Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

George1 wrote:Russia May Build New Aircraft Carrier by 2023 – Designer

MOSCOW, February 3 (RIA Novosti) – The development and construction of a new aircraft carrier for the Russian navy could take about 10 years, a St. Petersburg-based ship design bureau said Monday.

Sergei Vlasov, general director of the Nevskoye design bureau, said the overall cost of the ship could range between 100 and 250 billion rubles ($2.8-7.1 billion).

“If the ship will be armed with a variety of weaponry, its cost will skyrocket, but if it will carry only air defense systems, the cost will be less,” the official said.

Vlasov said his bureau could design both a nuclear-powered and conventional version of the aircraft carrier. The former would have a deadweight of up to 85,000 metric tons, while the latter – up to 65,000 tons.

The nuclear-powered ship would be able to carry some 70 aircraft and helicopters, while the conventional vessel – up to 55, he said.

Vlasov added that the new carrier would serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular a fifth-generation fighter set to replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).

According to Vlasov, the Russian navy needs at least four aircraft carriers: two for the Northern Fleet and two for the Pacific Fleet.

At present, Russia has only one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500 and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Another option would be(I prefer this one) would be to build succesors of the Kirovs that can fight almost completely independently and more stealthily, and be able to kill 2-3 carriers per encounter. And install 203mm< guns fring assisted ammo on them for shore bombardment and cheap dispatch of small ships as well as some kalibrs. Much cheaper than 40 T-50s. Of course that would be putting all your eggs in 1 basket but so do carriers to a large extent and as we see today the Russians hate cheap to build specialized vessels. There is no solution.

collegeboy16 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Another option would be(I prefer this one) would be to build succesors of the Kirovs that can fight almost completely independently and more stealthily, and be able to kill 2-3 carriers per encounter. And install 203mm< guns fring assisted ammo on them for shore bombardment and cheap dispatch of small ships as well as some kalibrs. Much cheaper than 40 T-50s. Of course that would be putting all your eggs in 1 basket but so do carriers to a large extent and as we see today the Russians hate cheap to build specialized vessels. There is no solution.

They already have the Yasen class which is stealthier than any stealthified surface ship and with scramjet missiles could potentially massacre carrier groups. Shore bombardment is passe? anyway, a smart enemy would just move his assets further inland and use airpower, missiles and artillery. Anyway, if by any chance they happen to have some extra money I think further improvement of Yasen class would be nice. Put some pumjet in it, make it all digital, increase automation even further, cover it with the new composite skin they are talking about, give it a satellite based targeting system. Basically most of which they are trying to do.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Another option would be(I prefer this one) would be to build succesors of the Kirovs that can fight almost completely independently and more stealthily, and be able to kill 2-3 carriers per encounter. And install 203mm< guns fring assisted ammo on them for shore bombardment and cheap dispatch of small ships as well as some kalibrs. Much cheaper than 40 T-50s. Of course that would be putting all your eggs in 1 basket but so do carriers to a large extent and as we see today the Russians hate cheap to build specialized vessels. There is no solution.

They already have the Yasen class which is stealthier than any stealthified surface ship and with scramjet missiles could potentially massacre carrier groups. Shore bombardment is passe? anyway, a smart enemy would just move his assets further inland and use airpower, missiles and artillery. Anyway, if by any chance they happen to have some extra money I think further improvement of Yasen class would be nice. Put some pumjet in it, make it all digital, increase automation even further, cover it with the new composite skin they are talking about, give it a satellite based targeting system. Basically most of which they are trying to do.

...As far as aircraft carriers go, Russia should have between 2-4 and no more in service at any given time, 2 for it's maritime borders. While aircraft carriers are useful, they're also highly overrated due to how expensive they are, and how they need carrier groups to protect them. The most lopsided asymmetrical fighting scenario in all of warfare is probably the aircraft carrier vs the anti-ship missile, a multi-billion dollar carrier can be taken out by $1 million anti-ship missiles, the second closest is armored vehicles vs IED's, then followed by low flying aircraft vs manpads. Russia should never go after the lofty goal of 9-to-11 aircraft carriers, I would rather prefer to see 9-to-11 Kirov class battlecruisers such as the Peter the Great, and many smaller military boats armed with most advanced missiles such as the anti-ship, cruise and sam variety.

flamming_python wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

collegeboy16 wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:
Another option would be(I prefer this one) would be to build succesors of the Kirovs that can fight almost completely independently and more stealthily, and be able to kill 2-3 carriers per encounter. And install 203mm< guns fring assisted ammo on them for shore bombardment and cheap dispatch of small ships as well as some kalibrs. Much cheaper than 40 T-50s. Of course that would be putting all your eggs in 1 basket but so do carriers to a large extent and as we see today the Russians hate cheap to build specialized vessels. There is no solution.

They already have the Yasen class which is stealthier than any stealthified surface ship and with scramjet missiles could potentially massacre carrier groups. Shore bombardment is passe? anyway, a smart enemy would just move his assets further inland and use airpower, missiles and artillery. Anyway, if by any chance they happen to have some extra money I think further improvement of Yasen class would be nice. Put some pumjet in it, make it all digital, increase automation even further, cover it with the new composite skin they are talking about, give it a satellite based targeting system. Basically most of which they are trying to do.

...As far as aircraft carriers go, Russia should have between 2-4 and no more in service at any given time, 2 for it's maritime borders. While aircraft carriers are useful, they're also highly overrated due to how expensive they are, and how they need carrier groups to protect them. The most lopsided asymmetrical fighting scenario in all of warfare is probably the aircraft carrier vs the anti-ship missile, a multi-billion dollar carrier can be taken out by $1 million anti-ship missiles, the second closest is armored vehicles vs IED's, then followed by low flying aircraft vs manpads. Russia should never go after the lofty goal of 9-to-11 aircraft carriers, I would rather prefer to see 9-to-11 Kirov class battlecruisers such as the Peter the Great, and many smaller military boats armed with most advanced missiles such as the anti-ship, cruise and sam variety.

I'm sure GarryB can explain better but - 4 carriers is pretty much essential for continous coverage of 2 oceans. At any one time you can expect up to 2 of them to be in training/repair/modernisation/away visiting South America or somewhere; leaving 2 carriers ready for immediate operation - that's one per fleet; Pacific and Northern.

Build any less carriers and you're in danger of not having one available precisely when you need it.

So really, 4 is the optimal number if they have decided that they need a carrier group in each ocean fleet at permanent readiness.

TR1 wrote:4-5 carriers?

I hope that NEVER happens. What a money sink for Russia.

At the very most 2, so we can have 1 constantly ready to be deployed to hot spots.

GarryB wrote:

4-5 carriers?

I hope that NEVER happens. What a money sink for Russia.

At the very most 2, so we can have 1 constantly ready to be deployed to hot spots.

If you want a global capable Navy then 4-5 carriers would be essential.

"saving" money not having carriers would be like saving military spending by having an Army but not an Air Force...

Russian carriers will not be like US Nimitz class carriers in cost and design.

CEO Nevsky PKB Sergey Vlasov wrote:Neva PKB is developing a light, medium and heavy aircraft carriers for the Russian Navy in the initiative order. These works will allow to quickly proceed to design an aircraft carrier of the selected type, if so decided by the government

Vlasov said the new carrier can be equipped with an electromagnetic catapult. "I think if we create a new aircraft carrier, and its creation would take about 10 years, during this time, may establish and catapult" - believes CEO.

The cost of new light Russian aircraft carrier will be approximately 100-130 billion rubles., Heavy - 200-280 billion rubles

TR1 wrote:My good man, the entire Russian Navy today operates less than 20 diseal submarines.

And you want 15-20 per fleet?

Also, lol, you have such a poor respect for Russian subs you think 5-10 modern subs will be sunk in the FIRST HOURS?!? But those surface assets, MUCH more vulnerable, will somehow stay alive? Visby is an expensive floating 57mm platform, sooo scary to a modern sub. Have they even been fitted with an anti-sub armament yet? It took them years to even get SSMs.

Also where you gonna find all these Type 45s in the Black Sea?

Flyingdutchman wrote:I think the best option is 3 medium aircraft carriers 1 in the northern fleet and 2 in the pacific fleet.
With growing tensions almost everywhere in the south they really need some aircraft carriers!

TR1 wrote:Better in what way? China's submarine fleet is nowhere near as potent. It's fleet lacks in many core capabilities. Of course it also has many more newer ships than the Runavy...but so what? China's navy is of little concern to Russia. In fact, the more China spends on its navy, the better for Russia, from a security standpoint.

Northern fleet needs aviation why? Russia has the longest ranged fighters in the world, they can do fine for its purposes.

As you can tell, I am not particularly in favor of carriers. Not when other priorities need to be met first.

Kuznetsov with new propulsion and MiG-29Ks is enough for me for now.