Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

MiG-25 take-off run is 1,200m, not "several kilometres long": https://www.lennundusmuuseum.ee/en/gallery/fighters/mig-25/#:~:text=Performance%3A,Take%2Doff%20run%201%2C200%20m

That site uses wiki as its source data, the MiG-25 is not a fighter, it is an interceptor or recon aircraft. even 1.2km is four times longer length than the MiG-29 or Su-27 need for a takeoff, the MiG-25 is ancient and obsolete and would be a terrible carrier based aircraft.

the Su-33 is only 6'(1.8m) shorter & 3,720kg lighter.

What a stupid website. There is zero possibility of the MiG-25 ever being a carrier based aircraft. It is ridiculous.

this plane too wasn't originally designed as a deck fighter!

The MiG-25 isn't a fighter either. Interceptor or Recon.

the article has some valid observations: Soviet/Russian naval fighters have a mixed record at best

Western reported results promote western agenda.

It is all because ugly Soviets are Untermenschen, I hope it is crystal clear to anybody!

Yes, to be clear the Russian gun weighted less than the electric motor used by the American gun which had 7 barrels instead of the 6 of the Russian gun and it still had a much lower rate of fire.

To make sense of that if a gun barrel cluster has four barrels then spinning it around once result in 4 shots fired so a 7 barrel gun fires 7 shots with each complete spin and a 6 barrel gun shoots 6 times, so the Soviet gun to fire rather faster than the American gun needs to be spinning rather faster too... which suggests gas power is superior to electric. What they didn't like to mention is inertia meaning the electric drive took about half a second to wind up to full speed. The Soviet gun had inertia too, but gas power delivered rather more energy so it spun up much faster so it fired more rounds in the first fraction of a second of its bursts than the American weapon did.

The Americans go on about their 20mm gatlings in their fighters too, but the 23mm Soviet gatling fires at twice the rate of fire and weighs 73kgs complete with no electric motor needed. The 30mm gatling gun in the MiG-27 is only 149kgs complete too.

Would be interesting to see what they could do with a gun ship that is not optimised for top speed that can have proper mounts and ammo bins for these types of guns... some sort of CAS platform...

By the way, it is highly possible that next Russian naval fighter will be a next generation MiG (and probably they are working on that), maybe to to be paired to a Yak VTOL.

I think it is more likely that MiG might make the light twin engined fighter for carriers (because they want twin jets with lots of excess thrust), to replace the MiG-29K, and that the replacement for the Su-33 will be a modification of the Su-57.

Whether the Russian AF accepts single engined fighters or not is another matter, so they might choose the twin engined MiG carrier plane as their new light fighter on land so the navy and air force will have the same types in service, but I suspect the new MiG single engined 5th gen fighter will be very cheap to buy and operate and have the potential to be made in significant numbers and be widely deployed, but I doubt the navy will want it as a carrier based aircraft.

It can be done from scratch with naval requirements in mind, and later a lighter Air force version can be made.

There is no need to make the land based version lighter... the extra strength would make it possible to use cable arrester gear for short landings on strips of motor ways.

Since the F-111 debacle American "experts" claimed that it is impossible to turn a land-based aircraft into a carrier-borne one.

But the irony is that they made the smaller lighter F-14 with missiles and radar and engines of the F-111 or based on them and it was considered successful enough to still be making movies about it...

but still not better than the F-14.

F-14 is overrated.

I have no doubt that the MiG-25 inspired F-15,

The F-15 is an American MiG-25 copy, no doubt about it.

The MiG-25 isn't a fighter either. Interceptor or Recon.

ALTHOUGH CONCEIVED AS BVR INTERCEPTOR, IT'S A FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR, IT SAW DOGFIGHTS IN IRAQ, & HAD A GROUND ATTACK VERSION FOR SUPPRESSION OF AD! If they had it extensively modified, it could make an impressive deck fighter for at least a few years. With lighter airframe, bigger wings, wheel chocks holding it back, engines on full power before their release, it could take off even w/o any lift fans like on Yak-141. But their priorities were different back then.

Western reported results promote western agenda.

their record speaks for itself. The Soviet/RF/Chinese TAVKRs/CVs we/aren't on a par with European & US CV/Ns; so r their fighters- they r 2 sides of the same coin.

.. the replacement for the Su-33 will be a modification of the Su-57.

if that fails, perhaps the latest Su-34 could be adopted? this plane was developed from the Su-32 carrier trainer.

but still not better than the F-14.

F-14 is overrated.

it had better performance than the F-18E/F, & in its final years in service, it was the best USN ground attack bird too! The Iranian F-14s shot down many contemporary French & Soviet made planes in their war with Iraq. Before 1979, Soviet MiG-25 demo/recon flights over the Caspain in Iranian EEZ & Iran itself stopped after F-14s appeared there.

The F-15 is an American MiG-25 copy, no doubt about it.

it was built before Belenko's defection, so it wasn't copied from the original- the US had satellite/flyby pics & got only a general planeform to extrapolate from, concluding that it was a high performance fighter.

Yeah the f-14 is amazing garryb I know you are mod here but wtf badmouthing the f-14 is not right! We used to make awesome fighters too at one point in time! The saber, super saber, phantom, vigilante, skyhawk, delta dart, thunderchief, voodoo, eagle, tomcat, etc....

TMA1 wrote:Yeah the f-14 is amazing garryb I know you are mod here but wtf badmouthing the f-14 is not right! We used to make awesome fighters too at one point in time! The saber, super saber, phantom, vigilante, skyhawk, delta dart, thunderchief, voodoo, eagle, tomcat, etc....

The other aircraft you mentioned were good planes, but the Thunderchief was crap.
The Thunderchief was slow and lumbering when doing the missions it was intended to do i.e. carry bombs, and was easy prey to the MiGs in Vietnam.
Mach 2 supersonic ground attack aircraft was a failed combination. It neither had the good loitering capacity nor good low level flight capability, nor the weapon systems for high altitude combat.
This was later solved by the US and Soviets using variable geometry aircraft for ground attack.

As for the F-14, it should have still been in service, if it wasn't for Dick Cheney hating the program and cutting it probably still would have been.
The F/A-18 does not have the range to operate in the Pacific and its performance was always middle of the pack. It was always meant to be a numbers fighter not a leading edge interceptor.

Not having the F-14, or the dedicated naval refueling tankers, means US carrier task groups are vulnerable to long range anti-shipping missiles.
This is supposed to be solved with the F/A-XX whenever that comes out.

GarryB wrote:
F-14 is overrated.

Not much, if we will consider when it was put into operation.
No other aircraft could aim 6 missiles at 6 targets back in the 70s.
The other side of the story was how it was achieved, and what would be results.
Switching beam between targets ended up with up to 2s gap of illumination for widely spread targets.
As long as it was used to attack steadily heading and low-speed missiles - it didn't bother. But as soon as your target starts to maneuver and goes up Mach 2.0, things are getting more complicated.
In a worst case scenario, target location could have changed by some 1km.
And this system was there when Soviet missiles hit Mach 4.0, and carrying evasive maneuvers.

lancelot wrote:

TMA1 wrote:Yeah the f-14 is amazing garryb I know you are mod here but wtf badmouthing the f-14 is not right! We used to make awesome fighters too at one point in time! The saber, super saber, phantom, vigilante, skyhawk, delta dart, thunderchief, voodoo, eagle, tomcat, etc....

The other aircraft you mentioned were good planes, but the Thunderchief was crap.
The Thunderchief was slow and lumbering when doing the missions it was intended to do i.e. carry bombs, and was easy prey to the MiGs in Vietnam.
Mach 2 supersonic ground attack aircraft was a failed combination. It neither had the good loitering capacity nor good low level flight capability, nor the weapon systems for high altitude combat.
This was later solved by the US and Soviets using variable geometry aircraft for ground attack.

As for the F-14, it should have still been in service, if it wasn't for Dick Cheney hating the program and cutting it probably still would have been.
The F/A-18 does not have the range to operate in the Pacific and its performance was always middle of the pack. It was always meant to be a numbers fighter not a leading edge interceptor.

Not having the F-14, or the dedicated naval refueling tankers, means US carrier task groups are vulnerable to long range anti-shipping missiles.
This is supposed to be solved with the F/A-XX whenever that comes out.

What other plane looks (and flies it must be admitted) like a cadillac? I rest my case.

No other aircraft could aim 6 missiles at 6 targets back in the 70s.

Could only be done in a very, very narrow area. Same for the radar on the missile, it had only a narrow field of view.
But the main targets were russian supersonic ASM´s launched from missile carriers so the shortcomings were neglectable.
Only later the PR departments of the MIC started to claim that the super-duper F-14 could shot down anything anywhere.

In it's "D" variant the F-14 was quite amazing but too few were built. You can develop almost any air force fighter into a deck plane with strengthened undercarriage and a tail hook, but a Mig-25!? Nooooooo!!!  

I don't think there was ever a moment when the Soviets considered the Mig-25 as a carrier borne aircraft - not even for a split second! The Mig-23 was a strong candidate though.

Hole wrote:
Could only be done in a very, very narrow area. Same for the radar on the missile, it had only a narrow field of view.
But the main targets were russian supersonic ASM´s launched from missile carriers so the shortcomings were neglectable.
Only later the PR departments of the MIC started to claim that the super-duper F-14 could shot down anything anywhere.

Sure, but let us be fair, first of all.
Back in the early 70s, it was a mastermind.
They had a clear goal to achieve, which was a mass barrage of Soviet anti ship missiles.
Succeeded.
Aiming 6 missiles per plane, even considering a low rate of interception ... they could easily struggle 659/675 subs salvos.
But time does not stand still. The fact that 20 years after, a plane doesn't solve the tasks of today, is crystal clear.

Sorry.. I missed this post and will reply to it first:

The last time I saw someone "reply" to something they clearly didn't listen to or read was when some acquaintances came over with their 3 year old son...you're supposed to unlearn that behavior by the age of 6.

A lot of bullshit gets posted and I don't read it all, and I am not obliged to read it all. I will not apologise for not reading everything when I have no interest in the topic.

I'll start by pointing out that I haven't forgotten how you posted 2 years ago that the best thing the bolsheviks have done was to destroy the Orthodox Church in Russia (i.e. murder millions of Russians for their beliefs, which you apparently think is great because you don't like Christianity);

I have never said that nor have I ever thought that but considering your performance this far in you post I can understand that is what you might think.

Religion is personal but when it builds massive expensive buildings it becomes a cult. When people kill other people over religion it is not the people up top in control with power that die or suffer, it is the idiots at the bottom that generate all the wealth and do all the work that get killed.

I don't like any religion because it gives away responsibility... god will save us, it is gods will, god will provide... the bible says this or that about how to behave.

Part of the reason the west hates the east is because you picked the wrong branch of the religion in their view, but go on and defend religion all you like... I am not here to talk about religion or impose my beliefs on everyone else.

you then edited that post and unfortunately I was not yet in the habit back then of screenshotting stuff like this immediately, but it, together with the fact that despite the surely tens of thousands of hours spent on this forum about Russia you still haven't managed to learn the Russian language shows that, just like most "pro-Russian" Westerners you don't care whatsoever about Russia or its people.

What does my ability with languages have to do with anything. If I learned to speak and read Russian why would I even come to this English language forum in the first place?

Obviously I hate Russia and all Russians ask anyone here... NOT ...so you are wrong on that point as well... but you are not reading my posts so you will never know.

Will be moving this post and your post to the talking bollocks thread where it belongs.
[edit_ on second thoughts will leave it here because the bollocks about nuclear bombers is relevant as the only alternative to an aircraft carrier, but without the peace time benefits of surface ship groups visiting allies and holding exercises with countries around the world building military and economic ties with the rest of the world.]

BTW I am admin... I could ban you and delete every post you ever made and this entire conversation if I had secrets I wanted to hide, I am not even going to delete this absurd conversation either.

They could even engage in ASW, but what's the point?

   As Andrei Martyanov pointed out (in fact, he wrote a whole book about it), the era where a CBG can do effective ASW using helicopters is over...that's why Yasen-M subs with Tsirkon are such a huge problem for the USN. Once the US gets similar capabilities, and they almost certainly will within the next 10 years, the same would apply to any large Russian warship going far away from Russian shores.

Once they have upgraded their naval air defences to stop hypersonic missiles and defeat incoming torpedoes the subs wont be the enormous threat you claim to be... or has technology just developed to destroy aircraft carriers and everything else is safe?

I respect Martyanovs views but he isn't always right about everything.

Ask an airforce person and they will say strategic bombing is it, a navy person SSBNs or maybe aircraft carriers... but my point is that during peace time carriers are a damn site more useful in day to day operations of a maritime trade and logistics network than a bomber ever could be.

The Flying Missile Fortresses (FMF from now on) are basically invulnerable to submarines, so why bother doing ASW with them?

There is no reason why those cruise missiles popping out of the water and flying thousands of kms to hit a land target could not be replaced with S-400 and S-350 and S-500 missiles to shoot down aircraft in the vicinity and a picket air defence line.

So it seems your reply is just a cope about your darling Soviet Union having collapsed and the Russian Orthodox Church having survived...now Russia must nurse that phantom pain of yours by building Soviet Era "anti-imperialist" ships all day long so you can sleep well at night.

I am glad the Soviet Union collapsed and I very much do not want it to be returned... those baltic states are a bunch of wankers that fed off Russian trade with Europe and hated Russians with a passion... **** them all. And Europe has exposed itself as hating Russia all this time, so screw them too... the break up of the Soviet Union has actually be really good for Russia because Russia was the strangest imperial country in the sense that its "colonies" often lived better than they did... the opposite of western colonial powers who stole and bleed resources from their colonies so they could live well in the home country.

I don't give the Russian Orthodox Church a second thought most days. I don't know enough about it to care and I am not interested enough to learn.

But don't take that personally... I don't learn about any religions because I am an adult and take personal responsibility for my actions and beliefs and don't need some religion to hide behind or to give me hope.

AMCXXL in the "Peter the Great" thread is (mostly) right, IMO...big surface combatants will become obsolete before long and Russia has the great advantage of already having a navy mostly configured for the "new era", i.e. a navy with a heavy submarine focus (Russia is the only country that has more deployed submarine displacement than surface warship displacement).

As I keep saying, submarines are useless in peace time. Ships operating any significant time away from Russian shores need to carry significant weapons and fuel which means they can't be corvettes or frigates or you could defeat the Russian navy anywhere simply by sinking the continuous stream of support ships sailing to and from whereever they operate to keep them going. Bigger ships are more self sufficient and more comfortable for the crews... but also more effective.

If you want to play chess by giving up most of your pieces and just have 15 pawns and a king then that is fine... you do that.

By the time you realise how limiting that is it will be too late... and I would say the Russian navy agree with me because they haven't scrapped all their old destroyers and all their old cruisers and they haven't scrapped their aircraft carrier. they have also laid down two 40K ton helicopter carriers... which are rather big ships aren't they?

Now, since these kinds of big shifts are rarely a sure thing I do disagree with him about PtG, which IMO should be modernized after Nakhimov and I don't think it would take 10 years and I also think it might make sense to buy a Kuznetsov-type hull from the Chinese and do the Kuz. mod. on it, except maybe with a nuclear power plant included. This is because it likely won't end up being too expensive and to ensure Russia has far reaching presence, first in the meantime until FMF can be built, and second in case there will be no FMF. I think it's unwise to engage in any kind of Lider-type or Lamantin-type project, however, and as I've already pointed out that won't be happening any time soon anyway due to the restructuring of the RFAF.

And then you back track on everything you say... the Chinese might be able to make an aircraft carrier cheaper than Russia... they can certainly make it faster... but 2 billion spent into the Chinese ship building industry as opposed to maybe 2.5 to 3 billion spent in the Russian ship building industry is a false saving by any measure.

Having it made in Russia keeps Russians working, and hires Russian subcontractors and assures quality of work.

When Russia starts building its own new carrier it will be a nuke and they wont even start it until they are building at the very least a new destroyer design, let alone a new cruiser design because the whole point of a carrier is for it to escort your surface ships and provide air support to them... having a carrier on its own is just stupid... ask the UK... and is the definition of a waste of money.

It is clear by now, that there are again uses for aerial nuclear power, as is evident with the Burevestnik cruise missile. It is also clear that nuclear reactors are far more advanced and much safer as well as cheaper than they used to be.

Thunderbird is a doomsday weapon... for all we know the operational model might spew out enormous amounts of radiation and not be safe for a human to be within 500m of an operating engine.

Even if they managed to make the nuclear power system as light as modern jet engines and modern fuel loads with the same thrust so it could carry the same loads... we are talking about less than 20 tons of weapons which is pathetic compared with the fire power of a surface action group... which includes aircraft carriers, cruisers and destroyers... which in the Russian navy will include hundreds of land attack missiles and thousands of SAMs as well as AAMs and air to ground weapons.


You talk a lot of bollocks and then say this:

Edit: actually, scratch my example as I seem to have had a misunderstanding about lifting power vs. thrust-to-weight...this reactor would definitely not be viable as an aircraft's power plant.

So what you are saying is that a really big nuclear powered aircraft will be cheaper than an aircraft carrier... but the point is that the aircraft carrier is to provide air cover for a large group of ships and its purpose is to protect those ships and itself from enemy attack... being surface ships they can sail to the other side of the planet and operate for months at a time... how is that air crew going to cope with remaining in an area for 3 months? Do you think just any country will allow one of these super huge nuclear powered bombers to land at their airfields... will they have airfields big enough and strong enough for them to land or does it have to fly all the way back to Russia and be replaced by another plane every week or couple of days.

But most importantly why do you think this big fucking plane will be safer from enemy attack than an aircraft carrier would?

Planes crash on their own without any enemy trying to shoot them down.

The whole idea sounds like the sort of thing someone from the west would come up with because they have now decided that Russian hypersonic and supersonic anti ship missiles can't be stopped... but they are aircraft focussed and always have been so if you can't have super carriers you have to have super bombers instead.

An airship on the other hand could follow a group of surface ships for months on end and carry enormous radar antenna that provides the AWACS a carrier provides... all it really lacks is the fighters, but if you make it a flat top it could carry very high flying long range drones to launch and recover when something pops up on the radar that needs to be investigated... if it gets shot down who cares... it has cameras and sensors so you should see what happens to it and make decisions based on that without worrying about lost crew needing to be rescued... but I would say a ship with supersonic fighters and AWACS platforms still makes sense... it is just that it needs Russian level air defence systems to go with it.... the best defence against hypersonic threats would be a powerful laser system which means you would need a rather big ship with lots of excess electrical power... like a cruiser... but if you have a cruiser then a carrier that can protect it would also make sense... see where this is going?

It is like the tank is obsolete so what you need is a powerful gun on tracks for mobility and of course you need protection... and you end up with a tank to replace the obsolete tank.

ALTHOUGH CONCEIVED AS BVR INTERCEPTOR, IT'S A FIGHTER-INTERCEPTOR, IT SAW DOGFIGHTS IN IRAQ, & HAD A GROUND ATTACK VERSION FOR SUPPRESSION OF AD

It was intended as an interceptor of bombers and recon aircraft and was never considered for use against other fighters, which is why its missile options only included big heavy missiles of the R-40 family. Ground attack roles do not require manouverability like a fighter role does.

If they had it extensively modified, it could make an impressive deck fighter for at least a few years.

Even if they spent billions on it it would never get to the level of the MiG-29 in terms of dogfight manouverability, it would have been an awful carrier based fighter.

It was an excellent interceptor and an excellent recon aircraft, but was not much good as a dogfighter.

With lighter airframe, bigger wings, wheel chocks holding it back, engines on full power before their release, it could take off even w/o any lift fans like on Yak-141. But their priorities were different back then.

The MiG-23 would have been a better carrier fighter than a MiG-25, the MiG-25 would have been one of the worst Soviet fighters to base a carrier based fighter on.

their record speaks for itself.

Western records.

The Soviet/RF/Chinese TAVKRs/CVs we/aren't on a par with European & US CV/Ns; so r their fighters- they r 2 sides of the same coin.

Because white colonial powers need aircraft carriers to murder natives more easily. The Soviets and Russians and Chinese are more likely to just provide those natives with means to defend themselves... and those means are getting better and better all the time.

if that fails, perhaps the latest Su-34 could be adopted?

The Su-57 is a smaller lighter aircraft with lower drag and rather more installed thrust than the Su-33... why do you think it might fail?

And if it did why would an aircraft that is much worse be considered... they want agile fighters, not bombers.

this plane was developed from the Su-32 carrier trainer.

Su-32 is a naval version of the Su-34 and is intended to replace the land based Su-24. The only two seat flanker intended for carrier use is the Su-33KUB which is much lighter than either the Su-34 or Su-32.

it had better performance than the F-18E/F, & in its final years in service, it was the best USN ground attack bird too!

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I heard all the bullshit for decades about how amazing it is... you have Hollywood movies to prove it... most of its kills were against aircraft no where near its generation flown by pilots from the third world. Famous stories about F-14s shooting down Su-22s because one Su-22 dropped a fuel tank which the pussy American pilots mistook for a missile launch and shot down both planes... I have heard it all before...

it was built before Belenko's defection, so it wasn't copied from the original- the US had satellite/flyby pics & got only a general planeform to extrapolate from, concluding that it was a high performance fighter.

They said themselves that they just copied the layout, which was brand new and innovative and widely used today on many other fighter types including the F-22 and Su-57, and they said they just relied on superiority of US technology to make a better plane.... arrogant pricks.

Yeah the f-14 is amazing garryb I know you are mod here but wtf badmouthing the f-14 is not right!

I let everyone else speak their mind and let us know their opinion, but I am not allow one?

American navy nuts go on about the F-14 like most American airforce nuts go on about the Mustang, or Brits go on about the Spitfire.

Shouldn't be a shock that I am not a fan.

For most of the 1990s I spent long hours explaining that the MiG-31 is not a copy of the F-14 that Iran handed over to the Soviet Union.

Iran was not an ally of the Soviets or of Russia and would never hand over technology of their best fighter.

They kept going on about how amazing the radar was on the F-14 but they didn't understand the Zaslon PESA radar and the difference electronic scanning makes to a radars ability to track targets over a wide field of view.

No other aircraft could aim 6 missiles at 6 targets back in the 70s.

Look at the numbers for those tests... different ranges different angles but a vertical separation of about 600m.

In actual use the effectiveness of those amazing missiles has been poor and to sabotage the design they never integrated AMRAAM to it... see they didn't like it either

What other plane looks (and flies it must be admitted) like a cadillac? I rest my case.

Your problem is that in your country a cadillac might be a revered vehicle, but to me it is a piece of shit... overweight gas guzzling piece of crap that probably handles worse than a bus.

Could only be done in a very, very narrow area. Same for the radar on the missile, it had only a narrow field of view.
But the main targets were russian supersonic ASM´s launched from missile carriers so the shortcomings were neglectable.

Actually that was a problem because the Kh-22Ms would be approaching the carrier group at 26-28km altitude, and the Kh-32s fly at about 40km altitude and the Phoenix would struggle with both most of the time, so they went to AMRAAM and Hornets and numbers of aircraft.

With Onyx and Zircon even F-14s would not help.

Only later the PR departments of the MIC started to claim that the super-duper F-14 could shot down anything anywhere.

Well to be clear the F-14A was awful but the F-14D was a significant improvement, but not significant for them to want to keep using it.

I don't particularly like the Tomcat, but it was certainly a better looking plane than the Hornet or F-35 that are replacing it.

My favourite American carrier based plane was the Skyhawk... so much capability in such a tiny aircraft, but my favourite non Soviet/Russian carrier based plane would have to be the Buccaneer... armed with a couple of nuclear bombs under its wings it was faster and longer ranged at low level than an F-16 and it could operate from aircraft carriers.

Ironically I have heard a British pilot call the F-35 a stealthy Buccaneer... a light strike aircraft that does not manouver so well but is a good strike plane. Of course he was criticising the design suggesting what the F-35 should have been was a stealthy F-16 instead with good manouvering performance which both the F-35 and Bucc lack... but that is OK for the Bucc.

I was just being silly but it is surprising to find someone not enamored with the f-14! I do have to say that it does get an inordinate amount of love because it is such a romantic aircraft. As a child I remember looking at images of the scary looking tu-95 in my mind being chased away by our f-14.

I sure hope the izd30 su-57 gets navalized. With that kind of thrust to weight ratio you could finally see a fully featured fighter aircraft with short take off and landing capabilities where it can take off with full fuel and payload accompaniment.

GarryB wrote:
Look at the numbers for those tests... different ranges different angles but a vertical separation of about 600m.
In actual use the effectiveness of those amazing missiles has been poor and to sabotage the design they never integrated AMRAAM to it... see they didn't like it either

System was designed to fulfill a precise task, and succeded in that. Considering the timetable, it was amazing achievement nulled only by MiG-31 & Zaslon close to a decade later. When put into operation, I guess bombers were considered more tasty targets rather than missiles. It would do just fine with them.

GarryB wrote:
Actually that was a problem because the Kh-22Ms would be approaching the carrier group at 26-28km altitude, and the Kh-32s fly at about 40km altitude and the Phoenix would struggle with both most of the time, so they went to AMRAAM and Hornets and numbers of aircraft.
With Onyx and Zircon even F-14s would not help.

... and moving to AMRAAM wouldn't help them much.
Murican propaganda can't prepare regular Marvel superheroes consumer about how a relatively small missile will deal with a giant target that is armored and made of titanium, heading Mach 4+
Ch-22 have three flight profiles.
The first one is 22-30 km altitude and terminal diving, with an engagement speed reaching Mach 4.5.
The second is 12 km altitude and 2.0 Ma speed.
The third one, is low profile - the missile flies at 1 km, gains altitude some 20 km before the target, and dives at Ma2.5.
On the other hand, the missile range is heavily dependant on booth flight profile and carrier speed.
When used with Tu-22 and Ma 1.40 release speed, and the high altitude flight profile, it could reach almost 600 km, while with Tu-95 0.7 Ma and low profile, it was around 300 km.
The first attack profile was always preferable because it worked well against all the interception methods US Navy could apply, AEGIS included.
If the terminal diving phase was reduced, the missile descended from the altitude higher than the operational one of the SM2, and a missile was very fast closing the operational cone of the radar system. That is why the most effective way to deal with them, was collective defense when it was the other ship that targets missiles aiming you.

Russia will not build any aircraft carrier for the next 30 years.

Russia will not build any aircraft carrier for the next 30 years. wrote:

We dont know that. The MoD did not explicitly say NO. They just "considered" it. What was promised was an expansion of Sevmashes shipyards across Russia. One was proposed in Murmansk and another in the Far East. For the construction of heavy ships.. Kutznetsov is increasingly losing favor with the MoD.

As far as we know, the new shipyard complex is to be built near St. Petersburg and that's it. I don't know if it's for building civilian units, just like Zvezda.

Arrow wrote:Russia will not build any aircraft carrier for the next 30 years.

It is already building 2 helicopter carriers which will accompany 2 aircraft carriers

Get updated, your information is terribly bad, and you look stupid making assertions like that on this forum

If they weren't interested in large fixed wing aircraft carriers the Kuznetsov would not have been repaired and upgraded and would not be going back into the water next year.

If they weren't interested in aircraft carriers they really would not need Cruisers either so big money would be saved scrapping the Kirov and Slava class ships they currently operate or have undergoing upgrades.

The fact of the matter is that a large ship is worth more than its weight in smaller ships because it is big enough to carry sensors and weapons that small ships cannot manage.

Aircraft carriers are intended to provide air support and air protection to those large surface ships... fixed wing fighter aircraft can move around the battlefield very quickly and can see down to the crests of the waves so no sneaky low flying weapon can sneak by them.

With satellites and other recon means you could detect a build up of enemy forces from an enormous distance and with aircraft you can go out and meet them rather further away from your ships which makes your ships much safer.

When it comes to dealing with manouvering hypersonic weapons I would suggest the best first option is to make the ships hard to see with smoke and jammers, and clever EW equipment, but also directly using laser weapons... a hypersonic missile flying at 3km/s just needs its nose cracked or damaged or overheated and what happens to it is essentially what happens to meteors or the second space shuttle that was lost.

Fitting a laser powerful enough on a ship is much much easier with a very big nuclear powered ship like a Cruiser.

I never really had an interest for the Russian Navy but the limit of how much nuclear warhead zircons a Yasen can carry is how many ships will get destroyed in a 1000km radius if fired from underwater which can destroy multiple carrier strike groups.

Hypersonic manouvering missiles are effective because they are new, just like drones seem to be all important, but as tactics and new equipment arrives their effect will be reduced.

Russian air defences have had decades to practise against manouvering hypersonic missiles... they have Iskander... the point is that they will not remain amazing forever... the best part from a Russian perspective it means a single missile from a Yasen will probably take a US carrier out of the game... it may not sink it, but it will shift from focussing on its mission to trying not to sink and how many aircraft it can get off before the deck angle is too steep to allow launches.

In comparison 30 US subs all armed with 12 tomahawks would all have to sail to the same sea and all line up the same target group of ships to have a chance of getting hits.

Russian air defence is very very good and as they make new ships those new ships will have elements of that air defence system combined making it better than it has ever been before.

Redut is S-350 and S-400, they will have everything from Verba and BUK and Sosna and Pantsir, plus guns with guided airburst shells from 30mm to 152mm as well as HMGs. Improvements to TOR will make it a universal weapon on the decks of most Russian ships.

Russian ships are going to be very well protected... not to mention they have decided that the second new 40K ton helicopter carrier will be dedicated to drones... presumably air, land, and sea, and undersea drones... the Soviets had anti ship missile swarms in the 1980s... who wants to bet they will have swarms of drones protecting their ships and land based forces first?

If they weren't interested in large fixed wing aircraft carriers the Kuznetsov would not have been repaired and upgraded and would not be going back into the water next year. wrote:

Adding to that, The Russian MoD did not pour water on the idea of not building a new supercarrier. They never officially put down the proposal from Krylov to build a Supercarrier. Infact Medvedev stated that Russia intended to have at least 4 supercarriers by 2030 provided the economy allowed for it. I guess it didnt. The aim was 1 supercarrier accompanied by smaller but more numerous helicopter carriers in each region of Russia. 1 for the Black Sea, 1 For the Far East, 1 For Vladivostok and surrounding areas and another for the Northern fleet..

Infact Medvedev stated that Russia intended to have at least 4 supercarriers by 2030 provided the economy allowed for it. I guess it didnt.

It is a bit ironic because Covid together with western sanctions and hostility probably reduced the Russian economy to make it harder to think about building carriers, but conversely and this is the ironic bit... the separation of the west from Russia means Russia now has to reach out to the rest of the world for trade and development and economic growth and the potential to make money is actually rather bigger in the rest of the world for Russian companies that there is in the west dominated as they are by western companies.

This conflict is going to make carriers necessary, but four new carriers by 2030 was very unrealistic.

They have made some changes and upgrades to the Kuznetsov and they really wont know if they worked or not until it hits the water and they can test it.. so by 2026 they might have had time to incorporate that into a new design, but there is no point making 4 super carriers by 2030 because they would not have enough ships to support such a group and certainly not enough sailors to crew such surface action groups.

I rather suspect they might finalise a new design by 2027 or 2028 and start laying down carriers by 2029 or 2030... perhaps making two at a time to spread the costs and make it more cost effective... but by that time they will need to be making Destroyers at the very least and perhaps laying down cruisers too.

These large ships should be nukes so propulsion wont be a huge issue.

By 2030 they are going to be a bit stretched supporting their growing merchant marine force of ships and they will need to start making ships at about quarter the speed the Chinese are making theirs. Civilian ships could be sourced from India or China or other friendly states to take pressure off Russian shipyards so they can be upgraded and modernised and equipped with the latest technology to make production faster and more efficient.

I suspect the real focus will be in the far north protecting their northern sea route, plus with the added bonus that being based in the Pacific or Northern fleet gives them access to the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

They are going to have to spend money on infrastructure to base these ships and the support ships that will operate with them.

The increase in international trade that is being carried out by Russian ships instead of European ships and insured by Russian insurers rather than European insurers means more of the money generated by exporting Russian goods will go to the Russian economy instead of being skimmed by European middlemen... this will boost the economy and increase tax revenue. Rules on foreign flags for shipping to reduce tax costs need to be tightened to stop third countries skimming money too.

Infact Medvedev stated that Russia intended to have at least 4 supercarriers by 2030 provided the economy allowed for it. I guess it didnt. wrote:

Russia has no need or care for a carrier frankly. This has been their stance since the 60s under the USSR. Russia is not a global bully. Even the USSR that could afford 4 Supercarriers relatively easily did not try that. The USSR and Russia have always looked down on Aircraft carriers as a concept. They preferred missile carriers. The Russian military is and has always been centered around Russia and protecting Russia. It was never expeditionary. And aircraft carriers are just a neat way to haul fighter jets and light attack aircraft+helicopters around the world. They need support vessels too to guard them which is even more money. To Russia aircraft carriers are just a nice capability to have but not a necessity. To the US they are a necessity because America cant bully less well equipped nations half way across the globe without those.. Russia is not in the business of doing this and instead prefers to get involved via Ballistic missile subs or Cruise missile submarines. No need for a dog fight off the coast of some country. Just swim up somewhere within range of the country, and let those 3M54s fly from a submerged Yasen towards your targets eg How Russia bombed ISIS in Syria with submarine launched cruise missiles from the Barents Sea near Murmansk.

Swgman_BK wrote:

Russia has no need or care for a carrier frankly. This has been their stance since the 60s under the USSR. Russia is not a global bully. Even the USSR that could afford 4 Supercarriers relatively easily did not try that. The USSR and Russia have always looked down on Aircraft carriers as a concept. They preferred missile carriers. The Russian military is and has always been centered around Russia and protecting Russia. It was never expeditionary. And aircraft carriers are just a neat way to haul fighter jets and light attack aircraft+helicopters around the world. They need support vessels too to guard them which is even more money. To Russia aircraft carriers are just a nice capability to have but not a necessity. To the US they are a necessity because America cant bully less well equipped nations half way across the globe without those.. Russia is not in the business of doing this and instead prefers to get involved via Ballistic missile subs or Cruise missile submarines. No need for a dog fight off the coast of some country. Just swim up somewhere within range of the country, and let those 3M54s fly from a submerged Yasen towards your targets eg How Russia bombed ISIS in Syria with submarine launched cruise missiles from the Barents Sea near Murmansk.

Russia probably will have a couple pf Aircraft Carriers similar to british carrirers of as much like the Kutznesov, optimized for Su-75 with a larhger hangar and a wider deck

In reality they maintain the Kuznestov precisely as a kind of training ship to keep the naval fighter service open

I do not expect a new Russian aircraft carrier to be in service before 2035-2040, when all the necessary submarines and frigates have been delivered.

If they start it today they would be lucky to have it in 2040.

Russia probably will have a couple pf Aircraft Carriers similar to british carriers of as much like the Kutznesov, optimized for Su-75 with a larhger hangar and a wider deck wrote:

The MoD keeps showing interest in a supercarrier and 2 designs already exist.. I think 1 is supposed to carry between 60-80 fighter jets at its max. However the MoD doesn't want to put down funds. I dont know how many times Putin has seen this concept but he has been shown this concept so many times and there is still no hope for a Supercarrier.. The MoD also seems to want it but something is blocking them from doing it. Its not a shipyard. Sevmash can easily and quickly get the tooling ready if the project is initiated. The majority of the design work is done. Whats left is development. Thats all that would be done. The creation of the Electromagnetic catapults, the Radars and the Reactor which could easily be 4 or 5 VVER-600 (600MWe) put together to drive a generator that drives a motor that drives the propeller.

Swgman_BK wrote:The MoD keeps showing interest in a supercarrier and 2 designs already exist.. I think 1 is supposed to carry between 60-80 fighter jets at its max.  However the MoD doesn't want to put down funds. I dont know how many times Putin has seen this concept but he has been shown this concept so many times and there is still no hope for a Supercarrier.. The MoD also seems to want it but something is blocking them from doing it. Its not a shipyard. Sevmash can easily and quickly get the tooling ready if the project is initiated. The majority of the design work is done. Whats left is development. Thats all that would be done. The creation of the Electromagnetic catapults, the Radars and the Reactor which could easily be 4 or 5 VVER-600 (600MWe) put together to drive a generator that drives a motor that drives the propeller.

The reactor already has been developed. The RITM-400 reactor that is going to be used in the Leader class icebreakers.


The radar, they could just scale up Poliment from the Project 22350 frigates. AESA radars are modular so they can just add more modules until it has the performance they want.

They would need a naval Su-57 eventually. And it would be nice to have an electromagnetic catapult.

But they won't build the carrier until they have destroyers in service. Otherwise it is just a giant target.