Navy, Strategic Missile Forces, Airborne Forces] will receive approximately the same number of means" (ref. 20 ). In this case, the share of the fleet will be about 3.8 trillion - less than the GPV 2011-2020 (4.7 trillion), but also a lot.

    If in the next LGP the bar is kept at the same level (by itself, taking into account inflation, which promises to be much lower), and the first two aircraft carriers will be built simultaneously and the construction will take 10 years, the carrier share of the naval part of the GPV will be about 20% quite acceptable.

    The Russian aircraft carrier will be approximately twice as cheap as Ford ($ 12.9 billion), even at the official dollar exchange rate (not to mention the PPP), but it should be borne in mind that in both cases the cost of the air group (wing) is not taken into account, which increases the cost of AB a minimum of one and a half times. If we take into account the minimum, the share of the aircraft carrier part of the GPU (30%) can still be considered acceptable, if this value is exceeded (which is very likely taking into account the large number of expensive cars of the 5th generation), either the SPV funds will be redistributed in favor of the Navy, or " dilute "the air group with cheaper aircraft, for example, the MiG-35K.

    Note. * With the promised annual inflation rate in Russia 4%, by 2025 (the year of the bookmark) our aircraft carrier will cost about 470 billion rubles. "Ford" by that time will rise in price to $ 14.7 billion (annual inflation of 2% - reference 21) or 910 billion rubles. at the rate of 62. 910/470 = 1.94.

    Taking into account the possible "fluctuations of the party line", which we have seen enough already, a variety of external and internal force majeures, full of confidence that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years, of course, be can not. However, there is a vague (almost irrational) feeling that the point of no return on the way to the ocean carrier fleet has already been passed, and the military and political leadership of the country has achieved a clear understanding of the need to have such an effective instrument of foreign policy (geopolitics), as operational in both hemispheres of the operational The squadrons, consisting of shipborne aircraft carrier and landing groups, completed on the principle of reasonable sufficiency. All that is required of us in the foreseeable future - not turning and not looping, go to the intended goal. It's worth it.

    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html


    Last edited by George1 on Sun May 20, 2018 3:22 am; edited 1 time in total
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sat May 19, 2018 7:31 pm

    The projected number of the air group of TAVKR av. 11437 was 68-70 aircraft, which roughly corresponded to the conventional norm of 1000 tons of [normal?] Displacement per aircraft (Ref. 13). It seems reasonable to leave the same number of vehicles on the new aircraft carrier as on 11437

    They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead, don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

    Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3002
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sat May 19, 2018 7:44 pm

    Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.
    Russia/USSR (land lease, war prizes) been buying & using foreign built ships since the Peter I, while also building her own. For decades & until recently, China, India, Iran, Vietnam, both Koreas, Australia, & S. Americans did the same. As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner. France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?
    Go ahead, send ur sling shot proposal & patent it in Russia!
    Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years! Ethnic Russians travel to/from Russia all the time ever since USSR breakup & have close family & business ties with it; Putin said that Russia won't allow a bloodbath in Donbass- watch what'll happen soon when Ukraine tries to retake it again. The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.
    SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
    A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.
    Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sat May 19, 2018 11:31 pm

    Isos wrote: They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    only the first contract was 48 second 50 units for RuAF


    don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

    Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.

    True but Russia has a choice : either navalize Su-57 what is not necessarily the best idea (by sheer surface is like more 1,5 of F-35) or use new light fighter worked by  MiG now.




    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    Better translation: "it's not certain that the construction of the aircraft carrier will not be postponed for another 10 or even 20 years". Even if it does start on time, most likely it'll take a few years longer than planned to complete & get accepted. By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

    They surely will be. But B-52 and An-2 still will rule the skies Razz Razz Razz As for CVNs true but their role will change. They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships Razz Razz Razz
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sat May 19, 2018 11:40 pm

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:
    Isos wrote: They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    only the first contract was 48 second 50 units for RuAF


    don't expect them to buy 70 su-57 for naval aviation while even the air force will have hard time to get that much.

    Lot of people forget that a carrier is not only a ship but tens of modern fighters jets that need to be bought.

    True but Russia has a choice : either navalize Su-57 what is not necessarily the best idea (by sheer surface is like more 1,5 of F-35) or use new light fighter worked by  MiG now.

    Yes they have another contract of 50 su-35 BUT it happened many years after the first one and naval su-57 would be more expensive. If you want a carrier you need to buy all the planes before the end of the construction of the carrier to exploit it from the begining at its max capacity.

    It's the same story with the mig. Mig-35 is the best cost-effective solution for now. But 70 plane per cariier makes it very expensive even with only mig-35.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8376
    Points : 8460
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sat May 19, 2018 11:50 pm


    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 20, 2018 12:02 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    ait 2 more years and we get back for LHD/with VSTOL fighters Twisted Evil Twisted Evil Twisted Evil as budget reality wakes them up.






    George1 wrote:

    Five questions about the new aircraft carrier



    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html


    Thanks for interesting blog.  I;ve read thsi stuff and after finding authors opinions:

    commnets:
    Six? At least one such as you described, it would already be megakruto, but they torment me with doubts ...
    ( Reply ) ( Thread )

    navy_korabel
    2018-05-19 10:27 am (UTC)
    One will not give much.
    Six is ​​the maximum program.



    +

    T
    he new aircraft carrier can not be smaller than Kuznetsov and more Nimitsa. Less it can not be for a number of reasons:1) we will not be able to surpass the potential enemy by the number - only by quality (TTX), therefore, there must be a competitive air group on AB, for which there is a lot of space to accommodate; 2) the Kuznetsov hangar is already small - no more than 70% of the air group is located in it, and the new AB will have to operate in the Arctic; 3) the school of Russian carrier pilots was formed on the "Kuznetsov" (there were simply no other options), the dimensions of its flight deck (305x70 m) - a kind of standard (like the size of a football field); 4) from considerations of prestige, we can not afford to yield to the Chinese or the British. To build AB more than American would be diligence not on reason and not afford, therefore, most likely, the full displacement of the aircraft carrier of the new project will fit into the range of 60,000-100,000 tons.



    This shows that author lives in realm just sporadically crossing with the real world. What doe she maen maximum 6 CVNs (hare AB (shuld be AV - avianosec CV)  or size because pilots used to land on Kuz lol1 lol1 lol1  this is beyond economy and any logic I am aware off.

    Author somehow forgets that China is economy by almost order of magnitude bigger then Russia.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 12:05 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    +1.

    But russian carrier should be able to fight alone because it will have uksk, anti sub weapons and air defences. Escort should not be as big as in the us navy. But still they lack it too.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3002
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 12:08 am

    That's my point: getting 8 FFGs from China will help- while waiting for them, they can locally build a few FFGs/DDGs. In that article 5-6 CVNs r mentioned; with 2-3 FFGs/DDGs per group, that's at least 10-18 FFGs/DDGs. The more numerous LHA/LHDs will also need 2-3 escorts each. Earlier I calculated the total ships needed is around 50. I don't think they can build them all by themselves in time before the 5th CVN is ready to sail, unless the new CVNs "r moved farther to the right".
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy

    Posts : 4913
    Points : 4943
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Age : 77
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy on Sun May 20, 2018 12:28 am


    Tsavo Lion wrote:That's my point: getting 8 FFGs from China will help- while waiting for them, they can locally build a few FFGs/DDGs. In that article 5-6 CVNs r mentioned; with 2-3 FFGs/DDGs per group, that's at least 10-18 FFGs/DDGs. The more numerous LHA/LHDs will also need 2-3 escorts each. Earlier I calculated the total ships needed is around 50. I don't think they can build them all by themselves in time before the 5th CVN is ready to sail, unless the new CVNs "r moved farther to the right".  

    Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS. From time to market or economy perhaps you have right but her comes political risk management into play.




    GarryB wrote:
    Currently Russia showed most interest in Silk Road II  and Northern Route, Asia and Africa and for this  current fleet is more then enough. Will economy grow? no problem with CVNs.

    Being the country products from Asia travel across by rail, or past by sea to get to Europe wont make Russia rich...

    Pumping gas and oil into the machine in Asia that makes the products will help but helping them get to europe cheaper wont fill Russian pockets.

    and what makes Russia so rich trading with poorest stares of Africa and Latin America over seas? buying bananas and exchanging coffee for  Renault Ladas? Northern route is like all routes money, political leverage, investments, new enterprises (along easy logistics to anyone to half or worlds population?)

    India alone has population close to Africa and Latin America together. Chine like wise and their economies grow 6-8% per annum.



    Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

    Nuclear powerplants generate electricity by producing steam... it is perfectly normal to then propel the ship with electric motors...


    Not to mention easier to use (gearboxes, turbines for extra power and additional fuel installations... but not bes tiwll be refurbished sovied design :-)))

    like this Very Happy:D:D



    GarryB wrote:
    BTW do you see how much V gen MiG with canards is similar to Yak VSTOL

    In the sense both are still drawings... yes.   Twisted Evil

    still more advanced drawings then future ACs so no worry . MiG-35 will be 70 in 2040s. US fleet with 6 gen fighter F/A-XX. Borysov (current dept prime minister) in 2017 said that MiG is great fighter but getting obsolete also in moral sense.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 3002
    Points : 3000
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun May 20, 2018 2:26 am

    "Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS." True, but I meant & they reportedly mull buying Chinese FFGs which r not strategic by any stretch. Much bigger Mistrals was more of a lo$$ to France than to Russia after that deal was cancelled under US pressure after more strategically valuable Crimea (essentially an unsinkable CV) slipped out of Kiev & NATO grasp. So much for "French independent foreign policy". Now Egypt has them; later they may even be re-sold to Russia or some other 3rd country. Recall that Napoleon army raped Egypt ~200 years ago. In their 4K year history, it was like yesterday.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 3:50 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    You know what else carrier needs? Escorts.

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...
    Pretty straight to the point. Costs of all that fun are prohibitive unless smart optimizations are taken, and even then it will be a "poor's man approach" in the eyes of many.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 6:03 am

    GarryB wrote:
    But the size of the fleet can be kept contained at the same time
    And that is important... they can't afford an enormous fleet... every ship needs to be able to defend itself... poliment redut and UKSK launchers for everyone.... including carriers.
    Exactly. Some call this "distributed lethality (TM)", others common sense, but the idea is clear...
    GarryB wrote:
    Afghanistan was a failure because it was not.
    That was in the 1980s... I would expect a new intervention would be rather more successful but would likely be coordinated with Iran and Pakistan this time around.
    Just an example of interventionist (AFAIK), bloated super-power policy. Wrong policies are exceedingly expensive to make succeed.
    GarryB wrote:
    Whatever you want to see it, cost is THE essential issue.
    I disagree... there is a saying... throwing the baby out with the bath water... if 10 billion is too much spending 5 billion on something that most of the time wont do the job is just stupid... if you don't want to spend 10 billion then don't spend any at all... but remember in 20 years time when you lose some very expensive ships and miss out on trillions of dollars in deals because the US or UK or even French navy stopped you... you could have had a say... without a strong navy you don't get a say, and how could you have a strong navy with no AWACS or air power?
    Not saying you have to do it dirt cheap if it cannot be done reasonably effective. Russian military can offer literally tons of examples were simple yet effective approaches save billions and billions with the same or better military results than certain American extravagances, just because the approaches are less ambitious and more reasonable. But in the end of the day cost determines, within a certain technological state of things, what you get. Of course Russia could have 100.000 ton carriers with 90 aircraft and what not, but they do not do it since it is of no use to bankrupt the country just to have the best military solution available for one particular type of event. Of course I agree spending 5 billion just to get them sunk is stupid, pretty much!
    GarryB wrote:
    Defending is cheap, attacking with impunity is expensive, it is a matter of life. And innovation is the key. Known standards need to be constantly reviewed in light of new technical possibilities.
    I am not talking about invasion carriers... I am actually talking about AWACS aircraft... NATO has them and therefore can go to different countries and operate an airforce with full command and control and intel... Russia with mostly defensive ground based radar network can't move like NATO has... the use of A-50s in Syria is new and is paying dividends, but their navy does not have that luxury.

    Hell if you want to be bloody cheap how about a big container ship with multiple tethers on it and an enormous airship that sits on top of the deck. The airship gets its power through the tether cables and the airship itself has enormous antenna arrays down each side, front and back... the new type of radar they are talking about that can take photo like images of distant targets... when you send out a Russian surface action group you send this ship too and raise the airship to 20-30km altitude and with its radar it can spot any and all targets and threats for thousands of kms in every direction 24/7. The cargo ship can have its deck covered in UKSK and redut/poliment launch tubes... thousands of each... Air to air Missile packs can also be part of the airship so it can defend itself.

    You don't need fighters... as long as you are sure all your missiles will work and the enemy has no way to defeat them... because that airship will not dogfight... and it can certainly see cruise missiles but it can't chase them down.
    lol1 lol1
    Man, I had thought of something like that airship as AWACS for my proposed ship but many issues were not clear in my mind as to the practical feasibility. But I think this may be a potential solution, so now you mention it... Very Happy
    You need a light payload (500 kg weight would AFAIK reasonable for an airship like 5 m radius), all equipment and structure would need to be very light. You need power and some engines to keep up with the speed of the ship and winds, this may be a limiting factor. The power could maybe (not completely sure this is feasible) transmitted from the ship as microwave, in case the operating height of the airship is very high and cables cannot be used. During the day solar cells over a dish of 5 m radius could generate some 40 kW but batteries for the whole night is a no-go. So power needs to come from somewhere. The radar horizon for 10 km height is like 400 km if I am not wrong, so not bad.

    One additional advantage with this solution is you could have multistatic detection based on other planes in your fleet, which even VLO targets cannot easily escape.

    Other options are:

    > Place radar arrays in the side bays of a 5th gen fighter (of the F-22 or J-20 type). These could be ca. 4 x 1 m arrays, so the power aperture could be reasonable (cooling issues aside of course...). they would not cover the whole 360 degrees but you may have several planes circling around the carrier and covering each other's blind spots. Obvious advantage is that you don't develop an additional plane for the AWACS role and don't have to service it on board. If the radar system was modular, maybe planes could be even converted on board for this role according to the needs. BTW, the same could be applied, with the proper equipment, for reconnaissance and EW missions. The solution could complement the airship for the multistatic detection. Of course no operators on board, just transmitting of the radar data to the ship in this case... This goes way beyond "omni-role" fighter doesn't it? Razz

    > Could it be possible to use structural or placed on purpose elements of the ship or group of ships / aircraft as antennae of a OTH radar? This would be an even more powerful early warning solution than any of the existing, even when it cannot provide a firing solution against any threat... Maybe a compact and downgraded version of Podsolnukh-E? dunno
    GarryB wrote:You don't mention it but I am assuming you mean a double hull vessel.

    Dare I ask if you have ever been on one?

    When there is anything but very flat water multi hull boats really rock... and I mean that literally... the hull on one side goes down and the hull on the other side goes up a wave... from a passenger perspective one second you are looking at sea, and the next blue sky... sure it was not a big ship, but it was not even a rough sea either...
    Actually I was thinking of a huuge trimaran. From the limited research I have made they are remarkably stable in rough seas and remarkably fast but if anybody can comment on that I would appreciate.
    GarryB wrote:
    > Increased internal volume allows to dedicate more space to ASW, AD, land attack, ordnance, fuel etc., reducing the need for support of additional ships and increasing endurance.
    Hang on... increased internal volume means bigger mass, which means more expensive to operate and move around...
    Only to a limited extent, since most of the volume means "air" in this case! The form factor in such a vessel is quite different to that of a single hull, the form is much more "boxy". Equally the height is not that limited by stability as in a conventional ship. Nevertheless this would not be smaller than 60-70 T tons by a very very rough estimation. Since you would spare the LHDs altogether you would have economies even having a relatively big ship.
    GarryB wrote:Sorry, but I don't think the rocket sled idea has wheels... EMALS ticks all the boxes, and includes technologies like super magnets and super conductors and power generation and storage that has enormous potential in other areas... even potentially for rail guns and electric power propulsion systems... for land, sea, and aircraft.
    No rocket but almost a sled Very Happy
    Like said, if the EMALS are so super expensive and difficult it would be an option. If they can be implemented at reasonable costs (which I don't see as fundamentally infeasible to achieve) then use EMALS!
    GarryB wrote:Small carriers are limiting... when a Russian surface action group is in the South Atlantic or south pacific you don't want to need 50 supply ships running constantly to keep the carrier in aviation fuel and bombs, not to mention replacement aircraft... if you are only going to make two then why make two piddling little ones with pathetic performance VSTOL fighters and VTOL Ka-31 AWACS because you can't operate anything bigger... hell they can already operate Ka-31s from destroyers if they want to give up capability against subs...
    See above. Additional volume means more endurance. Optimized deck operations means less aircraft doing more, so again more space available and more endurance.
    No STOVL please!
    Air control radars / Early Warning is part of the kit as well.
    GarryB wrote:A fighter probably could match the range and endurance, but can it carry a 360 degree radar and the 2-6 people needed to turn the flying radar from AEW to AWACS... it is not just supposed to see targets but to coordinate the defence using fighters and ships missiles.
    See above. Why cannot seat that operators at the ship were space, weight and power/cooling are not a premium? Just an innocent question...
    GarryB wrote:The AWACS is important, but a Tanker perhaps based on the same airframe is just as useful for extending the operational time of all aircraft operating from the carrier too.
    Nothing against it, if it can be paid. Otherwise, buddy refuelling...
    GarryB wrote:With a cat you can operate tanker aircraft so fighters with full weapon load for air to air could take off with a quarter fuel load and top up after launch on the way to the targets...
    Why would the fighters take-off with quarter tank if you have catapult?
    GarryB wrote:EM cats are much more forgiving....
    In other words it does not apply constant fixed level of force.
    Yes I know, this is great.
    GarryB wrote:Except it can't lift the aircraft vertically... these aircraft are not VTOL... if you lift them up 5m into the air they are in the air, but you have just created a problem not solved one... the problem is moving them horizontally in the space available to get the air flowing over their wings fast enough to support their own weight... with their engines running to maintain and increase that horizontal speed.

    If you just use force to lift them then all that is holding them in the air is the engine on your lift device... now what are you going to do?

    If that engine shuts down or stalls then the plane it was lifting drops like a rock and will be destroyed in a fireball.

    If you try to move the aircraft it will have to be forward to generate any wing lift.... and be careful where you point those very powerful engines because exhaust blast kills deck crew...

    Like I said... it would be easier and simpler and cheaper to use a catapult.

    What you are suggesting is pretty much just JATO bottles... which has been tried... they are expensive and pretty soon you end up spending more money on expensive and dangerous solid rocket fuel than cats would have cost.
    I used the F135 as reference of thrust to weight ratio. Imagine two small turbojets, each moving two lift fans on each side of the plane. The turbojets propel the plane horizontally (though just marginally maybe) and the fans provide the needed lift for the operation. The aircraft takes off normally at full AB and when it reaches the end of the deck it does not fall because of the additional lift provided by the "sled" (or even because it goes also faster horizontally). Some hundred meters later it reaches enough speed for independent flight, the UAV detaches and returns to the ship.

    Not seen any sky-jump carrier with catapult. Since the rotation of the plane is done by the sky jump itself, I think it is a superior way of taking off, less reliant on complex systems and with less drop or fall of the plane from the deck. Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question)Very Happy
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22312
    Points : 22856
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 20, 2018 12:41 pm

    My point as: there is the whole asia and Europe reachable via land.

    No it isn't.

    If the EU bans Russian exports to itself it is hardly going to let such deliveries travel over its territories... any country can be strong armed into stopping transfers across their country... was Kosovo reachable for Russian deliveries?

    You know better than anyone we are talking about spineless bastards who jump when Washington says jump... except for the ones that ask how high to jump...

    This is enough big market to grow.

    It is a non existent market... the west sanctions Russia and blocks sales of high tech western stuff... do you think they will buy your stuff?

    Hardly a Russian product friendly market to begin with... heard the term pissing in the wind?

    Not tomention growing Russian level of life to say Germany makes Russia GDP like 8trillions nominative

    Of course... the only way for Russia to improve quality of life it buying and selling shit to rich people... I am sure that is what the rich people want you to think... How about picking a poor country and trading with them... you both make money... you both develop... you don't need to sell your Soul... you both grow and benefit and make money... without the west.

    So you had mines and steel mills on NZ? I've found a documentary about it

    Yes, that is the video from the Wellington site... Smile

    Very true, times changed though. In vital places Husky/Yasen or Belgorods/Poseidon will be around not ot mention PAK-DA or Avangards from Russia. Time of mega carriers is gone I believe. Small one with 20-30 airwing is as good fo colonial war or and costs 1/4 of mega . Her fighters still can use GZUR rockets with 1500kms range to keep enemy ships at bay.

    If carriers wont survive then smaller carriers will be even easier to take out and of rather less use... is a corvette better able to survive where an AEGIS cruiser it too expensive? Any attack against either and I would put my money on the cruiser to survive better than the Corvette...

    A ship of the size of the old Gorshkov (Baku), which they sold to India. With nuclear propulsion.

    If you can only have 2-4 SSBNs would they be armed with 4-6 SLBM launchers each, or 50?

    4-6 SLBMs would be so much cheaper... and with new technology SSBNs are dead anyway...

    Let me rephrase it: there is a direct correlation between the size of the economy of a given country & her ability in naval shipbuilding.

    But ability is not the same actual production rate... plus you ignore the fact that there are vastly more factors involved.. big economy does not mean big navy...

    As a stopgap measure, getting 8 FFGs from the PRC won't decimate Russian economy, but will buy them time & extra units that would be ready to deploy sooner.

    They don't know what they want... if they were really desperate for large ships they could easily apply a minor overhaul to cold war destroyers they have and use them... who is going to fire on them anyway?

    France can go to hell as far as Russia is concerned, just like the UK- most of the time, they were their adversaries & outright enemies. But, if the Mongols had to use Chinese engineers, crossbowmen & gunpowder in sieges & silk underwear (for protection against arrows) to conquer Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria & the ME, why can't Russia buy Chinese ships now if it would benefit them?

    You ask why they should not buy Chinese ships... they have plenty of shipyards of their own... why would they not just build their own?

    If they don't think they need them at the moment then there is no problem anyway.

    If they think they need them but their shipyards can't build them then they have a problem with their shipyards... that wont be fixed by buying ships from Chinese shipyards.

    Bad comparison: the blacks in USA don't have much clout even internally, much less in foreign policy- otherwise S. Africa wouldn't have imprisoned N. Mandela for 27 years!

    Ethnic Russians are non citizens in the Baltic states and most of the rest of eastern europe and have even less power than the blacks do in the US... the only difference is that European police don't use them for target practise.

    The same with other areas anywhere close to the RF borders with large Russian speaking population- be it in the Baltics, Moldova, & Central Asia.

    Hahahaha... short of making them wear pink stars on their shirts I don't know what else the Baltic states could do to further alienate their Russian minorities... they make them non citizens... not eligible for benefits or positions within government... would not be accepted against any other group except Russians in Europe... everyone else has support... homos, blacks, I rather suspect child molesters would probably be better protected as a group than Russians sadly.

    Not a reflection of Russian, but of superior european values and morals...

    SSGNs can sink/disable surface ships, just like ARA G. Belgrano was in 1982:

    Even an SSK could fire a torpedo that way and sink a ship, but what are the rest of the ships going to be doing when you launch torpedos... fire depth charges?

    A carrier group will likely end the embargo without firing a shot and escalating to stupid directions.

    A warning may be given to avoid it, but if it's not heeded they'll have only themselves to blame.

    A warning will only alert them to the threat and they might try to sink your sub before it can attack...

    By that time, the world will be unrecognizable & there may be space based systems capable of tracking CB/SGs in real time & hypersonic weapons to destroy them in minutes.

    They are already working on railguns able to accelerate 100 gramme projectiles to over 7km/s... with such a gun you could shoot down satellites in orbit... and the best way to deal with hypersonic threats will likely be weapons with enormous muzzle velocities... ie lasers... which need enormous supplies of energy... like a carrier?

    They bought only 48 su-35 because it was too expensive and went for su-30 instead,

    The MiG-35 is fully carrier capable now... there is no reason why they could not do the same to the new 5th gen small fighter...

    New Zealand operated the A-4 skyhawk without a carrier... so did Argentina... the USAF also used the F-4 phantom too...

    They dont need to disappear , just change roles? more diversity in applications, more drones. IMHO will go to mix of LHD/light CVN and ASW ships

    And yet a bigger CVN offers more flexibility to change roles or adopt new ones...

    If you want a carrier you need to buy all the planes before the end of the construction of the carrier to exploit it from the begining at its max capacity.

    Why?

    Most carriers during fitting out don't have anything like a full aircraft compliment for the first few years... it would only be in combat you would use them and as you say they are expensive items to just have sitting there in the salt air... at risk of damage, but not at risk of being used...

    It's the same story with the mig. Mig-35 is the best cost-effective solution for now. But 70 plane per cariier makes it very expensive even with only mig-35.

    More expensive planes have better chances of survival... you going to spend 10 billion on a carrier and another 20 billion on the support and infrastructure and other capital and support ships and then pike on the aircraft component?

    When the carrier is not at sea those MiG-35s can operate from land... those MiG-35s are full dual capable land and sea based aircraft so it would make sense to have a few of them anyway...

    And I ain't seeing much in the way of those...

    Gonna take 15 years to built a carrier and get her fitted out to become operational... plenty of time to finish upgrading the Kirovs and build a dozen or so destroyers and start construction of some new cruisers...

    Author somehow forgets that China is economy by almost order of magnitude bigger then Russia.

    Not to mention that China does not have Russia under economic sanction...

    But russian carrier should be able to fight alone because it will have uksk, anti sub weapons and air defences. Escort should not be as big as in the us navy. But still they lack it too.

    It would be nice if every ship could hold its own in a fight but they should never be actually put in that situation...

    Nobody will let other country build strategic important stuff. Neither CVNs nor ICBMS. From time to market or economy perhaps you have right but her comes political risk management into play.

    They have spent a small fortune to upgrade their shipyards... why would they then give major ship building contracts to another country?

    2008 was a shock and they realised they needed a helicopter carrier as fast as possible, so France was selected because the Mistral is a mature design... with a few minor modifications it would have been a good choice for Russia.

    Problem is that they didn't realise how big a cowards the French are... I wasn't happy having a NATO country source for the Mistrals, but they are good ships that are mature designs... no 10 years planning and a bit of hit and miss in the design choices and then 4-5 years to decide how to make the damn things... in terms of urgency the Mistrals were an excellent choice... they probably would have had all four in service... two in the northern fleet and two in the Pacific fleet.

    Of the NATO countries I thought the French could get the job done... they often pretend to follow their own interests first, but it turns out honour means nothing in France and you clearly can't trust them in anything.

    and what makes Russia so rich trading with poorest stares of Africa and Latin America over seas? buying bananas and exchanging coffee for Renault Ladas?

    Because I think most non western countries see what the west does and really want an alternative.

    I think Russia is not rich and powerful and super perfect... there are plenty of areas they need to work on... that are very similar problems and issues for any non western country... I think they can help each other and both grow from the experience.

    What banana republic doesn't want a publicity stunt where one of their people goes into space to a space station?

    India alone has population close to Africa and Latin America together. Chine like wise and their economies grow 6-8% per annum.

    Both those countries should also be engaged, but Russia needs to look at countries that will benefit from trade... good relations with China will generally mean them selling you lots of cheap products which generally immediately turns your domestic clothing industry into a fashion design industry... we design but made in China with Chinese fabrics...

    That is the dead end for the west... Russia should try to avoid importing everything from countries with cheap labour and no labour laws to protect workers.

    MiG-35 will be 70 in 2040s

    Current systems will be placeholders... when the CVN hits the water, whatever is new and shiny will likely star on her deck.

    The Kuznetsov model I remember seeing in the 90s had MiG-23s on it...

    Just because it is in the model or artwork it is not set in stone... just like IOC dates for that matter.... Twisted Evil

    True, but I meant & they reportedly mull buying Chinese FFGs which r not strategic by any stretch.

    They are not going to pay China to make anything they can make themselves... there is no urgency... when they decide to make a CVN and lay it down there will be 12-15 years before it gets anything like operational... plenty of time to lay down larger ships or upgrade existing models.

    Paying money to Chinese shipyards to build boats does not help Russian shipyards or the Russian Navy.

    Ironically spending almost 1.5 billion on the Mistrals gave them intimate access to the mature design of a ship they wanted, and then they got most of their money back and sales to Egypt for the air group and electronics they produced for the vessels, so that turned out OK... except they didn't get the ships they wanted very fast.

    Of course full access to the design and production of the Mistrals means they can make some more serious upgrades and changes and still get a pretty good vessel much much faster than would be possible by making it from scratch.

    Now Egypt has them; later they may even be re-sold to Russia or some other 3rd country. Recall that Napoleon army raped Egypt ~200 years ago. In their 4K year history, it was like yesterday.

    I suspect Russia will just build some new designs with Mistral origins... and Egypt should be happy... they probably got some very good ships at reduced price...

    It is the French that came out smelling of shit.

    Pretty straight to the point. Costs of all that fun are prohibitive unless smart optimizations are taken, and even then it will be a "poor's man approach" in the eyes of many.

    The planning for the support infrastructure needed to operate these ships will already have started, and support ships... they will come anyway... they want a carrier because they want a blue water fleet... if they want a blue water fleet then they will need destroyers and cruisers anyway.

    Just an example of interventionist (AFAIK), bloated super-power policy. Wrong policies are exceedingly expensive to make succeed.

    You can have all the tools you like, but the result depends more on preparation and skill in the use of the tools than in anything else...

    The skilful use of limited resources in Syria shows the Russians know what they are doing... a force a fraction of the size and cost of the western forces in the region turned a losing war into a win... for costs that would probably be rather less than your average NATO exercise...

    Of course Russia could have 100.000 ton carriers with 90 aircraft and what not, but they do not do it since it is of no use to bankrupt the country just to have the best military solution available for one particular type of event.

    A 100K ton carrier is a strike carrier... an invasion support carrier... Russia has no need for such a thing... it would be used to bully little countries... like carriers off the coast of Korea or Vietnam... Russia needs to defend its ships, if it needs to blow up a terrorist camp or weapon lab or CIA HQ in the middle of some poor african country then a cruise missile makes rather more sense than any air group...

    You need a light payload (500 kg weight would AFAIK reasonable for an airship like 5 m radius), all equipment and structure would need to be very light. You need power and some engines to keep up with the speed of the ship and winds, this may be a limiting factor. The power could maybe (not completely sure this is feasible) transmitted from the ship as microwave, in case the operating height of the airship is very high and cables cannot be used. During the day solar cells over a dish of 5 m radius could generate some 40 kW but batteries for the whole night is a no-go. So power needs to come from somewhere. The radar horizon for 10 km height is like 400 km if I am not wrong, so not bad.

    Russia already sold to china blimps intended for use in mountains... radar antennas that are also used for communications and navigation, but also looking for low flying threats... they operate for like 3 months at a time... at 5-10km altitude and are tethered to the ground station that provides power and processing etc.

    A modern airship would benefit enormously from fuel cells.

    Normally on an airship you use helium because it is "safer", but with modern fire proof materials it should be possible to not use any helium.

    Hydrogen fuel cell plus a small NPP... the fuel cell allows you to turn hydrogen into water ballast and back... to go up run a current from the NPP to the fuel cell to turn the water into hydrogen and the whole thing rises... no need to vent... if you need to descend then run the fuel cell and use up some hydrogen and create water ballast and you descend.

    Normal airships are expensive because venting helium is horribly expensive, but how do you go back up after venting lifting gas?

    You drop more ballast... eventually you will run out of ballast/lifting gas... this new method is a closed system that can continue indefinitely... you could fly low and turn on a dehumidifier if you need to take on more water/hydrogen fuel cell fuel.

    More importantly an airship has a structure with an outer cover and inner bags holding the lifting gas... with modern strong light materials that are fire resistent, you could pump nitrogen between the bags of hydrogen to eliminate any risk of fire... hydrogen needs oxygen to burn... that means even if you get hit by an air to air missile how many hydrogen bags will it damage?

    A really big airship will have enormous numbers of lifting bags spread over a large area, so even a direct hit will likely not burst all the bags... all ballast could be dropped and it would likely slowly descend to the water... where it could be picked up and repaired or have the bags replaced.

    Electric motors for station control or manouvering the radar to focus the full length of antenna on something of interest... perhaps even have two... one tethered from each end of the large ship pointing in different directions at different altitudes...

    In fact have 10 backups on board...

    Try that with an AWACs aircraft....

    Actually I was thinking of a huuge trimaran. From the limited research I have made they are remarkably stable in rough seas and remarkably fast but if anybody can comment on that I would appreciate.

    Went on a big cat to Stewart Island... smooth and very fast on the way over, but a little choppy on the way back... just lots of small waves... there was not even a roll on and the thing jumped and bucked like we had Spurs on and weren't afraid to use them... my friend spent the trip face down in the toilet... Smile

    Only to a limited extent, since most of the volume means "air" in this case!

    So unused space... tell me again why that is useful?

    The form factor in such a vessel is quite different to that of a single hull, the form is much more "boxy".

    But if you were selling the idea instead of boxy you would say compact right? Smile

    Nevertheless this would not be smaller than 60-70 T tons by a very very rough estimation. Since you would spare the LHDs altogether you would have economies even having a relatively big ship.

    So I thought the idea was a unified LHD and a CVN, so you buy, say, 6 platforms for 2 CVN and 4 LHD, and save money by buying 6 similar platforms.

    I think that would be more like making the LHDs as expensive as CVN, which is sort of the opposite of what we want...

    If they can be implemented at reasonable costs (which I don't see as fundamentally infeasible to achieve) then use EMALS!

    they are not going to be cheap, but they will be the most sensible and efficient way of getting planes airborne on ships... and improvements in technology that are developed can be applied in many other areas... including space etc.

    Why cannot seat that operators at the ship were space, weight and power/cooling are not a premium? Just an innocent question...

    the main difference is that a Ka-31, which pretty much just captures raw data and transmits it all to a ship for processing... the ship then sends commands to the aircraft and other ships in the group to deal with threats or targets detected.

    In other words it is really just an AEW aircraft.

    An AWACS aircraft gathers data, but then processes it, and then this information is processed by operators who likely pass digital information and commands to aircraft and ships and even satellites for HQs to look at. The difference is that the aircraft does all the processing and therefore also much less data is transmitted.

    Continuously transmitting data to a ship means the Ka-31 is not hard to spot... it is using its radar anyway so that is a given, but the ship it transmits data to then has to process that information and then send commands to other aircraft and platforms including the Ka-31... so the surface ships location will be compromised.

    An enemy might be able to intercept the datalinks but they will likely be heavily encrypted so they wont benefit... for processing it will likely be a cruiser or a carrier that is receiving and processing the information.

    With a well designed system the AWACS aircraft could largely do its job independent of the ships and aircraft so it can detect targets and pass information to aircraft and ships without those ships having to reveal their presence or location...

    Of course an airship could pass the data down the tether and operate active and passive radar scanning...

    Nothing against it, if it can be paid. Otherwise, buddy refuelling...

    Launching one big aircraft to fuel 10 fighters makes more sense to launch 11 aircraft instead of 20... especially when the 10 fighters you launch to transfer fuel will have to take off unarmed to maximise fuel... so you have a take off and landing cycle with no weapons use...

    Why would the fighters take-off with quarter tank if you have catapult?

    Because you have one catapult and two ski jump take off positions... your priority is to get the AWACS up and operating for the first cat launch... and the next launch might be a fully fuelled an armed fighter, but while it is getting ready on the cat you have two fighters taking off from the ski jump... by the time the fully armed and fuelled fighter has taken off there will be at least four half fuel aircraft airborne, so next you launch a tanker to top up those four and the two taking off when the tanker is launched... the first guy is approaching the threat but the rest can catch up because they were fuelled in the air and can take more fuel on so they can go AB all the way... as they start to blunt the attack more aircraft are getting airborne... fighters and tankers... planes getting airborne from the cat can be fully armed and fuelled and can go engage the enemy straight away, planes from the ski jump might still be able to engage incoming threats... even operating at 5,000m they can see low flying anti ship missiles from huge ranges and engage them... when they run out of missiles they can return and land and rearm...

    A tanker near the carrier to refuel aircraft as they take off that need it, plus another tanker flying towards the threat to refuel aircraft nearer the target so they can hang around there longer...

    If the threat includes enemy aircraft then don't operate the tanker so far forward...

    Hell a tanker would be a large aircraft put a couple of quad MANPADS launchers... it could take on low flying subsonic anti ship missiles, without too much weight or drag penalty.

    Most subsonic anti ship missile attacks will be swarm mass attacks so the more platforms that can help the better.

    I used the F135 as reference of thrust to weight ratio. Imagine two small turbojets, each moving two lift fans on each side of the plane. The turbojets propel the plane horizontally (though just marginally maybe) and the fans provide the needed lift for the operation. The aircraft takes off normally at full AB and when it reaches the end of the deck it does not fall because of the additional lift provided by the "sled" (or even because it goes also faster horizontally). Some hundred meters later it reaches enough speed for independent flight, the UAV detaches and returns to the ship.

    Two things really... when it goes off the end of the deck if it does not have enough speed to fly when the deck drops away to the sea the entire aircraft and supporting UAV will also drop, because the lifting force near a surface is greater than the same force higher up.... it is called surface effect... WIG and hovercraft use it... so when the two platforms reach the end of the deck they will drop rapidly to a similar height above the water that they had above the deck... lets say 3 metres above the deck would be 3m above the water... but suddenly losing the support of the deck means it will drop 10-20 metres which means it will probably hit the water with its downwards momentum.

    With such an explanation it is clear to me your idea would work best using small hovercraft like UAVs.

    Think a large container ship with these hovercraft and aircraft... hovercraft attached to the aircraft... big crane picks up both and places them in the water beside the ship... hovercraft starts up and moves forward... aircraft starts up engines and deploys flaps etc for take off.... you have unlimited sea to get to takeoff speed... in any direction you want... when plane gets airborne hovercraft can turn around back to ship to have another plane put on its back.

    Bigger hovercraft would allow more aircraft types to be launched.

    Still need a carrier for recovery, though large container ship with half deck flat with arrester gear would do.

    Not so good in rough seas though but really big hovercraft might solve that.

    Not seen any sky-jump carrier with catapult. Since the rotation of the plane is done by the sky jump itself, I think it is a superior way of taking off, less reliant on complex systems and with less drop or fall of the plane from the deck. Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question

    Ski jump is a way of giving aircraft an impulse upwards... works best with vectored thrust aircraft like Harrier, but can be used by conventional aircraft like Su-33 and mig-29, but could be further taken advantage of with vectored thrust engines which would help control yaw and and pitch angle on take off to prevent stalls or not enough lift angle.

    AFAIK the cat system on the new carrier is intended to not go up the ski jump.

    On the current K there are two short take off runs in line with the ski jump, but also a very long take off run near the waist of the carrier... it would be in the way of landing aircraft so cannot be used while landing planes but offers a much longer run up to the ski jump so fully loaded Su-33s can take off. (note they don't do ground attack so I am taking about full AA missile load and full internal fuel... they can't carry external fuel tanks)

    On the new carrier I expect that waist launch position will go straight out over the deck where the landing aircraft take off again if they miss a cable... with the boost of a cat that should be plenty of length to get to speed...
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 22312
    Points : 22856
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 20, 2018 12:42 pm

    Can the catapults be made compatible with sky-jump? (also innocent question)

    Hahahaahaha... it is OK... I don't do traps... or do I? Twisted Evil

    Have I told my Deja Vu joke yet?
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2476
    Points : 2487
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie on Sun May 20, 2018 1:39 pm

    George1 wrote:

    Five questions about the new aircraft carrier


    ...

    The little-aesthetic (two-edged) giant concept-project of the Krylov Scientific Center (23,000 "Storm"), widely known for publications of the media, should not be taken seriously because of wide popularity (the development approved by the military would be kept strictly confidential) and conceptual (the design of aircraft carriers is a specialization not of KGNC, but exclusively of the NPKB).

    ...

    https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/191636.html

    There are many things to comment in the article, this one is likely the most remarkable because is wrong.

    The last preliminary design of combat ship approved by the Russian Ministry of Defense was the Project 23560 Lider, in April 2017. This project was presented previously, at least in its export variant, just like the Project 23000 of aircraft carrier.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1397
    Points : 1391
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  LMFS on Sun May 20, 2018 2:28 pm

    George1 wrote:Five questions about the new aircraft carrier
    Thanks for posting!

    I tend to agree with the analysis of this article. Even when the logic behind the calculation is clear, I find difficult to believe that Russia is going to have 6 full-fledged carriers in the next 20 years.

    This is interesting Very Happy
    As for the air group, we must definitely "put" on the deck of the Su-57. Taking into account the disastrous state of the Super Hornet Park (reference 9), the plans for their updating (reference 11), partial replacement on the F-35C and the full one for the new generation F / A-XX (not earlier than 2020) -2030-ies), the Russian Navy has every chance to beat competitors in a bend. At the same time, information (if we consider it as disinformation) about the planned development of flawed VCVP (vertical / shortened takeoff and landing aircraft) is at least meaningful (reference 12) - so that competitors are not too rushed to implement the F / A-XX program.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 8376
    Points : 8460
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon on Sun May 20, 2018 4:29 pm


    Escorts.

    Can't build escorts, can't build carrier, plain and simple.

    Also, Su-57 is too cumbersome for carriers (think Su-33 issues) and since they already need light single engine fighter for airforce anyway they might as well develop and navalize that one.

    But again main problem remains: escorts.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3888
    Points : 3868
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 5:43 pm

    Depends. These days, missile boats are about as well armed as destroyers we're in Soviet times. I would wager making more Corvettes with modern equipment will solve that task for escorts.

    Personally, jump jets are needed again. They shouldn't have dropped the Yak-141. Cause today, they could make a rather cheap aircraft carriers using transport vessels like seen in past.

    If needed.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 6:19 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Depends. These days, missile boats are about as well armed as destroyers we're in Soviet times. I would wager making more Corvettes with modern equipment will solve that task for escorts.

    Personally, jump jets are needed again. They shouldn't have dropped the Yak-141. Cause today, they could make a rather cheap aircraft carriers using transport vessels like seen in past.

    If needed.

    Missile boats and corvettes can't escort a carrier. They are limited by their size for long range deployment.

    Yak-141 is pretty useless for combat operations. Any other decent fighter will have superiority over it with more range and more weapons. F-35 is not far from the yak in that role, it only has better rcs and better radar.

    The only good thing with that is using it as an airborn radar connected to the fleet to give a better picture of the enemy and maybe guide some anti air missiles over the horizon. It could also use 2 or 3 missiles to intercept incoming threats. But using them against many f-16 or f-15 or superhornets is useless spexially if you only have a few of them on your carrier.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3888
    Points : 3868
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 6:25 pm

    Yak-141 was to solve the issue that Yak-38 had with the weapons payload.

    And modern Corvettes have decent range you know. About as same as older non nuclear ships.  And we're do you expect the carrier will go? To US shores? In most regards, auxiliary ships would be used to help in regards to ranges. Size has little to do with it now. Since newer ships travel as long as older "escort" ships did, so.....

    But whatever.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 7:20 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:Yak-141 was to solve the issue that Yak-38 had with the weapons payload.

    And modern Corvettes have decent range you know. About as same as older non nuclear ships.  And we're do you expect the carrier will go? To US shores? In most regards, auxiliary ships would be used to help in regards to ranges. Size has little to do with it now. Since newer ships travel as long as older "escort" ships did, so.....

    But whatever.

    It's not the 16 redut missiles on steregoushchy that will protect your carrier.

    They are limited also by crew and food. Auxiliary ships are very good but russia already has not enough of them so they will need to build new ones and not small ones if you want to assist tens of corvettes far away.

    Russia used K in syria and look wh1t trip it did to go so close ro russia. All the interesting places where a russian carrier could be deployed are far.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 3888
    Points : 3868
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  miketheterrible on Sun May 20, 2018 7:44 pm

    Its already been demanded and more or less ordered for upwards to 100 auxillary ships. Your idea of crew and food limitations is archaic. Modern Corvettes have endurance (so that accounts for food and fuel) upwards to 30 days. Most missiles onboard now on Corvettes are more than older larger ships had then. Not to mention they still have quite a few frigates to operate alongside.

    Their destinations are limited and we're a carrier would go is more likely within easy reach of Russia already - Gulf of Aden, Med sea, along the costs to Vietnam, etc. Those are not 30 day destinations.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 4007
    Points : 3997
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos on Sun May 20, 2018 8:08 pm

    It's useless to compare modern corvette to old threats. A modern single fighter can detect a naval group outside the air defence range of the ships and launch easily 4 anti ship missiles.

    Corvettes have evolved but so did the other plateforms. And the advantage goes to the one that attacks. Like alwayd. He can choose when, where and how to attack. Russia doesn't have the monopole in massive antiship missiles attacks. And their ship are not imune to it.

    Their destinations are limited and we're a carrier would go is more likely within easy reach of Russia already - Gulf of Aden, Med sea, along the costs to Vietnam, etc. Those are not 30 day destinations.

    All those place are full of enemy forces. Med sea is inside nato, gulf of aden is surounded by arab countries puppet of US and full of US bases same in asia.

    If they plan to defend their carrier it will be against Nato forces or big countries/militaries like israel, sausi arabia, China, japan .... which all have enough hardware to lunch massive strikes.

    Sorry but corvettes can escort the carrier for small engagement not real ones.


    Sponsored content

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 23 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 12, 2019 1:05 pm