PapaDragon wrote:Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships
Still better than a yak141. And it could get aesa radar from the 35 which will make it more multirole.
PapaDragon wrote:Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships
PapaDragon wrote:Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships
miketheterrible wrote:PapaDragon wrote:Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships
got a quote/link for this claim about downsizing?
...
At the end of the day one fighter cost as much as 30-50 cruise missile, means that if the chance on each sortie of kill is 5% then it makes more sense to use crusie missiles rather than bombers.
This means that the times when a bomber attack ships with short range weapons is over, it is cheaper to attack with anti ship missiles.
Isos wrote:PapaDragon wrote:Fact remains that Russian Navy is downsizing so it's extremely unlikely that anything larger than MiG 29 will be going on ships
Still better than a yak141. And it could get aesa radar from the 35 which will make it more multirole.
Did you see anything resembling anything 'big' being laid down or even planned?
MiG 29 can't take off from LHD hence no time and money saved again
GarryB wrote:IMO, option 2 would be best in the long run.
They have developed new compact nuclear power plants for ships designed to operate for decades without refuelling... it is refuelling that makes them expensive, so these units should be rather cheaper.
As they are making their larger vessels nuclear powered too it would make sense to make their carriers nukes as well... this would free up space for more aircraft, more fuel for aircraft operations and more space for munitions for those aircraft to deliver meaning faster transit times to areas that need attention and better combat persistence once it arrives in situ.
Carriers are not cheap.... if you want cheap then don't bother with carriers.
They don't have to be gold plated expensive like western carriers, but they add more value than they take away from a naval grouping of ships.
Janes and sputnik like sensational stuff and most of their sources are shipyards and ship designers... ie marketing people, not the people actually doing the buying.
If the Russian Navy decides it wants super carriers with deep strike capability then these designs make sense, but if they wanted little carriers they could have scrapped the K in the 1990s and done to the Gorshkov what they did for India for themselves.
It is pretty clear to me that a redesigned Kuznetsov sized carrier makes the most sense... take out the huge Granits and fit UKSKs for Zircons, and mount S-500 systems as well as other air defence missiles, and modify the rest of the carrier to have EM Cats and state of the art radar and sensors and PAK FA aircraft or a light 5th gen fighter variant that is not VSTOL and they will have a winner they could probably sell to a few countries too.
As a flag ship it could monitor underwater, the sea surface, land, air, and space... a real tough nut to crack.
Rodion_Romanovic wrote:Did you already see this article?
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/08/28/aircraft-carriers-drama
About those extra heat emitting nozzles, is it possible to seal them off during in-flight operation? Surely obscuring the heat signature or at least filtering it (as first seen on the Mi-24 in Afghanistan) would not require much in terms of weight or engineering?
I am wondering about that as well, but if the Navy's priority is minimizing costs, than there's a high possibility of them using conventional propulsion instead of nuclear.
This should also speed up construction time.
No, the Russians wouldn't have kept the Gorshkov, to expensive to retrofit and to old by the time it's done.
Makes more sense to build a new carrier with new design and new tech.
P.S: Would thrust-vectoring on the Mig help reduce the take-off distance, anyone??
Developing & perfecting their own steam or EM CAT may take many more years then building a CVNski & new STOVL fighters
Even after it's done, "cold launches" with loss of a/c & sometimes crews can & will happen, as they do in the USN. To minimize it, use CATs only for heavy fixed wing AEWC & supply a/c, leaving STOVL & other fighters using angled deck & a ski-jump.
For heavier war loads, why not use rocket assisted takeoff?
GarryB wrote:I am wondering about that as well, but if the Navy's priority is minimizing costs, than there's a high possibility of them using conventional propulsion instead of nuclear.
This should also speed up construction time.
No.... it would extend construction time as they would have to develop a whole new propulsion system to replace the NPPs already developed and used on icebreakers and any new cruisers they would make.
Reducing the top speed and limiting the range of their capital ships is not a money saving area... it would make more sense to not arm them as a money saving idea... then you can just call them aircraft carrying barges.
No, the Russians wouldn't have kept the Gorshkov, to expensive to retrofit and to old by the time it's done.
Makes more sense to build a new carrier with new design and new tech.
Are you suggesting they lied to the Indians? The facts are that they made a mistake estimating the cost of the upgrade... which meant the Russian Navy would have started the process and then found out it was going to cost rather more that they first thought... why do you think the Indians continued and the Russian Navy would not have? What other option did either navy have at the time? And BTW where is the Indigenous Indian carrier now?
Carriers are not cheap whether it is your first or your 300th.
The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.but if they wanted little carriers they could have scrapped the K in the 1990s and done to the Gorshkov what they did for India for themselves.
It should improve it but would never reduce it to the levels of a VSTOL.P.S: Would thrust-vectoring on the Mig help reduce the take-off distance, anyone??
The idea is that it'll be based on the Lavina Project and will incorporate a similar conventional propulsion system to save costs.
The NPP would be a separate thing, this is all assuming the Lavina is deployed first, which all indications point towards.
You're assuming the Russian navy would consider there small carrier a capital ship.
If the navy wants to go for this budget approach, than "aircraft carrying barges" is what they want.
The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.
So, a carrier with a single runway with a max take-off distance similar to the Kuz's longest take-off position, with a Ski-jump, along with Thrust-vectoring Migs and maybe an EM-CAT for AEWs, and we got ourselves a very viable small Aircraft Carrier concept.
GarryB wrote:
The idea is that it'll be based on the Lavina Project and will incorporate a similar conventional propulsion system to save costs.
Except that the Lavina is a helicopter carrier and therefore would not be an effective substitute for the Kuznetsov.... which is not a helicopter carrier.
They could also save money by making their Destroyers and Cruisers using the Buyan-M design because it is small and cheap too...
The NPP would be a separate thing, this is all assuming the Lavina is deployed first, which all indications point towards.
Using your logic the Kuznetsov would never have existed because it would have just been another Kiev class ship with a few modifications.
If the Kievs are too small then why would a Mistral class sized ship be suitable when it is even smaller?
You're assuming the Russian navy would consider there small carrier a capital ship.
If the navy wants to go for this budget approach, than "aircraft carrying barges" is what they want.
If they want the budget approach then no carrier is the cheapest option... the worst option is to try to do it on the cheap and end up spending money on something that is no use at all.
No.The retrofit would have cost them (as you yourself said "Carriers are not cheap") and when it's done it'll be an old design, makes sense for India (considering there aging carrier), not so much for Russia, since they already have the Kuz.
If they had scrapped the K as being too big early on they didn't need to piss around for 10 years bargaining like the Indians did and the upgrade could have been much much cheaper and certainly much much faster.
So, a carrier with a single runway with a max take-off distance similar to the Kuz's longest take-off position, with a Ski-jump, along with Thrust-vectoring Migs and maybe an EM-CAT for AEWs, and we got ourselves a very viable small Aircraft Carrier concept.
Sounds very limiting... a single runway means no angled landing option so either landing or taking off and one at a time... very slow and very limiting for ops where you need to get aircraft into the air quickly, or get them down quickly.
The ideal carrier for Russia would be the Kuznetsov with new sensors and electronics and new weapons with the launchers rearranged and of course a NPP to make the propulsion system vastly more compact and efficient.
Add S-500 and UKSK launchers and load it initially with a mix of MiG-29s and Su-33s and eventually embark a light 5th gen CTOAL fighter and they have everything they need.
Also was the Gorshkov not a Helo-carrier?
Yea, and the flip side to that is go full Shtorm on every carrier, what's your point?
The Kuz is based on Kiev, the Kiev was an already deployed helo-carrier as well, so to save cash, the USSR made a aircraft carrier modification out of it.
And i am purposing the same for the Lavina, but for a small carrier.
Also i never said anything about the Kiev being to small.
And i never said the Lavina AC being more suitable, i am just trying to guess what the Russian navy will do depending on which approach they go for (budget or effectiveness/small or Medium sized).
That depends on them, although this talk of VSTOL by Yuri Borisov indicates the budget approach.
Considering the time it was retired to time it was sold to India, could Russia have modified the Gorshkov faster and cheaper during the Yeltsin and early post Yeltsin era, i doubt that.
I am in complete agreement (although i would add 1 AEW to that list), but if they do go the budget route, this is the best compromise i can think of.
P.S: What does CTOAL stand for?
AlfaT8 wrote:
I am not saying a "substitute for the Kuz", but a small carrier based on the Lavina, similar in design to the Centaur-class or invincible-class carriers.
Also was the Gorshkov not a Helo-carrier?
Yea, and the flip side to that is go full Shtorm on every carrier, what's your point?
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno whats all this fuss about with the KUz honestly it's fine for what they need the problem is.
1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected
2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.
It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.
The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.
In anycase this ship will remain for decades because the Russians will not have another flat top to replace it anytime soon and it's better to have even a shit carrier than no carrier at all.
& as I mentioned, while supported by land based assets. The same can be said about Chinese carriers. Adm.K is indeed a good training & diplomacy tool with some value as a sea denial/ASW platform, & that's why it's being upgraded now. It could also be a mother ship for U/CAVs & submersible drones like the Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV). http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/navy-plans-deploy-submarine-drone-squadron-2020/123179/As I see it, main mission of any future Russian carrier will be to provide local air superiority in the near abroad of Russia, from Scandinavia to Vladivostok, and to act as a tool of diplomacy during peace times.
Peŕrier wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Dunno whats all this fuss about with the KUz honestly it's fine for what they need the problem is.
1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected
2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.
It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.
The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.
In anycase this ship will remain for decades because the Russians will not have another flat top to replace it anytime soon and it's better to have even a shit carrier than no carrier at all.
Kuznetsov, propulsion system let alone, was designed as a defensive platform charged with defence of soviet's SSBNs bastions.
It hadn't even to achieve local air superiority, in event of a war against NATO, she (or they if the sisters had been built), had the mission to fend off any incursion within bastions' air space for the time required by soviet SSBNs to safely launch their SLBM.
At the time, soviet SLBMs' range where a little on the short side, and they had to cruise quite far from home waters to stay within useful range from the USA, which in turn made them vulnerable both to western SSNs and NATO naval task forces, which in turn required active surface contrast against such task forces to prevent them to track and chase soviet SSBNs.
Secondary mission was to provide early warning against cruise missile attacks and to force NATO naval strike groups to launch such cruise missiles as far as possible from Soviet Union shores, hence the heavy antiship missiles embarked.
So by today probable requirements, Kuznetsov is less than ideal as a project, even removing the silos would benefit very little to air operations.
Frankly speaking, Kuznetsov and her sisters were conceived almost as expendable systems to assure a retaliation nuclear attack would succeed.
The continuing soldiering of Kuznetsov is likely a testimony that Russian Navy has a real requirement for carriers, but until strategic forces, Air Force and Air Defense will not reach the desired level of modernization, I don't think there will be any fund provided for such endeavor.
GarryB wrote:No.
this is their only helicopter carrier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_helicopter_carrier_Moskva
The point is that extremes are not very useful.
The Kievs were about 40K tons, compared with the UK invinsible class ships that were about 22K tons and the Kievs were too small to be useful.
What they don't need is 100K ton ships.... 50-60K ton ships will do fine.
The Kuznetsov is NOT based on the Kiev..... they are totally different.
Do you not appreciate the difference between a through deck cruiser and an angled deck carrier?
The Kiev class carriers had a single straight deck with the front of the carrier covered in things you would normally find on a conventional cruiser.
the kuznetsov has an angled deck at the rear so landings can be carried out continuously independent of take offs over the front.
The Kiev is too small for anything but a VSTOL fighter... and at 30-40K tons it is larger than Mistral at 20K tons and the Lavina at 14K tons.
Lavina is an amphibious landing ship/helicopter carrier... it is not even close to being a fixed wing aircraft carrier.
If you need to develop VSTOL aircraft to make it viable why not just operate VSTOL aircraft from the helo decks of frigates, or just build a container ship and operate VSTOL aircraft from them?
The money needed to make a VSTOL aircraft approach the performance of a much simpler and much cheaper already designed aircaft already operating from land (ie MiG-29k or Su-33 or 5th gen MiG fighter operating on land and at sea) means it is not actually a cheaper option.... especially when you include the loss rate.
I don't see why not.... they negotiated the damn contract for 10 years... even if they took 2 years that leaves 8 years to make it before the real upgrade was even started.
Of course making it 10 years earlier means an inferior upgrade with older materials and technology so about now they would be looking to further upgrade it, but that is the same for every ship... commit to an upgrade now and risk new technology being developed soon that means it needs another upgrade sooner rather than later.
The whole point of cats would be AEW or AWACS so we agree there too.
The fact is that a smaller lighter AWACS aircraft like the Yak-44 but with modern radar would be a very useful aircraft to Russia and her allies and would be worth spending a lot of money on to develop because they could make quite a few of them.
Countries with mountains where ground based radar are not so effective would love them and countries with huge borders would also find them useful too... mobile radar sites that can operate with fighters to coordinate patrols and defensive operations and even strikes.
1. The Russians have very little carrier training and very little time spent operating them, this isn't a navy who uses carriers on a regular basis so they make mistakes which is to be expected
2. They need to modernize the darn ship. ETC just update it's electronic and fix its propulsion. I'd even remove the weapons to make more room for aircraft it carries what 40 yeah that's abit small by today's standards don't get me wrong but it's not terrible.
It has enough hangar space to function has a strike carrier.
The case with the kuz isn't the ship it's the fact the Russians just don't know what to do with it nor are they sure what they wanna do with it.
Hmm..., so it's not a Helo-carrier because of the Yak-38.
Were the Kievs to small to be usefull or were the Yak38s to fragile to be usefull, why weren't they useful??
I'd put a 70K ton as the max, but yea, i agree.
It's hull was indeed based on the Kiev, although enlarged.
Correct, and it's aircrafts were Helos and Yaks that take-off and land vertically.
That has more to do with it's deck being for VTOL aircrafts, the conversion of the Gorshkov tells us an Kiev AC is doable.
"14K tons"?????..... the info say 23K tons or am i reading this wrong:
The projected 165 meter-long Lavina will displace 14,000 metric tons. Its contingent of attack and ASW helicopters can include up to a dozen choppers in total.
Feels like we're walking into the P3 vs Il-38 comparison again, but the Yak-44 is way lighter, not sure whether Russia has a use for a land based variant, i can definitely see other countries being interested.
|
|