Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Well there is a difference between an LHD and a floating airport - a proper one at that with the best planes you can possible have on board, in sufficient numbers, to carry out an infinity number of tasks. Every other solution is relatively constrained by multiple variables one way or another. Looking beyond Russia's periphery, to Africa, South Asia and specially, and most importantly Latin America (the empire's backyard), a carrier is a must to protect allies (and Russian business interest/investment/trade) from funny business aka regime change, and "rebels". And we all know rebels and terrorist are an interchangeable term - it's just a matter of who's interest are at stake.

Matter of fact, it would be ideal to have a Shtorm on Syria's Tartus ready to be deployed to Iran to protect the billions in trade Russia has with this country (which would be all gone in an instant if Uncle Sam decides to send the country to the stone age with the rats in Israel and Saudi Arabia). But we know the Kuz is not up to the task and there is nothing in Russia's Navy worth sending that can send a clear and resolute message like that.

So the math works itself out very quickly when we start looking at protecting trade and what the role these sort of ships have - the protection of a country's business interest. Whether that be pipelines, infrastructure deals, access to a market etc.

Now that Russia has moved away from Communism, the more its economy grows and greater its trade links with specific markets are, the more it will have to spend to protect this growth and carriers will be a must for that - otherwise it's just inviting strategic competitors to take those markets/allies away by force (through regime subversion or whatever the method). That's the world we live in.

Carriers do serve a defensive role, an economic one.

Also that math is out of wack.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Peŕrier wrote:
If propulsion would not have been the real hurdle discouraging most of the Navies, i.e. if they could find a nice and cheap way to power steam catapults, they would have easily built carriers equipped with catapults already long ago, and they would have purchased F-18 (A, B, or D and F nowadays) for a very reasonable price, long before the JSF born.

Nope, you explained very clear. But you seem not to read counter arguments. Do you have A\any ideas why US Marines always wanted V/STOL aircraft? maybe those characteristics is exactly what they needed? Why RN used  Harriers? LAtst but not least whadda hell Russia should spend a billion USD to build EMALS, for  AC ( next 15 billions SUD) just to  to have to spent next billion on navalized Su-57 ?

Especially that Russia doesn't need one. Russia paid ~ billion USD for 2 Mistrals. Of course when you add air wing and weaponery it is like 2x. It is still 1 billion per  LHD. Lets assume it is sua doopa LHD you still have 2blns per ship. 3 ships like 6blns Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.


Then you have 3 universal ships + fighter development = 3x2 + 6 = 12 billions.


Shtorm? 1x14 blns+ 1 bln for catapult + 1 bln for navalized F-57? and where ASW helo carriers? where are LHDs which Russia actually needs?

These numbers are full of wishful thinking. Inflating artificially the numbers of the option that you dislike, while reducing awesomely the numbers of the option that you like.



The real costs in the case of the US


https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02298.pdf

$21.0 Billion = Development costs F-22


http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

$04.7 Billion = Development cost G Ford Aircraft Carriers
$12.9 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-78 G Ford Aircraft Carrier)
$11.4 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-79 JF Kennedy Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = Cost per unit (CV-80 Enterprise Aircraft Carrier)
$13.0 Billion = My estimation of the Cost per unit (CV-81 ????? Aircraft Carrier)
$55.0 Billion = Total cost of development of the G Ford Aircraft Carriers plus construction of the 4 aircraft carriers


In the case of the US originally, it seems that the development of the F-22 over the F-23 was decided because of the option in the F-22 of a naval variant, that finally was not developed in the initial stage. Now there is a new effort on development of modernization of the aircraft, and there are bids of landing on aircraft carriers like this one:



How many money would have avoid to waste the US if the main variant of the F-22 would be able to operate in aircraft carriers since the begin.

To note that the Su-57 has a reported need of lenght of runway of 330m on land, while the Project 23000 aircraft carrier has a reported lenght of 330m. Surely neither of both data is totally accurate still. I can not assure the Project 23000 will allow a comfortable use of the main variant of the Su-57. If possible, to integrate the full capabilities of the Su-57 on the aircraft carriers and to avoid an specific fleet for aircraft carriers would be major achievements with major advantages for Russia. If finally a naval variant of the Su-57 is needed, for sure it will not require major adaptations and will be fairly cheap compared to other alternatives.

To go to full size aircraft carriers makes full sense for Russia. Major achievements can be made, and it fits perfectly with the main mission of the future Russian aircraft carriers: Non nuclear deterrence (Russian Maritime Doctrine 2015). The case of the US proves how is far cheaper the development and construction of full size aircraft carriers than the development of new aircrafts, specially if the aircraft carrier allows the use of the main variant of the main fighter. In other words, Russia will save lots of money if the Project 23000 aircraft carrier allows a comfortable use of the main land variant of the Su-57.

ATLASCUB wrote:

Africa, South Asia and specially, and most importantly Latin America (the empire's backyard), a carrier is a must to protect allies (and Russian business interest/investment/trade) from funny business aka regime change, and "rebels". 

Latin America? Seriously?

What money is to be made there? What allies does Russia have there?

 The moment Uncle Sam flashes some Benjamins those "allies" will be flipping like 2$ whores.

ATLASCUB wrote:

would be ideal to have a Shtorm on Syria's Tartus ready to be deployed to Iran to protect the billions in trade Russia has with this country 

Yeah, those billions that Airbus will be making from selling planes to Iran need to be protected.

But since Airbus is EU company how is that any of Russia's business? Why should they give a shit?

PapaDragon wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:

Africa, South Asia and specially, and most importantly Latin America (the empire's backyard), a carrier is a must to protect allies (and Russian business interest/investment/trade) from funny business aka regime change, and "rebels". 

Latin America? Seriously?

What money is to be made there? What allies does Russia have there?

The moment Uncle Sam flashes some Benjamins those "allies" will be flipping like 2$ whores.

Uncle Sam subverts, and the bourgeois follows because the weak follow the strong (not the weak, and Russia is weak, its global reach is weak). They won't be flipping like $2 whores on China I can bet you that.

Latin America is a growing market and a future market that will look to diversify. Atm Russia doesn't have much in terms of investment and trade if you look at specific states, but overall it does have some significant trade.  Venezuela most of all in terms of strategic ties...as one of the worlds biggest energy suppliers. Can't let Uncle Sam put Venezuela back into its pocket, not without a fight - a bloody one at that. There is a reason that country hasn't fallen YET and barring a military intervention, the kitchen sink has been thrown at it. The Cubans are fighting for it, the Russians are fighting for it, the Venezuelans in current gov, vs. the U.S, the bought opposition and its entourage of lackeys in Latin America.

ATLASCUB wrote:

But since Airbus is EU company how is that any of Russia's business? Why should they give a shit?

Look up Russia's trade volume with Iran, a growth market. You can cite that example every time you want to take a diss at Iran and it will just make you look ignorant and childish. There is a reason those deals were signed with the specific actors mentioned. #1, as a quid pro quo after the nuclear deal, #2: they sell good commercial planes. Better than what Russia can offer atm/time. Make no mistake, Iran wouldn't buy from their enemies if there wasn't a specific reason to do so given the risks. Safer to buy from Russia/China - no brainer (provided there is something to buy, fitting the specific needs at the time). Sometimes you have to make out with your rivals, just like the Saudi's did with Russia - if only to buy time, confuse and make the other parties rethink strategy. Saudi's can't have Russia oversupplying now.... what a turn of events.

Here: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/26/boeings-iran-deal-puts-trump-in-tough-spot/

I think these rats stipulate the dilemma really well.

ATLASCUB wrote:Well there is a difference between an LHD and a floating airport - a proper one at that with the best planes you can possible have on board, in sufficient numbers, to carry out an infinity number of tasks. Every other solution is relatively constrained by multiple variables one way or another. Looking beyond Russia's periphery, to Africa, South Asia and specially, and most importantly Latin America (the empire's backyard), a carrier is a must to protect allies (and Russian business interest/investment/trade) from funny business aka regime change, and "rebels". And we all know rebels and terrorist are an interchangeable term - it's just a matter of who's interest are at stake.

Matter of fact, it would be ideal to have a Shtorm on Syria's Tartus ready to be deployed to Iran to protect the billions in trade Russia has with this country (which would be all gone in an instant if Uncle Sam decides to send the country to the stone age with the rats in Israel and Saudi Arabia). But we know the Kuz is not up to the task and there is nothing in Russia's Navy worth sending that can send a clear and resolute message like that.

Well actually light universal carrier (LHD+ASW+TAKR if you prefer) has possibility to take same air wing as Kuz. look at Wasp .  For Syria Kuz was never needed besides checking on weaponry in real war.  
 
Iran? enough there when  Russia helps with old soviet weapons. Or even park one ship, 22160 patrol one in Iranian ports. Who's going to fire to this port?

Trade route? when did you last time look up maps? Caspian Sea route. And soon to be a rail route connecting Iran with Russia. 

ATLASCUB wrote:
So the math works itself out very quickly when we start looking at protecting trade and what the role these sort of ships have - the protection of a country's business interest. Whether that be pipelines, infrastructure deals, access to a market etc. 

Protecting trade with whom? China? Japan? South Korea?Vietnam or Iran? besides Vietnam there is no really need for any sea routes. Probably I live in  parallel universe but XVIII century is over. Who will stop Russian ship, even a patrol one can have response. Very unpleasant one. Even in 2015 after Turks shot down Su-24  Syrian express was going as planned. 
You dont need any flat tops. you can assure presence of Russian flag aka geopolitical dick waving?  ( (c) PapaDragon )
TAKR/LHD is more than enough

ATLASCUB
Now that Russia has moved away from Communism, the more its economy grows and greater its trade links with specific markets are, the more it will have to spend to protect this growth and carriers will be a must for that - otherwise it's just inviting strategic competitors to take those markets/allies away by force (through regime subversion or whatever the method). That's the world we live in.

Well one Russian battalion there and USA openly will never attack so why do you need billions spent for same purpose? 

ATLASCUB]
Carriers do serve a defensive role, an economic one.

No they are not, as they never meant to be. ACs are  means of force projection and sea control strategy. Russians follow sea denial one. IMHO very good choice. Less expensive.  Sea denial is not gonna bring victory but if somebody wants to fight Russian Navy  Sarmat with all warheads can knock to Washington DC doors.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:


well actually light universal carrier (LHD+ASW+TAKR if you prefer) has possibility to take same air wing as Kuz. look at Wasp .  For Syria Kuz was never needed besides checking on weaponry in real war.  
 
Iran? enough there when  Russia helps with old soviet weapons. Or even park one ship, 22160 patrol one in Iranian ports. Who's going to fire to this port?

Trade route? when did you last time look up maps? Caspian Sea route. And soon to be a rail route connecting Iran with Russia. 

Iran is not equipped to stand a chance. When the rubble settles, that's what you have - rubble. No amount of old soviet stock is gonna turn rubble into $$$. The situations don't need to get to Syria's point (years in to the Civil War) for Russia to act. It should be there soon to assess and act accordingly. Since you can't have overseas bases every where....a carrier battlegroup is again, the perfect choice.

The idea is to prevent even the thought of aggression by strategic competitors, and minimize the damage (of foreign funded insurrections) and stop the ploys in their infancy, not defend after the whole thing becomes a full blown quagmire. That's what losers do - and what Russia has been doing. Reacting - late, not proactive.

Protecting trade with whom? China? Japan? South Korea?Vietnam or Iran? besides Vietnam there is no really need for any sea routes. Probably I live in  parallel universe but XVIII century is over. Who will stop Russian ship, even a patrol one can have response. Very unpleasant one. Even in 2015 after Turks shot down Su-24  Syrian express was going as planned. 

You dont need any flat tops. you can assure presence of Russian flag aka geopolitical dick waving?  ( (c) PapaDragon )

TAKR/LHD is more than enough

Anywhere Russian force is needed around the globe. I think the regions I cited are well spread out around the globe. Not sure why cherry pick one to make a poor argument. Geopolitical situations change all the time. Russia and China will not always have a happy-go-lucky relationship. You can bet your bank account on that. Doesn't matter if for the foreseeable future everything will be champagne toast between Putin and Xi. Eventually fractures and interest will collide between such big powers and that's where military power and economic competition intersect. To think otherwise is to make a tragic mistake.

[size=13]

Well one Russian battalion there and USA openly will never attack so why do you need billions spent for same purpose? 

Provided you have them there when needed. There is a reason there are no Russian battalions in Cuba right now. If for some reason the U.S decides to break the status quo and go for Cuba on the military front (which will be known well in advance) there is nothing there that dissuades them from doing so. Only a quick response can shake things up... a carrier parked in Mariel does serve that purpose. Much better than shipping nukes in a hurry - and causing all that drama again.

No they are not, as they never meant to be. ACs are  means of force projection and sea control strategy. Russians follow sea denial one. IMHO very good choice. Less expensive.  Sea denial is not gonna bring victory but if somebody wants to fight Russian Navy  Sarmat with all warheads can knock to Washington DC doors.

Umm so you project force where force needs to be projected? Check.

You control sea where sea needs to be controlled? Check.

Project force against strategic competitors in regions where your allies need to be protected. Check.

Control sea against strategic competitors in regions where your allies need to be protected. Check.

You're trying to separate the meaning of things with some cliche's.

Sea denial is for a country with limited reach - as Russia is today. Russia, eventually, will want to have global reach. If it does not seek so it will always be hounded by other, stronger rivals that will seek such and attain it - which has been the case for a century now. Me thinks Russians might want to break that cycle - the second feeder cycle they've been playing sooner or later. Actually they've been working on it, just failed at it in their approach - for a myriad of reasons. Now Russians are trying to have another go at big power status. You're not afforded many mistakes when you're a challenger and the undisputed champion has noticed your desire to unseat his ass - for he does not believe in "equal" co-existence (agreed upon spheres of influence) since such thing does not exist...one party will always overreach if it feels it can do so and get away with it. The tragic thing with Russians is that after the cold war, it's the Chinese, not the Soviet world, who are poised to unseat the U.S.  Now that's a hard pill to swallow - (knowing the magnitude of the failure that was the Soviet collapse). But such is history and it can't be changed.

Just ignore PapaDragon and GunshipDemocracy they are fixated on LHDs with VTOL aircraps and refuse to see how much of a waste of money it would be.

While it would potentially be possible for Russian designers to make a breakthrough and develop a VTOL aircraft that is actually useful Russia does not have the time or money for that at this moment in time as it would likely require many many of development years and dozens of prototypes and would still cost far more that the 6th gen fighters in service by the time it was ready while the Russian navy would have only the obsolete Kuznetsov until these new VTOL aircraft could be deployed on LHDs that the Russian navy would have to develop and build after the VTOL program produced a successful aircraft and this aircraft would have to have similar performance to 6th gen fighters.

So if Russia did decide to waste money on a naval VTOL program they might get a viable aircraft by the 2040s while wasting ludicrous amounts of money to make the breakthrough that would be a useful VTOL fighter when they could have spent less money and had a better carrier force than the us by 2030.

The Russian Navy will receive the first helicopter carrier in 2022: is it necessary?

Obviously, the heavier UAV of the project "Avalanche" is capable of taking more helicopters on board (16 units against 8 at Priboy) and landing, but it will also be more expensive. On the other hand, Russia needs a serious update of amphibious ships, especially given the participation in the Syrian conflict and the active work of the Syrian Express. Due to the lack of amphibious ships in the Russian Navy in order to solve the problem of supplying the Syrian army and the Russian group in Syria, it was even necessary to purchase from Turkey second-hand civilian dry cargo ships. In addition, the obvious lack of aircraft carriers in GPV-2025 can at least somehow be compensated by the construction of 2-4 helicopter carriers capable of at least carrying out combat missions in the coastal zone. From this point of view, the larger Avalanche looks a little more preferable, and, in general, its greater similarity to Mistral, the technology of construction of which is known to Russian specialists, can help reduce the costs of designing and building new UDCs, and not laying another " https://regnum.ru/news/2279935.html

Russia's new naval strategy is impossible and harmful?

..it is stated that the Russian Navy should build ships of the ocean zone and create an aircraft carrier complex (in other words, an aircraft carrier). As for the second place - then, without taking into account the nuclear submarine fleet, the race with the same China has already been lost . The Celestial Empire is actively building first-class ships - aircraft carriers and cruisers, with shock rates, while in Russia today there are no industrial and personnel opportunities for the implementation of such projects. Unfortunately, discussions about the construction of aircraft carriers and destroyers of the ocean zone (comparable in capabilities and displacement with missile cruisers) are taking place against the backdrop of serious difficulties in the construction of frigates that have arisen because of a break in military-technical cooperation between Russia and Ukraine. In addition, speeches about the global rearmament of the Russian Navy against the background of a curtailed state program of armaments until 2025, in which the fleet is "cut" the most, can only provoke a sad smile. But I must say that with a lack of resources, taking into account the geographical position of Russia, which gives the country land and aviation access to almost all areas of the country's interests, economy in the military fleet is really the best way. Thus, it is very difficult to call a published document an element of "strategic planning" - many key points concerning the rearmament and development of the fleet can not be fulfilled in the existing realities, and an attempt to do this will only lead to a loss of funds and time. ..https://regnum.ru/news/2304013.html

IMO, the bottom line is: the assault ships/small carriers with STOVLs will save a lot of $ & time over building more CV/Ns that the RF can do without, esp. since Adm. K will be refitted & serve a few decades more; it's not that outdated & will be on a par with Chinese 001 aka CV-17. If need be, a few Tu-95s &/ Tu-160s can be dispatched to the other side of the World to show the flag, as they had already in Cuba, Venezuela, & Indonesia; the E. Med. Sea (not to mention the Indian Ocean) can be reached via Turkey &/ Iran, Iraq & Syria, avoiding the N. Atlantic. Besides, a new base or bases may soon be established in Sudan on the Red Sea: https://orientalreview.org/2017/12/05/heres-russia-might-set-red-sea-base-sudan/

Russia may have her SSGNs surface & make port calls like the US did
not that long ago:

In 2010, Ohio, Florida and Michigan all participated in a show of force in reaction to a Chinese missile test, surfacing separately off of Diego Garcia, the Philippines and South Korea at roughly the same time. In 2011, the USS Florida launched ninety-three missiles targeted at Libyan air defenses in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn, all but three of which hit. The missiles helped clear the way for the warplanes of the anti-Qaddafi coalition to begin operations over Libyan airspace. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-china-russia-fear-americas-killer-cruise-missile-19221
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/24/politics/uss-michigan-nuclear-sub-south-korea/index.html

These SSGNs are so capable that Hendrix suggests that the Navy cease building the new Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers after the two vessels currently under construction are completed. The Navy could buy numerous SSGNs for the price of a single new aircraft carrier—a new Ford-class carrier costs roughly nearly $13 billion without factoring in the price of the air wing.
Unlike a carrier, an SSGN would be able to approach an enemy coast before disgorging its payload of missiles—striking deep inland with weapons that have a range of more than 1,200 nautical miles to hit targets that might include everything from air defenses, to command and control nodes, to enemy infrastructure. “The point there is that three SSGNs gives you a potential striking power of 462 Tomahawk missiles or Tomahawk follow-ons that would be even more advanced,” Hendrix said. ..The vessels could also, if needed, carry various unmanned aircraft and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) onboard. ..Moreover, a vessel like an SSGN—where an astute enemy might have an inkling that something is hiding beneath the waves—can cause a potential enemy to be worried when they are not sure exactly where it is and thereby act as a deterrent. https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Could-Nuclear-Submarines-Become-Americas-New-Aircraft-Carriers-108805434

If the USN SSGNs can do it, so can 7 SSGNs + some SSNs/SSKs of the RFN ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships#Cruise_missile_submarines_(SSGN)

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian Navy will receive the first helicopter carrier in 2022: is it necessary?

Well you really cannot reason with eehnie & co.  They live in the world without risks where money is in endless supply. They write but never  read  


This  LHD is not in SAP 2018-2025 AFIK, and rengum printed it in May. 
What we really know is deputy MoD stating : that there are plans of  creation STOL or V/STOL fighter for navy in 2018-2025 SAP.  

We have to live and see. interestingly he mentioned not aircraft carriers but aircraft cruisers there (TAKR) .  My educated guess whatever it'll be is more like light universal platform and fighter will be also used by land forces and for export. 

Unlikely direct copy of Yak-141, rather something closer to F-35B but due to costs without all that pseudo stealth looks. With max deployment off shelf avionics, weapons, coating and engines from PAK-FA

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian Navy will receive the first helicopter carrier in 2022: is it necessary?

Well you really cannot reason with eehnie & co.  They live in the world without risks where money is in endless supply. They write but never  read  


This  LHD is not in SAP 2018-2025 AFIK, and rengum printed it in May. 
What we really know is deputy MoD stating : that there are plans of  creation STOL or V/STOL fighter for navy in 2018-2025 SAP.  

We have to live and see. interestingly he mentioned not aircraft carriers but aircraft cruisers there (TAKR) .  My educated guess whatever it'll be is more like light universal platform and fighter will be also used by land forces and for export. 

Unlikely direct copy of Yak-141, rather something closer to F-35B but due to costs without all that pseudo stealth looks. With max deployment off shelf avionics, weapons, coating and engines from PAK-FA

I guess we can agree to disagree. Bold is not happening for obvious reasons.

Once Chinese shipyards complete the PLAN buildup, I don't see why Russia can't place some orders & pay for them with gold, oil & gas, should her own yards can't build enough korvettes, FFGs, DDGs & LPDs in time to form CBGs & SAGs. In the past, Russia bought warships in the US, UK & almost had in France.

ATLASCUB wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian Navy will receive the first helicopter carrier in 2022: is it necessary?

Unlikely direct copy of Yak-141, rather something closer to F-35B but due to costs without all that pseudo stealth looks. With max deployment off shelf avionics, weapons, coating and engines from PAK-FA

I guess we can agree to disagree. Bold is not happening for obvious reasons.

Of course  not, you're right. Engines,most likely NK-32 can be from PAK DA.

Tsavo Lion
Once Chinese shipyards complete the PLAN buildup, I don't see why Russia can't place some orders & pay for them with gold, oil & gas, should her own yards can't build enough korvettes, FFGs, DDGs & LPDs in time to form CBGs & SAGs. In the past, Russia bought warships in the US, UK & almost had in France.

and to spend billions not on developing own navy? skills? subcontractors? manufacturing  techniques?  work for own people?

Russia bought ships in USA? precisely when? France ti was a political move. To put a wedge in NATO/EU nothing more.

In 1898, 30(!) torpedo boat destroyers for the Pac. Fleet:
https://books.google.com/books?id=l03qgaNVU3oC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=Russia+imported+ships+navy&source=bl&ots=MdZCSBKCLO&sig=2vUpQL2Z3x9gXx9tXMOHyGLh7Xo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZiJ_AgsTYAhVKllQKHbwcDBwQ6AEIYjAN#v=onepage&q=Russia%20imported%20ships%20navy&f=false

If they r pressed for time, why not? Their yards won't be idling even if ships r ordered in China- repairs/refits & new construction of old & new small/medium boats, subs, large ships, & icebreakers will still continue regardless!
They wouldn't have supplied the fantail to France if the only goal was political!

Tsavo Lion wrote:They wouldn't have supplied the fantail to France if the only goal was political!

As far as i know, they got the blueprints for the whole carrier too. Maybe its true, maybe not. Maybe the provided blueprints (except the tail) were fake.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:The Russian Navy will receive the first helicopter carrier in 2022: is it necessary?

Well you really cannot reason with eehnie & co.  They live in the world without risks where money is in endless supply. They write but never  read  


This  LHD is not in SAP 2018-2025 AFIK, and rengum printed it in May. 
What we really know is deputy MoD stating : that there are plans of  creation STOL or V/STOL fighter for navy in 2018-2025 SAP.  

...

Unlikely direct copy of Yak-141, rather something closer to F-35B but due to costs without all that pseudo stealth looks. With max deployment off shelf avionics, weapons, coating and engines from PAK-FA

This combined with this (also in this page):

GunshipDemocracy wrote: Fighters - say 10-12blns to develop.  Where UAE also is interested in export. Russian part5-6 bllions.


Then you have 3 universal ships + fighter development = 3x2 + 6 = 12 billions.

and this:

http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160324_Fact-Sheet.pdf

$55.1 Billion = Development costs F-35 (only Research, Development, Test and Evaluation costs, nothing of procurement, nothing of military construction)


says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

The point is not if supplied blueprints were fake ones or legit ones.

There is 99% chance they were legit and complete to the least detail.

The point is whether Russian Navy really believes in LHDs for its amphibious needs, in the first line.

Second, if Russian Navy really believes in Mistral capabilities.

Mistral, as other french naval projects, have been designed to incorporate their capabilities in the smallest and cheapest hull it was possible to design.

There is nothing wrong in this approach, but it could not be taken as granted that what mistrals are designed to do, actually is what the Russian navy want or expect them to do.

Anyway, because somebody believes LHD to be a magic word, Mistrals are so small it is practically impossible to operate a STOVL fighter from them.

The french don't operate STOVL aircrafts, neither want or expect to operate them, and no provision has never been made to incorporate such capability.

Any project derived from those blueprints will have to be heavily modified adding from scratch the related facilities, and it is not a trivial task.

To add burden to burden, usually it is a smart thing to first know your aircrafts main characteristics, and then design a ship able to operate such an aircraft.

In the past, any carrier fielded by the USA, the british and the french became obsolete way before its hull and systems became old. They all became obsolete because the new generation of naval fighters was too large, too heavy, too maintenance intensive for the carriers' size and their aviation facilities.

The french, to keep their old Foch in service, the carrier they operate before Charles de Gaulle, were forced to operate up to the 2000ies with Etendard, not exactly the most advanced attack aircrafts, and F-8 Crusader as fighters, a true relic that performed its first flight in 1955.

So if the Russian navy is going to select within few years a detailed design for an LHD, there is a good chance it won't have any capability to employ a STOVL aircraft, the more so if actually around the size of the Mistrals, because it would imply designing an LHD without having any data about a future aircraft to embark on them.

This even before taking into account that a modern, possibly LO, combat aircraft (it doesn't matter whether STOVL or not), would need easily more than a decade to develop, would likely cost something north of 10 billions dollars in development alone, and would require anyway some very large ship to operate from, far exceeding what could be extrapolated from the Mistral's project.

The whole discussion is moot, there is zero rationale for Russia to pursue some form of aeronaval capabilities with STOVL aircrafts+ LHDs.

About adaptation of a land based aircraft to naval use, let's say developing a Su-57K, it is not a trivial task, but still far cheaper than designing an aircraft from scratch (provided the base project had some specific characteristic already built into it).

First, any internal system should be carefully protected from effects of sea spray, the same goes for the airframe, then as best practice inspections panells should grant to open the whole aircraft as an origami, to ease inspections to be performed in a very cramped space.

A carrier's hangar seems huge when seen in a picture, but becomes easily cramped when you start to actually work into it disassembling and maintaining aircrafts and helicopters, moving around carts with diagnostic devices and hauling engines.

More components and parts could be inspected and worked upon directly right inside the airframe, the better for the maintenance crews and for the carrier general efficiency too.

Again, landing in an angled deck requires a lot of additional stuff: one or more beacon's location devices to help actually find the carrier, in all weather conditions, day or night, an automatic landing path's tracking system, an arrestor hook sturdy enough to be employed at every single landing, and an airframe able to withstand both the aforementioned arrestor hook's shock, and very violent landings.

Touching down on a carrier's flight deck, rolling, heaving and pitching all together at the very same time, is almost as a crash landing and it is so any single time.

Whatever the vertical speed of the aircraft at the touching down, if the ship is heaving upwards in that exact moment, it will mean that some tens thousand tons of steel are hitting the aircraft landing gear, not the most gentle move you can do to an aircraft even at low vertical speed.

I have no doubts that both Su-33's and Mig-29K's development granted respective design teams with a lot of experience and feedbacks, so I'm not arguing about their expertise.

I'm just saying that even an adaptation process requires strong competences and a clever design to start with.

Maybe Su-57 is sturdy enough as it is now to be easily adapted, maybe not. Only Sukhoi and Russia's armed forces top brass know how much sturdy the project is, and what useful provisions for such a conversion have been included in the base design.

But anyway, if they opted for a Su-57K as future embarked aircraft, they have already done one very important step: they know what are the characteristics of the future aircraft, and in turn they could start studying a carrier's design around those characteristics.

Today, there is not the slightest idea of what a future STOVL aircraft's characteristics could be, so there is zero chance that whatever they could be designing, not even building, as a LHD, could actually employ such STOVL aircraft.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

IMO, the bottom line is: the assault ships/small carriers with STOVLs will save a lot of $ & time over building more CV/Ns that the RF can do without, esp. since Adm. K will be refitted & serve a few decades more; it's not that outdated & will be on a par with Chinese 001 aka CV-17. If need be, a few Tu-95s &/ Tu-160s can be dispatched to the other side of the World to show the flag, as they had already in Cuba, Venezuela, & Indonesia; the E. Med. Sea (not to mention the Indian Ocean) can be reached via Turkey &/ Iran, Iraq & Syria, avoiding the N. Atlantic. Besides, a new base or bases may soon be established in Sudan on the Red Sea: https://orientalreview.org/2017/12/05/heres-russia-might-set-red-sea-base-sudan/

Never.

It's is an economical impossibility to design and build an advanced STOVL aircraft with an handful of dimes.

If Su-57's development costs estimates are only a little close to truth, it costed around 20 billion dollars.

Even assuming a best case scenario where some of related technologies could easily transplanted into a STOVL project without major and costly adaptations (and it is an assumption that most of the time proves itself false), it should be assumed at the very least development's costs around half that amount.

So we are speaking of spending around or more than 10 billions dollars only to develop such STOVL aircraft.

Upon those costs, it should be added that you cannot build a dwarf LHD Mistral's type: even ignoring that there are today zero data available about size, weight, fuel consumption and the likes of an hypothetical STOVL aircraft, you need to design and build an LHD far larger than the 20.000 tons a Mistral has as full load displacement.

Even without exceeding 45.000 tons as an America LHA (by the way, costing more than three billions dollars apiece, not exactly cheap), you should go north of 30.000 tons, and have proportional costs.

Even a Wasp LHD, at around 40.000 tons, costs more than 1,5 billion dollars, the double of a Mistral LHD.

Even the australian Camberra class LHDs have costed almost 1,5 billion dollars each one.

OK, so we are assuming Russia's developing and building costs are half of typical western ones.

So let's say Russia is going to design and build three pretty large LHDs, with the perspective to employ a future STOVL fighter, displacing somewhat more than 30.000 tons.

It would cost what? 800 millions dollars each? So, the sum is already 2,4 billions dollars for three ships.

Then more than 10 billions to develop (without building costs) such STOVL fighter.


We have already spent more than 12 or 13 billions dollars without having built a single operative STOVL fighter.

For comparison, a Queen Elizabeth carrier, displacing around 70,000 tons, has costed the british around 5 billions dollars.

Following the same assumptions, a russian counterpart displacing around 70,000 tons (actually larger than the Kuznetsov) should cost 2,5 billion dollars.

Let's say Russia goes for nuclear propulsion adding 500 million dollars to carrier's costs.

So two very capable nuclear powered carriers, displacing each around 70,000 tons, should cost in total 6 billion dollars. There are still between 6 and 7 billion dollars to develop a naval variant of an existing advanced fighter and possibly actually building it.

Even assuming a very costly adaptation, let's say five billions, you have stll one, probably more than two billions dollars to actually build some of those fighters.

Let's say unitary costs past development are almost 100 million dollars each, you could still have at the end of the game two 70,000 tons nuclear powered aircraft carrier, a naval derivative of a top of the line fighter developed, and at least a full squadron already equipped, vs three LHD gas turbines powered displacing maybe 35,000 tons each, a STOVL aircraft with hopefully good enough performances but still zero operative aircrafts built.

eehnie wrote:
says enough about your economic skills.

If the people is not accepting your arguments is because they are very weak.

PAK-FA was developed by ~$20blns ,  of which India paid like half.  BTW remind me what is with your budgeting or project management skills? you never managed neither budget nor project. Then please dont talk about something you have little idea of

India, as for today, has just committed to pay an almost undisclosed amount of money to develop a derivative of Su-57.

What "derivative" will mean is still not clear, but up today Russia has payed by itself all the costs, and there is no hint that India will actually relieve some of development cost from Russia's shoulders.

Moreover, there is zero prospective customer for an hypothetical STOVL fighter.

Somebody could maybe name at least one single country operating, or expected to operate in the future, an amphibious ship capable to employ STOVL aircrafts AND being in friendly relations with Russia?

Egypt is not a legit answer, because Mistrals are not capable to operate and support STOVL aircrafts.

Peŕrier wrote:

Never.

It's is an economical impossibility to design and build an advanced STOVL aircraft with an handful of dimes.
If Su-57's development costs estimates are only a little close to truth, it costed around 20 billion dollars.

Even assuming a best case scenario where some of related technologies could easily transplanted into a STOVL project without major and costly adaptations (and it is an assumption that most of the time proves itself false), it should be assumed at the very least development's costs around half that amount.

So we are speaking of spending around or more than 10 billions dollars only to develop such STOVL aircraft.

nope , those fighters will be used by AF as well and probably exported. In case UAE gets into deal you have like 5 billions for the whole programme. 

perrier wrote:
Upon those costs, it should be added that you cannot build a dwarf LHD Mistral's type: even ignoring that there are today zero data available about size, weight, fuel consumption and the likes of an hypothetical STOVL aircraft, you need to design and build an LHD far larger than the 20.000 tons a Mistral has as full load displacement.

Even without exceeding 45.000 tons as an America LHA (by the way, costing more than three billions dollars apiece, not exactly cheap), you should go north of 30.000 tons, and have proportional costs.

Even a Wasp LHD, at around 40.000 tons, costs more than 1,5 billion dollars, the double of a Mistral LHD.

Even the australian Camberra class LHDs have costed almost 1,5 billion dollars each one.

OK, so we are assuming Russia's developing and building costs are half of typical western ones.

So let's say Russia is going to design and build three pretty large LHDs, with the perspective to employ a future STOVL fighter, displacing somewhat more than 30.000 tons.

It would cost what? 800 millions dollars each? So, the sum is already 2,4 billions dollars for three ships.
Then more than 10 billions to develop (without building costs) such STOVL fighter.

We have already spent more than 12 or 13 billions dollars without having built a single operative STOVL fighter.

US 1 carrier alone costs 14bln USD so far and BTW second they asked more by 1,5 billions then for first. For catapult alone they used 1 billion and does not work yet...

+100 F-35 is what? 10blns extra? 

Perrier wrote:
previosly you said that thsi is loik 10blns now 13? 
For comparison, a Queen Elizabeth carrier, displacing around 70,000 tons, has costed the british around 5 billions dollars.

Following the same assumptions, a russian counterpart displacing around 70,000 tons (actually larger than the Kuznetsov) should cost 2,5 billion dollars.

Let's say Russia goes for nuclear propulsion adding 500 million dollars to carrier's costs.

So two very capable nuclear powered carriers, displacing each around 70,000 tons, should cost in total 6 billion dollars. There are still between 6 and 7 billion dollars to develop a naval variant of an existing advanced fighter and possibly actually building it.

Even assuming a very costly adaptation, let's say five billions, you have stll one, probably more than two billions dollars to actually build some of those fighters.

Let's say unitary costs past development are almost 100 million dollars each, you could still have at the end of the game two 70,000 tons nuclear powered aircraft carrier, a naval derivative of a top of the line fighter developed, and at least a full squadron already equipped, vs three LHD gas turbines powered displacing maybe 35,000 tons each, a STOVL aircraft with hopefully good enough performances but still zero operative aircrafts built.

Wait you want to navalize which plane? the only fighter in Russia nowto navalize  is PAK-FA. In 2030s you want to navalize 60yo MiG-29 design?  Is this your concept of future fighter? hmmm kinda disagree.

a) PAK FA takes almost 2x  place of F-35B, cannot land vertically. So you actually render LHDs / hello AC useless and additional cost.Then instead 40 F-35Bs on  Queen Elisabeth 2 you have at most 20-24 PAK-FAs...

b) For some strange reason USA and UK or Japan were always developing special planes for navy.  Coincidence right? F-18 flies in many Air forces but no F-16 is ever navalized.  
 

c) why do you assume 30-40ktons LHD cannot be nuclear powered?!



End game is that you ahve 2 large ACs with less planes which are expensive and not as capable as thair land based versions.  Omn top you need to add couple of hundred millions navalize,  about a billion for catapult. But thii is not all. 

Again couple of billions for LHDs and ASWs . This does not look very economical to me. 



Hmm then why develop fighters at all? V/STOL fighter is supposed to be reborn of LMFI. Besides Russia doesn't need any "proper AC" for what? Queen Elisabeth 2 cannot do ASW or LHD job properly what is Russias prerogative. They neither can endanger Russia's fleet as their AAD cannot cope with Zircons. 

Those ACs are tool of power projection to Libya, Syria or Iran not to China or Russia. Russia has to protect Arctic mainly, for all other tasks Light carrier (say TAKR, LHD, ASW hybrid) is more then enough. Kuz can take 24 MiGs? so can Light AC. but with much better versatility

OK, I'm not spending a couple of pages to answer to nonsense and sentence-twisting.

Nobody will purchase a STOVL fighter from Russia, because there is exactly nobody in friendly relations with Russia needing a STOVL fighter, period.

There is no fighter funded by UAE, because they at most purchase some existing weapon system as a makeshift tool of diplomacy. Funding a project means long standing approachment, something UAE neither will nor could afford.

The US carriers are simply the most complex and therefore most expensive carriers in the world, if you want a perfect equivalent of a Ford carrier you have to pay for it, as if you want a modern day Kuznetsov you'll pay less for less overall performances, and if you choose to build a barge and call it an aircraft carrier you'll pay nuts for near zero performances.

I never spoke of Mig-29, even trolling should have its own limit.

By the way, yes it is possible to employ a NPP in a 30,000 tons hull, the french did the same with Charles de Gaulle displacing 37,000 tons at full load.

Just you have to be prepared to pay for it, it doesn't come cheap.

Nobody in the world has ever built an amphibious ship with nuclear propulsion because of costs, together with other reasons related to nuclear propulsion's risks.

Peŕrier wrote:India, as for today, has just committed to pay an almost undisclosed amount of money to develop a derivative of Su-57.

What "derivative" will mean is still not clear, but up today Russia has payed by itself all the costs, and there is no hint that India will actually relieve some of development cost from Russia's shoulders.

really? so coatings, radars, avionics, airframe, engines will be developed form scratch?
As for costs:

On 27 October 2007, Sukhoi's director Mikhail Pogosyan stated: "We will share the funding, engineering and intellectual property in a 50–50 proportion", in an interview with Asia Times.[10]

Perrier wrote:

Moreover, there is zero prospective customer for an hypothetical STOVL fighter.

Somebody could maybe name at least one single country operating, or expected to operate in the future, an amphibious ship capable to employ STOVL aircrafts AND being in friendly relations with Russia?

Egypt is not a legit answer, because Mistrals are not capable to operate and support STOVL aircrafts.

Why do you assume that V/STOL is  for navy only? first customer will be Russian Navy then Russian AF. Then any country that can buy Su-30/mkI now can afford cheaper LMFI fighter and probably in larger numbers. 




BTW why precisely Mistral cannot use V/STOLS? Like no possible to park or or land?  it can land on helipad if floor is with temp resistant coating/layer

Because nobody in the world want the costs and techical complexities of a STOVL aircraft if it has to be employed from land.

The british and US Marine have been and still are the only in the world operating STOVL aircrafts on land bases.

Nobody else does it, period.

For a STOVL aircraft the airframe has to be purpose built, the JSF born day one with the requirement for a STOVL version, so because Su-57 did not born with a requirement for a STOVL version, the airframe of any hypothetical STOVL aircraft will have to be purposedly designed. Yak-141 is so old on any possible technological aspect that could not be of any use as well.

By the way, it has to be expected some LO requirement for the aiframe to fulfill, too.

The engine will have to be designed almost from scratch as well, and to follow the whole test and certification procedure of any new engine, along with related time and costs.

Avionic will have to be closely adapted to the airframe, its specific internal space arrangement, cooling capabilities, electric power generation and so on.

Mistral have zero capabilities related to fixed wing aircrafts because they are dwarf and were never designed to operate fixed wing aircrafts.

They have not the size, have not the maintenance facilities, have not the fuel and armament stations on the fight deck, and they not even have the elevators to haul a modern combat aircraft, the main elevator maximum capacity is around 13 tons only, the secondary elevator even less.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:BTW why precisely Mistral cannot use V/STOLS? Like no possible to park or or land?  it can land on helipad if floor is with temp resistant coating/layer

They can certainly land them but it doesn't have the take off length needed for a combat load. If they take off vertically they have to trade fuel for weapons.

Peŕrier wrote:Nobody will purchase a STOVL fighter from Russia, because there is exactly nobody in friendly relations with Russia needing a STOVL fighter, period.

Not sure who told you that? Lets agree to disagree.  I see it that way: 

Currently Russia sells like $7bns per year aircrafts alone.  In 15-20 years nobody will buy MiG-29 or Su-30 anymore. So only what's left is:  MiG-41 and PAK-FA. Both somehow hard to sell. Thus Russia has a choice to stop very profitable sales channel and loose both market and influence. Or to invest in new light relatively cheap fighter, leveraging on technology and also some dual use stuff (VTOL) . Russians called previously LMFS  (ЛМФС) which accidentally can be V/STOL according to newest SAP.   

Perrier wrote:
There is no fighter funded by UAE, because they at most purchase some existing weapon system as a makeshift tool of diplomacy. Funding a project means long standing approachment, something UAE neither will nor could afford.

Well, doesn't  really matter. UAE joins? good, UAE is not gonna join? maybe better.  Light fighter will be maybe 2-3 years later. But will be for sure.

Perrier wrote:The US carriers are simply the most complex and therefore most expensive carriers in the world, if you want a perfect equivalent of a Ford carrier you have to pay for it, as if you want a modern day Kuznetsov you'll pay less for less overall performances, and if you choose to build a barge and call it an aircraft carrier you'll pay nuts for near zero performances.

USA builds mega ACs because this is their tool of politics! TRex was not bad killing everything around it was just hungry. They have their own strategy and relay on global reach and attacking. 

Russia doesn't. Why do you need a truck if you are not a trucker and never gonna be one? 

Perrier wrote:
By the way, yes it is possible to employ a NPP in a 30,000 tons hull, the french did the same with Charles de Gaulle displacing 37,000 tons at full load.

Just you have to be prepared to pay for it, it doesn't come cheap.

Nobody in the world has ever built an amphibious ship with nuclear propulsion because of costs, together with other reasons related to nuclear propulsion's risks.

Please stop trolling, if French didn't do something it means it is not possible?   And precisely how many nuclear powered surface ships France ever built? 

France and UK need ACs to act as USA-mini-me. They intend to punish 3rd wold countries for disobedience in sharing own wealth with "developed world".  Russia in foreseeable future is not gonna fight world battles on oceans (why should? once Sarmat has a global reach). Russian needs to ensure safety of navigation in far north. Protect regions where own subs dwell from enemies' subs and ASW planes. 

Secondary function is LHDs and humanitarian emergencies. Tertiary showthe flag all over the world or bomb terrorists somewhere. 


You can put NPP actually  on much smaller hull. The question is why? In case of Russia the answer is simple: North, scarcity of bases, thus long autonomy is needed. All electronica, EW, drones, .masers/laser weapons also need lotsa energy. Remember we are talking about ships entering service in ~2030s