Should Russia build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

flamming_python wrote:

LMFS wrote:

The construction of the destroyer "Leader" and the aircraft carrier may be delayed until 2035

What a joke

Same as the alledged cancellation of the Su-57. A joke

Why don't they scrap instead some of those super-duper nuclear-powered missiles and underwater drones and other expensive mallarcy useful only for deterrence.
Hardware such as next-gen fighters and destroyers on the other hand are things that our armed forces actually need.

Dude, you didn't really believe that they will be building carriers any time soon? They can't even get frigates up and running. When was last time they started building one?

Su-57 will be coming online soon but these other paper projects are pure fantasy.

They need frigates infinitely more than they need some fictional nuclear superwhatnots...

AlfaT8 wrote:

flamming_python wrote:What a joke

Same as the alledged cancellation of the Su-57. A joke

Why don't they scrap instead some of those super-duper nuclear-powered missiles and underwater drones and other expensive mallarcy useful only for deterrence.
Hardware such as next-gen fighters and destroyers on the other hand are things that our armed forces actually need.

I'll be frank, i think the delay is more to do with incompetent (if not compromised) shipyards, rather than lack of funds.

Remembering the new:

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5344390

I would not talk about incompetent shipyards. The reason for this new can be more in the pressure of the shipyards that can not be able to get the contracts to build the first units of the Project 23560 and of the new aircraft carrier (likely of the Project 23000). It is more about the interests of the rest of shipyards.

Big ships require important investment focused only in a few big shipyards, and the rest of the shipyards are not interested in these investments. They prefer orders of other ships in order to enjoy themselves of part of the investment.

It is not rare to see this view included in the first edition of "the Draft Strategy for the Development of the Shipbuilding Industry for the period up to 2035 by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation".

In the other side, for the Ministry of Defense, and even for the Presidency, the building of these ships has an strategic value, not only by the service of the new big ships, also related to achieve full capability of production for every type of combat ships, something very important for Russia today.

It is not difficult to see which view will prevail.

As I was expecting, & in spite of earlier pronouncements, the start of possible construction of Leader & CVN is likely to be moved well to more distant future, ~15 years to be more exact, see the dates in bold print:

"With regard to military shipbuilding, it is expected to postpone the commencement of R & D [research and development work] and serial purchases for a number of prospective ships and vessels for the period after 2025 due to the substantial sequestration of budgetary allocations for defense, as well as the complete refusal to purchase a number of large surface ships (a prospective destroyer, a marine aircraft carrier complex, the IAC) until 2035, "the document says.
.. Prospective ships
Earlier, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy for armament Viktor Bursuk said that work on the construction of a prospective destroyer "Leader" for the Navy could begin in 2020.
The project of the destroyer under the code "Leader" is being developed at the Northern Design Bureau in St. Petersburg. Igor Ponomarev, vice-president of the United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) for military shipbuilding, clarified earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry has already agreed on the outline design of the ship. It was reported that the displacement of the future destroyer could range from 10 to 15 thousand tons. According to Bursuk, "Leader" will receive a nuclear power plant.
In turn, the head of the United Shipbuilding Corporation, Alexei Rakhmanov, reported that Russian shipbuilders are designing a prospective aircraft carrier in an initiative, but there is still no contract for it. Earlier, the TASS source reported that the USC before the end of 2018 will submit for consideration to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation a few finalized drafts of a new domestic aircraft carrier. In case of a positive decision on one of the options, development work on the ship can begin in 2019.
..As previously stated in the Navy, the Russian fleet expects to receive a prospective aircraft carrier with an atomic power plant by the end of 2030, the displacement of the new aircraft carrier should not be less than 70 thousand tons.
Krylov State Research Center previously developed and presented to the general public an aircraft carrier design for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic fleet. Project 23000 was named "Storm". The sketch assumes that the ship will have a displacement of 80-90 thousand tons, it will be equipped with a combined power plant (both an atomic reactor and a gas turbine engine) [as I also predicted], the air group of the ship must number up to 60 aircraft.
http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5344390

So, what else is new?

flamming_python wrote:

LMFS wrote:

The construction of the destroyer "Leader" and the aircraft carrier may be delayed until 2035

What a joke

Same as the alledged cancellation of the Su-57. A joke

Why don't they scrap instead some of those super-duper nuclear-powered missiles and underwater drones and other expensive mallarcy useful only for deterrence.
Hardware such as next-gen fighters and destroyers on the other hand are things that our armed forces actually need.

Why would Russia engage in conventional war with NATO? This enables NATO's one and only advantage over Russia: numbers of
men and equipment and manufacturing capacity. That is simply suicidal.

Russia already has a doctrine that it will use nuclear weapons to remove NATO's conventional advantage. Nuclear weapons are
vastly cheaper than fleets of ships, tanks and other conventional war resources. Escalation to strategic nuclear weapons use
is a 100% certainty. So it is best to focus on hypersonic warheads and interceptors than on buying junk that will rust and become
obsolete over a short period of time.

Nobody on this board has demonstrated any actual deficiency with Russia's military revamping. All the yelping about not enough
ships is some sort of pro-NATO BS agenda. Nuclear powered cruise missiles and Mach 10 anti-ship missiles are where it is at
and Russia is delivering.

We don't even know what is happening exactly. They never said they cancelled Su-57, so python, don't exaggerate. It's that it was one opinion that it isn't needed.

As said, they need advance newer planes, exactly 700 fighters total. They are doing just that while slowly introducing Su-57.

For ships, they are developing quite a few missile boats. Plans are for frigates too. Outside of those, it's in the air. TBH, big ships are not really necessary anymore for Russia.

Hole wrote:Nuclear war is the only hope for NATO. Conventional they are not superior. Supposeldy the got more than 3 million man, but they had Problems to field there 30.000 men "spear head". Production capacity? Who will pay for more production? The western oligarchs want money first, before they do anything, a war wouldn´t change that.

1) During conventional wars, western economies adopt command economy regimes. Just as during WWII, the taxpayers
will pay for it.

2) I can't believe anyone thinks that Russia could field more production capacity than NATO. This is nonsensical. Germany
was out resourced by its enemies.

3) The USA doubled its GDP during WWII. The US elite thinks it can pull the same stunt today with a conventional war on
Russia in Europe. While the Old World burns, Yankee dipsh*ts expect to be all warm, comfy and safe on their island continent.

4) Russian military doctrine clearly states that tactical nukes will be used to counteract NATO's conventional advantage.

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:Nuclear war is the only hope for NATO. Conventional they are not superior. Supposeldy the got more than 3 million man, but they had Problems to field there 30.000 men "spear head". Production capacity? Who will pay for more production? The western oligarchs want money first, before they do anything, a war wouldn´t change that.

1) During conventional wars, western economies adopt command economy regimes.   Just as during WWII, the taxpayers
will pay for it.

2) I can't believe anyone thinks that Russia could field more production capacity than NATO.   This is nonsensical.   Germany
was out resourced by its enemies.

3) The USA doubled its GDP during WWII.   The US elite thinks it can pull the same stunt today with a conventional war on
Russia in Europe.   While the Old World burns, Yankee dipsh*ts expect to be all warm, comfy and safe on their island continent.

4) Russian military doctrine clearly states that tactical nukes will be used to counteract NATO's conventional advantage.

The most probable scenario is a quick gain of lands by russia over the eastern nato countries and use of tacrical nuks to stop the war and destroy one or two carrier.

Naato lacks capacities to defend the east 24/7.

NATO is no defense organisation. Its purely for attack against 3. world countries.
No western country is able to go to a "wartime" production. Not possible. In my time at the german army (90´s) we discussed this a lot. The government would have to make the decision to call all reservists in to the army, which would take month. The working force would loose hundreds of thousands of the best skilled workers. The companies would revolt. Western companies are all multi-national. There is no "national identity" left in the management class.

Yeah i believe they should.

A even have an idea that i made up, but based it on the Stalingrad class. ill see if i can find it to see if its feasible or not.

The facts of the matter is that the west does not respect Russia and does not see it as an equal in any regard... politically, military, cultural, religious... so it is always going to try to find levers to try to "negotiate" with Russia from a position of strength, which means there is very little actual negotiation and all bullying and threats and lectures... like the west treats every country... I cringe when western leaders lecture China on how it treats this or that group... look at the wests history of crimes and I would say why are you talking that way to other countries...

Russia simply cannot depend on the west at all... even when they are the victim of attack like in South Ossetia, they were treated like the aggressor... which means Russia cannot depend on fair or equal treatment from the west... if there is a problem Russia will always be what is wrong and who is at fault... which is fine... honestly **** the west... they are a bunch of arrogant arse holes that shouldn't be teaching children let alone running countries.

What it means for Russia going forward is that it needs to look to the rest of the world for trade and good relations, so their navy is no longer just going to be for self defence from the nutters, it is going to have to operate anywhere around the world faced with all sorts of potential threats.

Corvettes and Frigates are the backbone and core of the defence of Russias waterways, but further afield such small ships would not last long... they simply don't have the missile capacity to do more than defend themselves.

Destroyers have much better endurance and weapon capacity and can protect other ships... destroyers work best in groups and those groups can include the smaller types... it is like air defence SAMs and guns... small light SAMs can certainly defend themselves when needed, but can be easily overwhelmed... groups of SAMs with different sized missiles with different range performance and good numbers are much harder to overwhelm.

A Destroyer can operate on its on because it is big enough and has sensors that can detect trouble at a good distance and it should have the speed to leave when the enemy appears to have good strength, but obviously even a destroyer can be overwhelmed... a Cruiser is an air defence/ and everything else destroyer....

A cruiser is for long trips away from friendly airspace and has the best air defence at sea... the only thing that can make a group of ships that include one or more cruisers more powerful against air attack is adding a fixed wing aircraft carrier because air power is important.

It can cover ground very fast, it can move sensors and weapons quickly to where they need to be and they also help prevent fuckups.

The US cruiser sailing illegally into Iranian waters could have called a local carrier to send a fighter to inspect the target they were tracking as incoming, but because they were now in Iranian waters and the captain was acting like an aggressive moron the carrier commander called back his fighters.

There was a bit of trouble in the Gulf at the time and Iranian cutters had been inspecting ships... like they are entitled to do... and the US got snippy about it, so they sent their brand new at the time AEGIS cruiser in. Some Iranian boats were operating in the gulf as they are entitled to do so the AEGIS cruiser captain sent a helicopter to stir them up. The Iranians seeing this helicopter fired some warning shots into the air... essentially telling them to go away. The hot headed captain of the shiny new AEGIS cruiser contacted the fleet commander for permission to engage, but when the boats fired warning shots he claimed his helicopter was under fire and therefore he was free to fire back so he chased after these small boats... the Americans called them Boghammers, and fired at them with their 127mm gun... this is what made the carrier commander call back his aircraft because he was afraid this idiot might shoot them down accidentally.

If he wasn't such a dick there would have been aircraft in the air he could have sent to ID the target properly, but he was dead set on a fight from the start.

In the Falklands war because they didn't have a full sized carrier with proper AWACS and decent fighters the carriers had to sit well offshore to be safe from attack, which meant they were not in a good position to  protect ships that had to go in close to the islands to drop off troops or cargo...

With a proper fixed wing carrier with proper AWACS support and real supersonic fighter support they probably would not have lost any ships at all... AWACS aircrft can see sea skimmer missiles at enormous range and they are able to direct fighters to intercept well before they got anywhere near the ships.

Not only that but with a fixed wing carrier they could have operated their Buccaneer strike aircraft which could have taken out the runways on the island easily and  also supported the land forces as they retook the islands.

Instead they had to organise a complicated and risky super long range bombing attack by Vulcan bombers that could have ended very badly for them.

With a mini carrier they pulled it off, with a full sized carrier it would have been much easier and much safer for British sailors... with no carrier they could not have done anything at all and the islands would be Argentine.

That is the difference a carrier makes, more importantly the difference a good fighter and AWACS makes.

Russia does not need to invade anyone or attack anyone for an aircraft carrier to be useful... just defending Russian interests beyond the range of their air force and army is what their navy is for... and it needs the right equipment to do that.

It does not need hundreds of new ships, but the trade that these ships will enable should actually pay for a new focus on their navy and the rest of the world.

Improved trade with Russia and China will result in the west either needing to become more honest or they will collapse... and the world benefits either way.

Next time you are in your supermarket and you look at the isle for coffee and you see the ethical brands of coffee... wonder to yourself why it is even legal in the west to sell coffee that is unethical... Is there an isle for soap made from the boiled skin of murdered children?  How would you know...

Russia might build new aircraft carrier, but not in next 15-20 years. Now it has more urgent priorities.

They wont have a new carrier in the next 15 years but I rather suspect they might lay new ones down in the next 10-15 years.

The Kuznetsov is a little small for what they want, but equally they will want numbers of new Destroyers and cruisers to escort any new carrier they do make.

They certainly wont be 100K super colonial invasion carriers like the current US types... Nimitz and Ford...

From the sound of things they might build four or even 6 40K ton helicopter carriers, of which two or three might carry naval infantry and helicopters, while the other 2 to four might be dedicated drone platforms carrying and supporting airborne and seaborne and underwater drones.

The deck well for landing ships would be ideal for operating surface and underwater drones for launching and recovery, and the flight deck above would be ideal for all sorts of drones, from VSTOL drones and conventional take off drones and even aerostat airship type drones.

Such ships could be used as part of a landing force, but equally during a disaster or emergency situation, or just independently anywhere around the world...

As such there would be little need for drones on their fixed wing carriers except perhaps AEW or interceptor short range air defence fighter drone type platforms...

A drone ship based on a helicopter carrier that also has Anti sub helicopters might be very useful for anti sub defence for any group of ships... the internal space on those ships for 1,000 naval infantry and their armour and helicopters and landing ships and hovercraft to get them ashore that can operate autonomously for 60 days means lots of accommodation and room for vehicles of all types it could be used for all sorts of roles... which is why I am thinking they might go for 6 instead of four.

AFAIK the plan for the Mistral based ships was for four vessels... two in the northern fleet and two in the pacific fleet, but I have since seen mention of perhaps basing them in the black sea or tartus for the med... they might anticipate stepping up training with Egypt and perhaps Algeria... Algeria might want to buy an Ivan Rogov class helicopter carrier for themselves for roles not related to landing troops on foreign territory. A drone platform could sit in international waters and probe defences as it were...

Crimea is pumping out advanced robotics not a few years after reunification. Doubt we'll have to wait long for the newly available Black Sea shipyards to lay down some hulls.

The whole purpose of standardisation and modularisation is to simplify designs and make them easier and faster to produce and easier to operate and support... there is always delays in getting them to work to an acceptable standard because they are very complex multirole vessels with all types of systems that need to work together with systems either cooperating with each other or not interfering in the operation of other things.

For instance you don't want to have to shut down your air defence system so you can communicate with home base via sat link.

All these things need to be properly tested in different environments at different times of the year, but once all the problems are sorted and full serial production starts then it should be easy to ramp up production because all the problems should be sorted by then... long production runs make things easier and faster too.