Should Russia build new Aircraft Carriers and Battlecruisers?

Other than implying that you behold an incorrect notion, what kind of response is this?

The Granit is like a Scud... it is a 7 ton missile largely because it has a turbojet engine which requires a lot of fuel to carry the missile to the distance and speed that it manages.

The Onyx is a much newer missile that uses a ramjet motor that means it can fly at supersonic speed much more efficiently than the Granit, and also the armour used in the Onyx to deflect CIWS shells and protect its warhead... which is over 600kgs BTW is relatively light Titanium.

The result is a missile with similar performance that is approximately 3 tons lighter.

Onyx is the replacement for Granit and Moskit.

I am aware of three distinct weight-groups of Russian antiship cruise missiles that are heavier than Oniks. I mentioned two of the weight groups in my previous post.

The heaviest weight group has been eliminated because of improvements in propulsion and electronics.

I really didn’t understand what you were trying to say. Please elaborate.

I’ll make a guess about what you were trying to say anyway:

What he is probably trying to say is that Onyx and Zirconium are not export missiles... so unlike the Yakhont and Brahmos, both missiles are not limited to 300km range and 500km in payload weight. this means although lighter than Granit their performance is probably not actually inferior in many areas.

Zirconium being a scramjet powered hypersonic missile yet to enter service.

In addition, the Russian requirements for antiship missiles with warhead masses of around 1 ton and antiship ballistic missiles have not gone away.

the kinetic impact of several tons of missile would sink many ships on its own with large HE payloads less useful... many modern missiles have incendiary payloads because fire is rather more devastating on board a ship than HE.

Even the Russian have admitted that Kh-22B can reach a speed of over Mach 6 and an altitude of over 70 km (due to technical reasons, the real figures are substantially higher).

The Kh-32 is described as having double the range and speed of the Kh-22M and is described as having a flight speed of more than mach 5 with a flight range of well over 600km.

Why do you make that assertion? Give a reason.

The English translation of UKSK is basically universal vertical launch anti ship/cruise missile launcher.

It is pretty much the standard launcher for anti ship, anti sub, and land attack missiles for the Russian Navy and will be fitted to ships from Corvettes to carriers and also a version on submarines.

BT-7 and T-26 were very good tanks, but in comparison to the list I gave in my previous post, they were nothing; they were strategic decoys.

Similar arguments have been made over the decades about very similar issues. I have participated in many of those debates. This is just the latest round.

One of the biggest problems of the Soviet Navy was customisation. They customised ship design and created very capable vessels. An example is the Udaloy class... an ASW Destroyer. It had Gas Turbine engines to chase subs efficiently, it had SS-N-14 missiles to hunt both subs and ships, it had an array of sensors and self defence systems. It is a similar size and from a similar time period as the Sovremmeny class Destroyers... different propulsion, different missiles and different guns and sensors and systems but similar size.

Very little in common between the two otherwise similar sized vessels. No compatibility between the anti ship missiles they carried, very different propulsion.

The result is that they made a dozen of each and they had a dozen of each type. A Sovremmeny was not much good for ASW, and the Udaloy was not great at anti ship... the SS-N-14 being a subsonic IR guided anti ship missile... a bit like the NSM really, though the SS-N-14 carried a torpedo too for use against submarines, which was its normal role.

Now the Russian Navy has decided to get rid of all the thousands of companies that supply ten different anti ship missile and ten different SAM.

The UKSK is a launcher that can launch land attack cruise missiles (ie Kalibr... based on the Klub missile with a range of 2,500km in the Russian model), a subsonic anti ship missile (again the klub with presumably the same 2,500km flight range as the very similar land attack cruise missile), a Supersonic anti ship missile (the Onyx with a 500km range... for export there is the Yakhont for anti ship only like the Onyx, and the Brahmos for anti ship and land attack... both the export missiles have a range of less than 300km and a payload of less than 500kgs). The launcher can also fire the 91RE2 which is a mach 2 ballistic missile that carries a torpedo as a payload to 40km range in the ship based model and 50km range in the sub based model.

As I said all the ships in the Russian Navy will have this launcher so the next gen Destroyer with 4 UKSK launchers will be able to carry up to 32 missiles (each launcher has 8 tubes) in any combination.

That means a modern destroyer can have 8 x Onyx missiles, 8 x 91Re2s, and still have 16 tubes for land attack missiles... compared with the Sovremmeny class ship with 8 Moskits or the Udaloy with 8 SS-N-14 anti sub torpedo launchers.. the new destroyer can have the firepower of both ships, the sensors to use them, and have a land attack capability only previous generation SSBNs had.

the loadout can be changed at the pier before a mission or by reloading ship at sea.

Not only that when a ship goes to another Russian port the propulsion is going to be more standardised, there are going to be fewer weapons and sensors so there are fewer sensor and weapon companies but it means fewer weapon types need to be stored and bought.

Much easier to manage and maintain and operate.

Here is a picture of proekt 12347 with Oniks missile. The first time I saw a picture of this ship with Oniks launchers was about 30 years ago.

Now that they actually have some money the money seems to be going to production of new small vessels rather than upgrades of older vessels.

the one place I can see this sort of upgrade being applied is with the Slava class cruisers as there is not sufficient internal space for the UKSK launch bins, but the Granit is no longer in production so if they want to equip it with a long range anti ship missile then Onyx or Zircon make the most sense.

If they can fit a UKSK launcher angled in place of each of the twin angled missiles on the Slava that should mean 8 x 8 launchers and 64 missiles. Not as many as they project they will be able to fit in the Kirov upgrades where they are talking about 10 UKSK launchers with 80 missiles. But still reasonable.

Perhaps russia could build this with the mistral compensation



This battlecruiser although looking old fashioned actually could have a lot of uses in modern sea warfare. First of all its guns aren't WW2 tech. The 305mm ones are EM cannons capable of firing projectiles to 300km and 570km rocket assisted. As for guns arent as accurate as missiles it can fire guided shells too at a fraction of the price of a full blown missile.If that isn't enough it has 6 UKSK cells. Keep in mind the guns can be replaced with extra UKSK VLSs in an alternate version, leaving the still very potent conventional 203mm turret(120-150km range with rocket assisted shells) . Unlike other modern ships it also has armor. Not WW2 steel belts but thick composite modern tank armor capable of protecting it from FAE blasts and close(but not direct) tactical nuclear detonations. It's spacious interior makes it very hard for narrow HEAT blasts to do much damage to it unless a critical area is hit(very unlikely). Combined with massive shore bombardment potential and heavy armor(forget about Bereg doing any damage to it) it would be the most effective ship in supporting amphibious landings.

If you think if its a battleship then it still has bofors guns, its not the case with this one. It has completely contemporary(even superior to most of today's ships) multilayer AA systems that can effectively defend against ASM attacks. For defence against submarines  it it doesn't have much more than the UKSK launchers but since it's a capital ship it's expected to have escorting destroyers.

It's speed:32kn

Armament:
2x203mm conventional cannon
2x2 305mm EM guns
48 UKSK launchers
Redut
S-500
5x Palash and 5x Pantsir CIWS
paket

My suggested names: after famous russian victories
Stalingrad
Poltava
Gangut
Sinop
Kaliakria

dude, as much as that would make the french(or anyone else, really) go for peanut butter and jealous, what the russkies really need is just a cheap and simple mistral equivalent.

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...

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.