Future russian aircraft carriers. #1

I do agree that they need atleast 4 carriers. 2 carriers on deployment and 2 stationed in homeports.
Additionally to that having a mixture of heavy and medium sized carriers is not a bad idea.
It does mean to develop 2 projects, but i believe that both of them will have common ground and will differ from each other only by some minor details or size or propulsion. Having a heavy nuclear carrier is good for sustained deployment in distant area. Having additional medium one is good for regional use, budgetary constraint, quick reaction force and possible foreign customers for its export variant. Many navies like India or Brazil are focused only to defend its regional waters. For them such a Russian medium sized carrier would be ideal. So maintaining a mix of heavy medium sized carriers does have a benefit in my eyes.

Personally I think 4 fixed wing carriers would be ideal, but I don't think there is a need for two different types of fixed wing carriers. They will likely already have Mistrals, so adding two types of carriers would be more flexible, but a bit of a waste in my opinion.

I think a 60-70K ton vessel with nuclear propulsion would be the best option using all standard sensors, propulsion, and equipment. It could have a related hull to a new battle cruiser with similar propulsion.

I do think that the equipment onboard should be more defensive oriented: SAMs, AAA, anti-torpedo (PAKET-N). Leave the offensive capabilities on the rest of the task force. Carrier is a platform and should not be seen as a weapon in and of itself.

I agree, but I also think fitting one UKSK launcher for anti sub torpedo missiles would be a useful system.

But the Heavy class carrier should be able to launch and recover a AWACS based plane, and a cargo plane. Both classes should be able to launch UAVs, UCAVs, refueling planes. The Heavy class carrier needs a cargo plane for logistics. Helicopter is not an option. Imagine a situation where Brits were in in 1980s with Falklands. If they would miss the runway in the Falklands, they would be screwed. It took them ages to arrive to the islands and on top of that, they relied on local supplies.

I would think a decent AWACS/Tanker/transport plane could be developed from the Yak-44M, with more modern technology further improving performance. Of course the AWACS plane will just be an AWACS plane but the transports could be fitted to also carry fuel and act as a tanker aircraft. that way your tankers will also be your inflight refuelling aircraft for your onboard aircraft including fighters and AWACS.

Also, since each russky ship in the group has adequate SAM protection for their size they could focus the entire air wing on attack.

All ships will also have 500km range Onyx supersonic anti ship missiles and 2,500km range land attack missiles... the air compliment on the carrier will be anti air and anti sub with some anti ship capability.

First and foremost the air capability of these carriers is to greatly extend the vision and reach of the air defence of the battlegroup.

Regarding cruisers to operate with the carriers... that would require at least 6-8 vessels for the new and existing fixed wing carrier/s and the 2 possibly 4 Mistrals.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Of course they would, the Super Hornet replacement is none other than the infamous F-35

The F 35 isn't perfect , I will grant you that . However, the US Navy's vision document states clearly that future air sea battles will witness the large scale use of manned & unmanned aircrafts acting in concert to degrade the rear echelon forces before they could engage the US Navy . Ergo , the US Navy will use a combination of F 35 & X 47B to target the PAKFA  or any other aircraft of the adversary . This concept preserves the ability to defeat aggression and maintain  escalation advantage despite the challenges posed by advanced weapons systems that 5th gen aircrafts of the adversary will be armed with .

The D3 efffort of the US Navy's ASB concept is designed to impact  an adversary’s C4ISR capabilities, ideally precluding attack on friendly forces. Destroying or neutralizing adversary weapons platforms enhances friendly survivability  and provides freedom of action. Defeating employed weapons post-launch defends friendly forces from an adversary’s attacks and allows sustained operations.

What gives the US Navy a head start is the fact that US Navy’s survey vessels have been regularly carrying out surveys & seabed mapping across the world . It's primarily because of this that Russian SSGNs decided to avoid SOSUS by developing and deploying long range SLBMs so that they can target their enemies from underneath the arctic ice-caps of northern Russia .

How big do you guys think the chance is That there Will be aircraft carrier constructed during the next State armaments program 2016-2025?

I suspect a first new carrier might be laid down in the early 2020s... wont reach service till about 2025-30.

Regarding the USN interesting their plans to defeat the PAK FA involve drones and fighters... those drones and fighters wont last long in airspace dominated by S-400, S-350, and S-500, plus PAK FA and MiG-35 and Su-35 and a range of their own drone aircraft and land, sea, air, and space based assets...

not to mention autonomous drones are going to be expensive, delicate affairs. every day is gonna be a zero-day vulnerability for the combat programs on the battlefield- unless you can create an AI, you have to regularly shell out millions of dollars every month/week/day depending on the adversary.

magnumcromagnon wrote:Those drones can easily be hacked by Russian ECM's just like how Autobaza or "Autobase" hacked the RQ-170.

Lots of military systems could be vulnerable to hacking. But strong encryption and rigorous security practices can make hacking impossible .

If a person can commander the GPS unit of the drone, then he can basically spoon feed false navigation information in the navigation center of these drones. But that's where INS & encryption comes into play .

It is easy to intercept unencrypted control links and to jam narrowband communications. That's why you use encryption and spread-spectrum radio when you are concerned about security.

It is also easy to spoof unencrypted GPS but this only gives you the ability to control the navigation of a drone if you know what its programmed flight plan is and if the drone is too stupid to detect that it is being spoofed, e.g. if it relies totally on the unencrypted GPS for guidance. Any military that uses such systems will get what it deserves.

Since hacking is usually understood as means gaining command-line or arbitrary code execution level control of a computer system, I propose that we not conflate this with jamming, spoofing or passive interception of control links. Actual hacking has the potential to cause much greater harm, but good security practices can prevent it from being possible -- good not in the sense of morally virtuous, but in the sense of rigorously correct and uncompromising.

The best way to fight US carriers is by denying them the money they need to build and maintain them. This is what is happening now.
Furthermore China can and might very well create a navy with more aircraft carriers than US has because she has the money of doing show (pun intended). If you ask me it's pointless.
I think that US carriers already proved a useless proposition.
If BRIC combined have until 2040 15 ACs I will be more than satisfied and until then I bet all my possessions that US will not be able to maintain even half this number.

Hannibal Barca wrote:The best way to fight US carriers is by denying them the money they need to build and maintain them. This is what is happening now.
Furthermore China can and might very well create a navy with more aircraft carriers than US has because she has the money of doing show (pun intended). If you ask me it's pointless.
I think that US carriers already proved a useless proposition.
If BRIC combined have until 2040 15 ACs I will be more than satisfied and until then I bet all my possessions that US will not be able to maintain even half this number.

US carriers are very usefull and it will take china very long to have 11 aircraft carriers and then they need to have carriers that are as big and good, to equall the us navy.

And believe me the US will have more then seven aircraft carriers in 2040 ( they will probably be a little bit smaller and cheaper but they will be supercarriers.

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:The best way to fight US carriers is by denying them the money they need to build and maintain them. This is what is happening now.
Furthermore China can and might very well create a navy with more aircraft carriers than US has because she has the money of doing show (pun intended). If you ask me it's pointless.
I think that US carriers already proved a useless proposition.
If BRIC combined have until 2040 15 ACs I will be more than satisfied and until then I bet all my possessions that US will not be able to maintain even half this number.

US carriers are very usefull and it will take china very long to have 11 aircraft carriers and then they need to have carriers that are as big and good, to equall the us navy.

And believe me the US will have more then seven aircraft carriers in 2040 ( they will probably be a little bit smaller and cheaper but they will be supercarriers.

It will be cut down to 9 carriers due to sequestration, secondly Ashm's are a asymmetrical threat to carriers to the point that excess number (over 4) of carriers will become less and less useful and more and more burdensome financially, for the cost of "1" carrier group you could purchase 6,000-12 advanced Ashm's, more than enough to kill most of the 9 carrier fleets in the U.S. navy, China would better suited with limiting it's navy with 4 carrier (not including helo carriers) groups, and spending more on advancing and multiplying it's fleet of frigates and subs armed with advanced Ashm's.

A carrier group is a powerful tool that few other tools can substitute... ie a small air force with global reach and excellent mobility.

A carrier is harder to defeat than an airfield, though not harder to destroy.

If Russia wants a global reach her navy will give her that far quicker and cheaper than her air force or army could.

At the end of the day however the Russian Navy has no empire to administer, or should that be admonish...

Of course the biggest threat to US carrier groups is the US Congress... but that is the same organisation that will ensure the cost of US military equipment remains high... remember the Super Hornet was supposed to be the cheap alternative to a stealth fighter... F-35 is supposed to be the cheap alternative to the F-22... etc etc.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:

Hannibal Barca wrote:The best way to fight US carriers is by denying them the money they need to build and maintain them. This is what is happening now.
Furthermore China can and might very well create a navy with more aircraft carriers than US has because she has the money of doing show (pun intended). If you ask me it's pointless.
I think that US carriers already proved a useless proposition.
If BRIC combined have until 2040 15 ACs I will be more than satisfied and until then I bet all my possessions that US will not be able to maintain even half this number.

US carriers are very usefull and it will take china very long to have 11 aircraft carriers and then they need to have carriers that are as big and good, to equall the us navy.

And believe me the US will have more then seven aircraft carriers in 2040 ( they will probably be a little bit smaller and cheaper but they will be supercarriers.

It will be cut down to 9 carriers due to sequestration, secondly Ashm's are a asymmetrical threat to carriers to the point that excess number (over 4) of carriers will become less and less useful and more and more burdensome financially, for the cost of "1" carrier group you could purchase 6,000-12 advanced Ashm's, more than enough to kill most of the 9 carrier fleets in the U.S. navy, China would better suited with limiting it's navy with 4 carrier (not including helo carriers) groups, and spending more on advancing and multiplying it's fleet of frigates and subs armed with advanced Ashm's.

The US will have 11 carriers when gerald r ford will enter service thats the replacement of the Enterprise you were probably talking about 9 carriers because of the possible mothballing of the Washington if they mothball the washington and only if, they would still have 10 carriers but the US Navy needs to decide about the fate of the washington in 2015-2016 until then nothing is sure.

In 1985 Soviet strategists where expecting USSR to have 6 aircraft carriers until 2000, from which at least 2 to the size of the American ones.
Instead they had only one and even this not deploy-able. The possibility of US economy to be able to maintain the numbers and the condition of US carriers as it is now is _ZERO_
Actually with the official predictions (pro American institutions that is) of what US economy expected to be around 2040 (about equal with India's and half compare to China's)
I would find it really difficult to have anything more than 4. Keep in mind, from 1990 US navy has 1/3 the number of vessels used to have...

George1 wrote:Ι think 4 new carriers + 1 modernized Kuznetsov are enough for Russia

Yes it sure is.
But by the time the 4 new carriers are in service the K will be out of service   
But 4 85.000 ton nuclear aircraft carriers would be enough   

I posted this vid in the thread about the K but in this vid they show a possible future aircraft carrier so i thought lets put it in this thread!


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arC-qwGSbzE

The US will have 11 carriers when gerald r ford will enter service thats the replacement of the Enterprise you were probably talking about 9 carriers because of the possible mothballing of the Washington if they mothball the washington and only if, they would still have 10 carriers but the US Navy needs to decide about the fate of the washington in 2015-2016 until then nothing is sure.

11? ...does that include Wasp class or Tarawa class carriers...

Tarawa and Wasp don't classify as aircraft carriers. They are like Mistrals just much bigger.

They might as well be counted as light carrier, since they carry fixed wing birds.
The America class will carry F-35s too, so very much carrier territory.

TR1 wrote:They might as well be counted as light carrier, since they carry fixed wing birds.
The America class will carry F-35s too, so very much carrier territory.

That makes them useful weapon systems for use against unarmed civilians and children.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

TR1 wrote:They might as well be counted as light carrier, since they carry fixed wing birds.
The America class will carry F-35s too, so very much carrier territory.

That makes them useful weapon systems for use against unarmed civilians and children.

Wut?

GarryB wrote:

The US will have 11 carriers when gerald r ford will enter service thats the replacement of the Enterprise you were probably talking about 9 carriers because of the possible mothballing of the Washington if they mothball the washington and only if, they would still have 10 carriers but the US Navy needs to decide about the fate of the washington in 2015-2016 until then nothing is sure.

11?  ...does that include Wasp class or Tarawa class carriers...

No i didnt count wasp and tarawa class amphibious assault ships because they are not aircraft carriers they do make use of stovl fighter aircraft but as Hannibal barca said they dont classify as aircraft carriers per assault ship on routine operation they only carrie 6 harriers/f 35 fighters.


To Morpheus Eberhardt what kind of BS are you Talking About?

So the Kiev class carriers weren't carriers either?

I realise there has to be a distinction, but I think being able to carry more than one fixed wing aircraft qualifies the Wasp and other carriers as being carriers in any navy.

Mistral will not operate fixed wing aircraft and therefore is not an aircraft carrier... at best it is a helicopter carrier.

Wasp and Tarawa and the new class however are 44K tons plus and can carry fixed wing aircraft.

To Morpheus Eberhardt what kind of BS are you Talking About?

I suspect he is suggesting they would not much use against a real military force... however I disagree... with F-35s or AV-8II Harriers on board you have a force that could easily take on a range of 3rd world military forces armed with actual aircraft and real weapons.

GarryB wrote:So the Kiev class carriers weren't carriers either?

I realise there has to be a distinction, but I think being able to carry more than one fixed wing aircraft qualifies the Wasp and other carriers as being carriers in any navy.

Mistral will not operate fixed wing aircraft and therefore is not an aircraft carrier... at best it is a helicopter carrier.

Wasp and Tarawa and the new class however are 44K tons plus and can carry fixed wing aircraft.

To Morpheus Eberhardt what kind of BS are you Talking About?

I suspect he is suggesting they would not much use against a real military force... however I disagree... with F-35s or AV-8II Harriers on board you have a force that could easily take on a range of 3rd world military forces armed with actual aircraft and real weapons.

Yes i Agree with you during the gulf war the US Navy operated wasp class amphibious assault ships as light carriers with 24 harriers and 2 seahawks so the ships are aircraft carriers and the new america class isnt even having a floodable Dock to make more space for aircraft so that is a aircraft carrier!

Any Frigate with a helipad could operate an F-35 from it so to qualify as a carrier you need to do more than just carry fixed wing aircraft, but with these light carriers we are talking about 6 fixed wing aircraft as standard and rather more possible... after all they were designed to operate very large helos like the Sea Stallion, so take a few of those off and you get a lot of freed up space.

What do you guys think? it is a fake Future Chinese Aircraft carrier but it looks very good!!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uC7-gPUOAVE/UuaR-AMf1KI/AAAAAAAAC1E/kXJVo7Y4nzY/s1600/China's+Future+Aircraft+Carrier_1.jpg