Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

GJ Flanker wrote:Russia should build heavy nuclear carriers, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Russia don't have friendly ports nor bases around the world like the USA. They need a strong autonomic battle group, able to sustain heavy attacks and able to powerful strike back.

A new Russian carrier should have nuclear propulsion, electromagnetic catapults, AESA radar system, most advanced multirole fighters (T-50K or MiG-XXK), advanced helicopters, first class ASW and AEW aircraft and UCAV/UAV. There is time enough to get it right, they don't need to hurry.

Small carriers are for smaller navies. Russia has great interests in the Arctic region and must control the passages to the Arctic from both, the Atlantic and the Pacific, side.
They also need carriers in the southern regions of the Oceans for support of their blue water fleets.      

GarryB wrote:

I dont think one carrier is enough for a Powerfull country like russia.

Russia hasn't had the investment and support infrastructure right now to operate more than one carrier so having ten right now would be pointless... they would spend all day tied up on the pier with no crew and no aircraft to operate from them.

A good strong navy will make Russia a more powerful global country... it doesn't happen the other way around.

Build another medium AC based on the kuznetsov with the granit missiles (or an updated version of it) and the AC wont need Much escorts.

It would be an enormous mistake to put heavy AShMs on their new carriers... they should certainly have 4-6 UKSK launchers, but loading them with land attack cruise missiles and anti sub missiles makes rather more sense as the aircraft on board could deliver air launched anti ship missiles to targets much further away than any ship launched missile.

Kuznetsov with Granits still needs escorts... and without its Granits will still need escorts but with more space for aircraft will offer better protection for the ships escorting it.

And then you Will always have atleast one AC ready for deployment when needed.

Not possible right now... it makes more sense to build up the rest of the fleets first to allow any new carriers to be properly used.

Alexei Fedorov has said that any decision on applying fifth-generation technologies to produce a smaller fighter (comparative to the F-35) must wait until after the heavy fighter, based on the T-50, is completed.

Which should be about 2018. Navalised PAK FA could be ready for naval use by 2022 and naval light 5th gen fighters perhaps 5-6 years after that.

Keep in mind that the smaller lighter cheaper 5th gen light fighter is not in limbo... the avionics for PAK FA are in the Su-35 and the avionics for the new stealth light fighter will likely be used in the Mig-35. Experience and production tools and skills can be applied directly to the new aircraft which will be stealthy by virtue of its airframe design no being based on a Mig-29.

Lets face it... the current plans of the US Navy show the stealth fighter on Russian ships will only need to contend with 4th gen western fighters... Rafale on French carriers, F-18 on US carriers, and the F-35 on the UK carriers and the F-35 as a strike aircraft on US carriers... the F-18 being replaced by the F-35 as the naval strike aircraft and relegated to fighter... replacing the F-14.

Fairly odd progression where the F-14 is the carrier fighter and the A-6 is the strike aircraft with the F-18 first replacing the A-6 as strike aircraft and then the F-14 as fighter is now to be replaced as the strike aircraft and will just be a fighter again.

collegeboy16 wrote:dedicated AWACS aircraft is nice but imo against a capable opponent those would be among the first to be shot down.
Better to have lots of mini AWACS-like capability like those in PAK-FA and further develop them- eggs and basket really.

Why do you think stealth technology can't be applied to air craft carriers?

In fact EM catapults should greatly reduce the IR signature of the modern carrier and the technology could be applied to tube artillery at sea and on land.

Maybe in the future we will have very stealthy ships armed only with AA railguns tasked with sneaking close to a carrier gruop and cleanly, cheaply and rapidly destroying the aircraft while they're still slow and easy to hit.

How will those stealthy ships find those stealthy aircraft and stealthy carriers?

Hannibal Barca wrote:
Because AC decks make a really bad shape in terms of signal

eridan wrote:AC deck is *always* full of people and equipment, from various carts, tractors, hoses to helicopters, planes (with exposed landing gear and other non VLO treated bits); not to mention the features of the deck surface itself - tons of tie down hooks across the deck, chains and the uneven and rough surface of the deck itself (which is a must, unless one wants planes to skid around the deck)

It's really a radar return heaven for X band radars.

Actually flat is the simplest shape to make something stealthy... look at the F-117s shape before they got high speed computers to calculate curves...

Think of it in terms of window panes... the small flat panes on the Mi-28 means that a bright light like the sun will reflect strongly only along very small specific angles and not very well at any other angle. The curved canopy of the Mi-24 however will show a sun reflection from most angles because the transparency is curved and the suns reflection is reflected over a wide range of angles.

Currently it is one if the easiest... not many large heat sources in the middle of a dark ocean... a wide field of view scan of the north atlantic for instance in IR would reveal only a few dozen objects hot enough to register... when you only have to manually check a few dozen your job of finding a carrier suddenly become much easier... in comparison scanning a radar image would show every larger cruise ship, every large tanker, every large gas tanker, and every large container ship... much longer to find the carrier.

The basic shape is flat, but as mentioned above it is a working environment with lots of clutter.

Stealth does not mean no radar return. Stealth means less radar return to the antenna that is scanning. In X band there are plenty of things you can do to various items to reduce or divert their return to disguise the presence of the ship... the sea surface has plenty of features that move on it too.

Many of the early warning satellites used by the US and Russia use IR sensors to detect launches of ICBMs and SLBMs.

Any heat source on the background of cold space coming up over the horizon tends to stand out... a steam catapult in the middle of a cold ocean also stands out... even if it is not as hot as a rocket exhaust plume.

GarryB wrote:

BTW What's the point of talking about stealth ACs above if we are talking about satellites which "see" the huge deck vertically...

How about RAM coating on the deck of the carrier layed out to look like standard shipping containers... the surface will be flat, but the radar and IR signature might make it look like a fully loaded container ship...

The Russians are designing new carriers that will likely be operational for 40-50 years... I suspect they will take radar signature into consideration... they are making Nakidka for their armoured vehicles to reduce IR and radar signature... I would suspect some effort for their new billion dollar carriers.

The Kirov class ships are the size of the carriers we are talking about... they had hulls as well and were considered very stealthy for their size.

These new carriers don't need a RCS of a marble or anything... reducing the RCS from 400 square metres to maybe 50 could mean the difference between detection at 5,000km and detection at 500km... reducing the range and reliability of detection and tracking is enough.

Yeah... the US Navy does nothing at all to conceal the position of their carriers and carrier groups... perhaps you might like to look up the term EMCON.

If a steam catapult generates a large IR signature then it would make sense that an EM catapult would be an improvement... especially as it can adapt its stroke in real time.

For different aircraft with different payload and fuel weights and different ordinance requirements a very specific load setting on a steam cat is required. Set the wrong number and the undercarriage gets ripped off or the plane ends up in the water.

An EM cat can monitor the acceleration and adapt its force so if it is not going fast enough to take off safely it can add power to the stroke to give the aircraft the best chance of getting airborne.

This makes it rather safer... and in terms of battle damage not having lots of high pressure very hot steam pipes through your ship is also a good thing too.

Advantages

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS weighs less, occupies less space, requires less maintenance and manpower, is more reliable, recharges more quickly, and uses less energy. Steam catapults, which use about 614 kilograms of steam per launch, have extensive mechanical, pneumatic, and hydraulic subsystems.[4] EMALS uses no steam, which makes it suitable for the Navy's planned all-electric ships.[12] The EMALS could be more easily incorporated into a ramp.[4]

Compared to steam catapults, EMALS can control the launch performance with greater precision, allowing it to launch more kinds of aircraft, from heavy fighter jets to light unmanned aircraft.[12] EMALS can also deliver 29 percent more energy than steam's approximately 95 megajoules, increasing the output to 122 megajoules.[4] The EMALS will also be more efficient than the 5-percent efficiency of steam catapults.[2]

High altitude high speed launch of missiles compared to low altitude low speed launch is a multiplication factor of about 5 or 6 for most missiles...

GarryB wrote:
The Mig-31 was designed to operate at mach 2.4 on most interception missions... the F-15 has a paper top speed of mach 2.2 but almost never achieves it because it burns up a lot of fuel very rapidly.