Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+31
Singular_Transform
kumbor
hoom
Tsavo Lion
Isos
GunshipDemocracy
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
AlfaT8
Tingsay
JohninMK
eehnie
GarryB
LMFS
Hole
Rodion_Romanovic
verkhoturye51
x_54_u43
George1
Azi
Kimppis
miketheterrible
KomissarBojanchev
runaway
Big_Gazza
kvs
Admin
Peŕrier
sda
The-thing-next-door
ATLASCUB
35 posters

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Jan 24, 2018 8:26 am

    In the Arctic, rain, snow, waves, water spray, & fog will turn into ice on the flight deck & may clog the exposed catapults, requiring very high maintenance to prevent/de-ice it- whether it's steam or EM.

    If it is Russian designed do you not think they might adapt the design to operate in freezing temperatures?

    Electric deicing of an electric catapult does not on the face of it seem to me to be an insurmountable problem...

    OTH radar are of little to no use in an aeronaval scenario, having exactly zero chance to positively classify whatever they pick up.

    Putting it simply, they lack any meaningful resolution to discriminate between an oiler, a carrier and a floating barge.

    Quite true, but for the Russians rebuilding their radar based satellite network would be able to track targets from space with a resolution good enough for targeting and tracking.

    Aerostats tethered to the ships would be the same to light up a searchlight on top of a ship at night: the enemy would pick up and track EM emissions far before the radar could pick any target.

    It would not need to operate within 1,000km of a carrier... AWACS aircraft from a US carrier are just as easy to find, but where are the fighters they are directing who can operate radar silent because they are getting radar information from the AWACS aircraft?

    In the Indian Ocean, the USN & RN have the luxury of air bases around the Arabian Gulf & Diego Garcia "watching their backs"; the RuN may not have so many bases so well placed.

    All the more reason to take real planes with them where ever they go instead of token aircraft like VSTOL fighters that don't exist yet.

    The case of India and Pakistan mean nothing for Russia...

    Russia will not have a huge navy like the US or the Chinese could... they need quality and capability and flexibility... something that light 5th gen fighters provide... not something expensive fragile VSTOL fighters provide... because more than half of them will end up crashing in peace time.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:57 am

    Deicing may not work fast enough against ice buildup. Future STOVL may be a lot less fragile. As before, they'll taylor future deployments according to all potential threats & allocate assets from different fleets & AFs, & their smaller VMF can use more subs co compensate.
    Again, as noted before, China already operates CTOLs on a STOBAR & soon will commission a 2nd; the CV-18 may be CATOBAR with more CVNs to follow- but she still develops a STOVL. For flexibility, they & light 5th gen fighters may be deployed together, just like MiG-29Ks, Su-33s + Ka-52Ks, Ka-27/31 had & AV-8B Harrier IIs/F-35s + V-22s on America LHDs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship)  
    The Ka-31 also has a small endurance, but that is easily countered by carrying multiple helicopters and deploying them in succession. The biggest advantage of using them would be that the Kuznetsov can turn it’s radars off and maintain radio silence, while still getting the radar picture of the surroundings. (The surveillance range against a surface ship is typically 100km to 200km. The radar is capable of simultaneously tracking 40 targets.
    http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka31/)
    ..The MiG-29K’s ability to carry buddy refueling pods and refuel other aircraft mid-air will allow the CBG to greatly extend its combat radius.
    ..Russia ..introducing advanced warships such as the Admiral Gorshkov class frigates with excellent land attack and air defense capabilities, but they aren’t able to build as many as they want, as quickly as they need.
    https://defencyclopedia.com/2016/10/28/analysis-russias-first-combat-deployment-of-its-aircraft-carrier/comment-page-1/
     Following the Indians, Chinese PLA navy official publication revealed Ka-31 helicopter in Feb 2013. It is reported Chinese Ka-31s are based in naval base in eastern China. Intense training is being conducted to ensure these helicopters will be able to provide service when the first Chinese aircraft carrier enters service.
    Maximum speed: 250 km/h (135 knots, 166 mph)
    Cruise speed: 205 km/h (110 knots, 126 mph)
            Range: 600 km (324 nautical miles)
    Service ceiling: 3500 meters (11,483 feet)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-31#Operational_history
    https://www.super-hobby.com/zdjecia/6/6/5/2385_3atr5c.jpg
    That's less than the E-2C/D:
    Maximum speed: 350 knots (648 km/h or 402 MPH)
    Cruise speed: 256 knots (474 km/h or 294 MPH)
    Ferry range: 1,462 nmi (2,708 km or 1,682 mi)
    Endurance: 6 hr Service ceiling: 34,700 ft (10,576 m)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_E-2_Hawkeye#Specifications_(E-2C/D)
    But they r working on the Xian JZY-01/Y-7
    Carrier-based AWACS variant. JZY stands for Jian (舰) Zai (载) Yu (预), meaning carrier borne AEW, has 4 rudders like E-2 AEW
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xian_Y-7
    I'm sure Russia will have the Yak-44-like plane before the 1st new TAKR/N is ready.
    The cancellation of the Yak-44 program doesn’t necessarily mean that the aircraft is completely dead. With a set of updates including a newer, more powerful sensor system, higher capacity datalinks and the ability to direct and control autonomous and semi-autonomous drones, the Yak-44 could actually make a comeback with Russian naval aviation as a replacement to their Ka-31 AEW rig, increasing the versatility of a future carrier air wing. The Yak-44 isn’t a very out-of-date concept either, though they might want to reconsider changing the original complex powerplant system to a turboprop setup, which tends to be a little easier on wear and tear and maintenance. However, even if the Yak-44 is the more wallet-friendly option to the jet-powered alternative, price will still be a major issue. Considering that Russia has drastically scaled back its military modernization programs with major cuts imposed on its new aviation procurement regimen, and the fact that the country’s economy is on shaky footing, Russian naval aviation might not even have a suitable carrier available for the Yak-44 to operate off. Then again, considering that the Russian Navy wishes to begin construction on the Shtorm carrier by 2030, Russia’s economic fortunes could change for the better, so as to provide for the carrier and all its necessary components.
    https://tacairnet.com/2015/07/20/could-the-yak-44-make-a-comeback-for-russias-next-carrier/
    Its Performance could exceed the E-2:
    Maximum speed: 740 km/h (460 mph)
    Range: 4,000 km (2,486 mi)
    Service ceiling: 13,000 m (42,650 ft)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-44#Specifications_(Yak-44E
    Or it could be a radically new design:
    The airplane is based on the V-tailed low-wing design. The wing’s central part has radar-transparent front and back edges and is narrower than wingtips.
    "The wing’s central part is narrow so that antennas mounted in its front and back edges ensure round scanning", state the patent docs.
    According to developers, the jet’s design expands the round monitoring zone limited only by antennas’ characteristics, reduces radar signature, gives the unobstructed crew ejection capability and easy access to antennas.
    Moreover, the airplane’s configuration allows for a UAV designing. Jet engines can be equipped with afterburners for STOL or ski-jump capability http://mil.today/2017/Weapons85/
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:06 am

    Deicing may not work fast enough against ice buildup.

    They would have enormous amounts of power ready to run through those cats... do you think they might forget the demisters too?

    Future STOVL may be a lot less fragile.

    Why would they be less fragile? Hope?

    To take off or land vertically they need high pressure gas tubes taking air from the engine to both wing tips and the tail and nose of the aircraft... gas tubes that could easily freeze over in cold temperatures BTW.

    I'm sure Russia will have the Yak-44-like plane before the 1st new TAKR/N is ready.

    Without cats and with STOVL aircraft there will be no naval AWACS... I suspect they would be too expensive anyway... the Russian Navy tends to be cheap.

    The Russians are developing new radar technology that can be surface skin based, so an external rotating antenna would make little sense....
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:44 pm



    Very interesting video.

    At 0:48 we see a message which translation, if I'm not wrong, would be:

    "The construction of the newest Russian aircraft carrier will take place between 2019 and 2025

    by 2030 should be in the ranks"
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door


    Posts : 1281
    Points : 1337
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  The-thing-next-door Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:59 pm

    "The construction of the newest Russian aircraft carrier will take place between 2019 and 2025

    by 2030 should be in the ranks"

    It takes 5 years for the Russian navy to commission a single ship? Wow that is some impressive lazyness.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:24 pm

    That's a promotional video, after India rejected the Storm CVN, they still hope the government will order it & make it sound like it's a done deal. The USSR ordered Varyag & Ulyanovsk TAKRs but after its breakup the RF ended up only with Adm. K., with only 1 combat deployment to date.
    "The construction ..will take place between 2019 and 2025.. by 2030 [it] should be in the ranks"- in other words: as of today, they don't even know the year of the start of construction & thus guessing the deadline! U can't put words "should be in the ranks" in a bank!
    To me, it'll become real only after it's commissioned & the 1st watches r set!
    The new AWACS may not even need any CAT (2 in the waist won't exclude the ski-jmp for STOVL either!):
    Jet engines can be equipped with afterburners for STOL or ski-jump capability. http://mil.today/2017/Weapons85/
    Their navy isn't that cheap, even by the Western standards; its rather full of hybrid/multi-role boats, ships & subs, now more than ever; I don't see any reason why it won't continue to be so for decades to come!
    They may indeed arm icebreakers with LACMs, the TAKRNs may be called on to protect them in the Arctic (sorry, can't quote it):
    http://aviationweek.com/defense/russia-s-doomsday-torpedo-third-strike-weapon?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180125_AW-05_854&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000001576407&utm_campaign=13353&utm_medium=email&elq2=621aca7f82474dc08c5153c874e07314
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 11301
    Points : 11271
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Isos Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:08 am

    Ulyanovsk has a decent design too bad they didn't finish the hull at time they would have had a very good basis for finishing a carrier today with new equipement and puting it into service. But if they started the work it means the r&d was finished so they can always build it if they don't want shtorm and want to have it quickly.

    At least russian won't make the mistake of the british of puting the ski jump at end of the runway. They are stuck with the stovl version of the f-35 for at least 30 years. Another bad point of stovl vtol fighters: carriers are adapted to them and it's hard to improve it with normal fighters specialy when they will find out that f-35 is as good as harrier lol1 lol1
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:46 am

    1 important detail:
    Ulyanovsk would have been able to launch the full range of fixed-wing carrier aircraft, as it was equipped with two catapults as well as a ski jump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_aircraft_carrier_Ulyanovsk

    Project 23000E Storm is supposed to have
    Angled flight deck with four launching positions
    two on the ski-jump ramp and two electromagnetic catapults)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_23000E

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 23000-line2
    So, both r still hybrid ships - why retain a ski-jump instead of installing 2 additional catapults? Maybe too risky &/expensive or not enough el. power even with NP? In any case, STOVLs won't be incompatible or detrimental on it!
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Fri Jan 26, 2018 6:08 am

    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    "The construction of the newest Russian aircraft carrier will take place between 2019 and 2025

    by 2030 should be in the ranks"

    It takes 5 years for the Russian navy to commission a single ship? Wow that is some impressive lazyness.

    Obviously not, but the most important part of the message is the first part, 2019 and 2025. Is not casual. 2019 is a well adjusted data and 2025 marks a very ambitious timeline, taking advantage of the low need of replacement of other ships in the period. The works can begin in some part of the shipyard despite to be not totally finished until 2020 (the shipyard).

    To note that the ship can be ordered by 2019 under the State Armament Program 2011-2020. Something that I see likely, as said before.

    Today the most important projects for the Russian Armed Forces (like the Tu-160) go hardly inside the timeline.

    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3679
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Fri Jan 26, 2018 7:51 am

    eehnie wrote:
    The-thing-next-door wrote:
    "The construction of the newest Russian aircraft carrier will take place between 2019 and 2025

    by 2030 should be in the ranks"

    It takes 5 years for the Russian navy to commission a single ship? Wow that is some impressive lazyness.

    Obviously not, but the most important part of the message is the first part, 2019 and 2025. Is not casual. 2019 is a well adjusted data and 2025 marks a very ambitious timeline, taking advantage of the low need of replacement of other ships in the period. The works can begin in some part of the shipyard despite to be not totally finished until 2020 (the shipyard).

    To note that the ship can be ordered by 2019 under the State Armament Program 2011-2020. Something that I see likely, as said before.

    Today the most important projects for the Russian Armed Forces (like the Tu-160) go hardly inside the timeline.


    Lol that was a promotional video....but that is somehow evidence now.

    that video was made back when they wanted the Indians to buy the ship that video was made to sell that class of carrier to their navy holy hell.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 38970
    Points : 39466
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Jan 26, 2018 8:12 am

    It takes 5 years for the Russian navy to commission a single ship? Wow that is some impressive lazyness.

    It takes 15 years plus to design from scratch and then build and put into operation a medium or heavy aircraft carrier.

    So, both r still hybrid ships - why retain a ski-jump instead of installing 2 additional catapults? Maybe too risky &/expensive or not enough el. power even with NP? In any case, STOVLs won't be incompatible or detrimental on it!

    The primary purpose of a Russian carrier is to rapidly launch fighter aircraft to intercept targets and patrol the air space around the surface action group.

    Ski jumps are all you need to get most 5th gen fighters airborne with a full load of fuel and enough AAMs to deal with any threat.

    A cat system will allow you to get a heavy AWACS aircraft airborne and having two available means you can launch heavily loaded AWACS aircraft to extend the vision of the group, heavily loaded refuelling aircraft to further extend flight range of the fighter aircraft, and to launch heavily loaded transport aircraft to transfer or load supplies a little faster.

    The cat system would likely allow the 5th gen light fighter to take off with two Zircon missiles under its wings as well as a full fuel load.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Fri Jan 26, 2018 11:05 am

    If you want to read to US people about aircraft carriers, better if you read them talking about their own fleet, than about what Russia needs.

    There is a recent interesting study about different options of aircraft carriers for the US:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

    Aircraft Carrier Variants Considered

    Our  assessment  of  carrier  alternatives  and  their  operational  effective-ness considered four ship concept variants:

    •a follow-on variant continuing the current 100,000-ton Ford-class carrier but with two life-of-the-ship reactors and other equipment and system changes to reduce cost (CVN 8X)

    •a  70,000-ton  USS  Forrestal–size  carrier  with  an  updated  flight  deck  and  hybrid  nuclear-powered  integrated  propulsion  plant  with  capability  to  embark  the  current  large  integrated  air  wing  but  with  reduced  sortie  generation  capability,  survivability,  ship  speed, and endurance compared with the Ford class (CVN LX)

    •a  43,000-ton  variant  of  the  USS  America–class,  fossil  fuel–powered and arranged to support only STOVL operations but at a higher tempo than the current LHA 6 (USS America) (CV LX).1This  variant  would  incorporate  the  larger  ship’s  beam  excursion  that  the  Navy  examined  in  the  USS  Bougainville–class  flight  1  studies.2

    •a 20,000-ton variant that will resemble escort carriers that some allied navies currently operate (CV EX). Similar to the 43,000-ton  variant,  it  will  be  conventionally  powered  and  will  operate  STOVL aircraft.

    1 We depart from the Navy’s convention of using the LH designation for STOVL support platforms. We use CV to ensure that it is clear that these proposed variants are replacements for the current CVN force.
    2 Naval  Sea  Systems  Command  (NAVSEA)  general-purpose  amphibious  assault  ship  (LHA)  flight  1  studies  examined  alternatives  of  the  LHA  design  for  the  USS  Bougainville (LHA 8 ) AoA. NAVSEA, Surface Ship Design and Systems Engineering, provided the data.

    These choices were consistent with congressional language in the FY  2016  National  Defense  Authorization  Act.3

    Capability Conclusions for Concept Variants Examined

    Focusing on warfighting capabilities of the concept variants examined, a  lower-cost  Ford-class  carrier  (CVN  8X)  might  offer  an  alternative  with little diminishment in warfighting capability and retention of the overall  POR.  However,  the  study’s  excursion  examining  the  business  case for a life-of-the-ship reactor core, such as that now in the POR for all submarine classes, did not significantly lower cost. The Navy might want to consider Ford-class cost drivers that only marginally improve capability  in  light  of  the  observation  that,  in  general,  the  maximum  SGR levels and survivability attributes might be more-viable trade-offs with the current concept of operations than that in effect when the ini-tial KPPs were validated. It is likely, in any case, that Ford-class carriers in the POR will continue to evolve to reduce procurement cost to some extent with some risk-based capability trade-offs, and it might be tech-nically feasible, at some point in the future, for a transition to an IPS, for example. The department and Congress might also move to acquire these carriers in increased orders of quantity to yield cost savings. But there is certainly a limit in the cost “floor” for the Ford-class carriers, and their warfighting capacity, as set in the initial requirements, comes with a cost.

    One approach, such as the CVN LX concept variant, might offer significant  procurement  cost  savings  with  an  integrated,  current  air  wing  with  capabilities  near  current  levels  but  with  less  organic  mission endurance for weapons and aviation fuel. It will not have the same SGR  as  the  Ford class,  but  this  might  not  be  a  significant  limitation  for many of the warfighting scenarios. It will be less survivable in some environments than the Ford POR ship, will have less redundancy than the Ford class, and will degrade in mission execution more rapidly with damage or loss of systems, and these factors might drive different oper-ation  concepts.  The  major  means  of  reducing  cost  is  through  loss  in  engineering redundancy, speed, and air wing fuel capacity, and these trade-offs could affect mobility and theater closure.

    The  concept  variant  CV  LX,  which  pursues  a  larger  version  of  the LHA 6 platforms, might be a low-risk, alternative pathway for the Navy to reduce carrier costs if such a variant were procured in greater numbers, as presented in our analysis. Over the long term, however, as the current carrier force is retired, CV LX would not be a viable option as  the  eventual  carrier  force  unless  displaced  capabilities  were  reas-signed to new aircraft or platforms in the joint force, which would be costly. This platform would be feasible for a subset of carrier missions but, even for those missions, could require an increase in the number of platforms. This concept variant might, if procured in sufficient num-bers,  eventually  enable  the  Navy  to  reduce  the  number  of  Ford-class carriers  in  the  overall  force  structure,  but  more-extensive  analysis  of  missions, operations, and basing of such a variant and the supported air combat element are required.

    The smallest concept variants reviewed, the 20,000-ton sea-based platforms, do not provide either a significant capacity or an integrated air  wing  and,  thus,  force  reliance  on  other  legacy  platforms  or  land-based  assets  to  provide  key  elements  of  capability—in  particular,  AEW. As such, this concept variant is not really a replacement for cur-rent aircraft carrier capability to much degree and would require other platforms, aircraft, weapons, and capabilities in the joint force. These platforms  would  be  a  viable  pathway  only  in  broad  fleet  architecture  transformation providing a narrow mission set perhaps regionally and would require extensive analysis. Given that such a concept variant is not a viable replacement of an aircraft carrier, such analysis would be required to see whether any adjustment of the current aircraft carrier program would be feasible.A  decision  to  use  either  of  the  smaller  concept  variants  would  require a revision of fleet concepts of operations, a refocusing of aircraft procurement to more STOVL strike fighters, and a larger force struc-ture to keep the same number of aircraft in the stressing fights. Neither variant would be effective in warfighting scenarios if it is the first on scene before the arrival of units possessing AEW, airborne C2, and EA.

    Cost Conclusions for Concept Variants Examined

    If  CVN  8X  results  in  small  impact  on  capability,  it  also  might  have  only incremental reduction in overall platform cost. The analysis examining cost reduction with transition to a life-of-the-ship reactor, such as that being done on submarine programs, does not appear to be cost-effective. Between the developmental costs and a reduced service life, there is little cost advantage in this variant. Forgoing the requirement for  mid-life  refueling  work  scope  and  some  reduction  in  the  mid-life  modernization overhaul could add some operational flexibility, but the life-of-the-ship  reactor  path  might  not  be  beneficial  from  a  business  case perspective absent technical breakthroughs. We did not examine the technical aspect of such an approach.

    The CVN LX concept would allow considerable savings across the ship’s service life and appears to be a viable alternative to consider for further concept exploration. Construction costs would be lower; design changes  and  life-cycle  costs  would  reflect  the  lessons  already  applied  in  the  Ford class.  The  reliance  on  hybrid  drive  with  fewer  mechani-cal parts than legacy platforms is likely to further reduce maintenance costs. However, CVN LX would be a new design that would require a significant investment in NRE in the near term to allow timely deliv-ery in the 2030s. The scope and resultant timeline for this concept vari-ant  development,  if  determined  to  be  feasible  and  acceptable,  would  likely  move  any  transition  to  the  mid-2030s,  where  the  USS  Ranger(CVN 82) of the Ford class now resides. That said, over time, the cost savings accumulate, and such a transition might present an alternative pathway to lower procurement costs in the medium term.

    CV LX, although it requires a larger force structure, might still reduce overall construction costs if large carrier numbers were reduced. But, as described previously, reducing carrier numbers with the resulting  loss  of  capability  should  not  be  pursued  without  extensive  further analysis for all displaced missions in the joint force execution of warfighting  scenarios  and,  potentially,  regional  basing  and  narrowly  focused  missions  for  these  platforms.  Any  cost  savings  from  reduc-tion  in  the  aircraft  carrier  POR  procurement  would  likely  be  offset  to an unknown degree by a requirement for additional replenishment capacity; a shift in the procurement plan for strike fighters and other platforms;  forward  basing  for  these  platforms;  or  the  costs  needed  to  develop  or  procure  joint  capability  for  displaced  organic  AEW,  EA,  and airborne C2 capability in the current CVW.

    At the end of the report it is possible to see the letters that the US Navy send to the chairs of the US Senate and US Congres committees affected saying:

    ...

    RAND studied four notional aircraft carrier variants: 20,000, 43,000, 70,000 and 100,000+ tons displacement.

    ...

    Specifically, the two smaller variants (20,000 and 43,000 tons) would not meet current operational requirements, and would require new aircraft types and alternate concepts of operations

    ...

    Navy concludes that 70,000 ton variant has numerous engineering challenges that question its feasibility.

    ...
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:28 pm

    It will be interesting if any future Chinese CVNs will retain a ski-jump- & we won't wait that long to find that out!
    RAND Corporation ("Research ANd Development") is an American nonprofit global policy think tank created in 1948 by Douglas Aircraft Company to offer research and analysis to the United States Armed Forces. It is financed by the U.S. government and private endowment, corporations, universities and private individuals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Corporation

    This research was sponsored by the Assessment Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.
    RAND reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html
    How can they be 100% objective while being sponsored by the USN & corporations, many of whom involved in building CVNs? I see a conflict of interest here! The tail wags the dog!
    The study assumes the same global policeman's role for the USA with frequent armed interventions; in all of them after WWII except in the '10 in Libya, CB/SGs were crucial &/ on a par with the AF. That role may change or be adjusted under President Trump &/ his successors.
    In any case, for "the 2nd most powerful navy" which the RF VMF aspires to be, this study is irrelevant- the doctrinal, historical, economic, & technological context is totally different!

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4640
    Points : 4632
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:56 am

    eehnie wrote:RAND studied four notional aircraft carrier variants: 20,000, 43,000, 70,000 and 100,000+ tons displacement.

    Specifically, the two smaller variants (20,000 and 43,000 tons) would not meet current operational requirements, and would require new aircraft types and alternate concepts of operations

    Navy concludes that 70,000 ton variant has numerous engineering challenges that question its feasibility.

    Yeah, no surprises...  the MIC Corporate establishment and the USN brass who have a huge raging hard-on for their mega-toys don't favour smaller ships to replace their 100kT flat-tops.  Golly, who'd of thunk it?...

    In other news, the Vatican publicly disavows the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the validity of the Pastafarian religion.  Razz

    Seriously though, the Ford class Uber-mega-super-duper-floating-Pax-Amerikana-phallic_symbols are almost perfect weapons.  All they lack is a giant red bullseye on the sides of the hulls adjacent the reactor compartments, ammo stores and fuel tanks with giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... Twisted Evil
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13271
    Points : 13313
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:25 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:.....giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... 

    Okay, this was usual dull RDN yapping about carriers among usual suspects until this part when it instantly became fucking epic!!!  lol1  thumbsup
    You just won the internet  russia
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:36 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:RAND studied four notional aircraft carrier variants: 20,000, 43,000, 70,000 and 100,000+ tons displacement.

    Specifically, the two smaller variants (20,000 and 43,000 tons) would not meet current operational requirements, and would require new aircraft types and alternate concepts of operations

    Navy concludes that 70,000 ton variant has numerous engineering challenges that question its feasibility.

    Yeah, no surprises...  the MIC Corporate establishment and the USN brass who have a huge raging hard-on for their mega-toys don't favour smaller ships to replace their 100kT flat-tops.  Golly, who'd of thunk it?...

    In other news, the Vatican publicly disavows the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the validity of the Pastafarian religion.  Razz

    Seriously though, the Ford class Uber-mega-super-duper-floating-Pax-Amerikana-phallic_symbols are almost perfect weapons.  All they lack is a giant red bullseye on the sides of the hulls adjacent the reactor compartments, ammo stores and fuel tanks with giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... Twisted Evil

    Are the smaller inmune to Zircons or what?
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion


    Posts : 5815
    Points : 5771
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Tsavo Lion Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:46 pm

    Not immune to any HS Zircons, LRASM & torpedoes but if u built CVNs for le$$, more of them can be had in a given time & therefore deployed & harder to deal with; putting all eggs in 1 basket leads to another Pearl Harbor- like disaster! Putin knows that big CVNs can bankrupt Russia- her flag can be carried by smaller ships just as far & as well!
    Russia has demonstrated that it can use numerous small vessels to deploy a powerful long-range weapon, an example of a “distributed” force structure. The idea is that in an age of increasingly lethal and longer-range missiles, it may be wiser to spread out firepower across multiple smaller and expendable platforms, rather than put all the eggs in one large, expensive and vulnerable basket.
    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-enemies-fear-the-kalibr-cruise-missile-19129?page=show
    Arming the NP icebreakers would be a very smart move- they can keep doing NSR convoys & be ready to launch Kaliber CMs from wherever they r! It's only 4,000 km (2,485 miles) from Russian archipelago Severnaya Zemlya,.. to Resolute Bay in Canada https://phys.org/news/2013-05-russians-russia-canada-north-pole.html#jCp

    From C. Columbia, Ellesmere Island, Canada to the N Pole= 769km;
    From Cape Fligely, Rudolf Island, RF to N Pole =911km;
    From Arctic Cape, Severnaya Zemlya, RF to N Pole =981km
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_the_Arctic
    So, from RF to Canada across the N Pole is 769+911=1,680km & 769+981=1,750km. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_points_of_the_Arctic

    The icebreakers, their helos & subs will be even closer to their targets & their CM range will be enough to cover those distances:
    ..the Kalibr cruise missiles can ..hit sea targets up to 350 kilometers away and ground targets more than 2,500 kilometers away. https://sputniknews.com/russia/201510121028390749-russia-kalibr-missile/
    avatar
    Peŕrier


    Posts : 275
    Points : 273
    Join date : 2017-10-15

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Peŕrier Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:29 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:
    eehnie wrote:

    Seriously though, the Ford class Uber-mega-super-duper-floating-Pax-Amerikana-phallic_symbols are almost perfect weapons.  All they lack is a giant red bullseye on the sides of the hulls adjacent the reactor compartments, ammo stores and fuel tanks with giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... Twisted Evil

    It's quite unlikely, being the reactors and all related equipment located well below the waterline.

    Unless Zircon can swim, it has almost zero chances to reach a CVN's reactor.

    And even if it could swim, past the outer hull, in itself already hard as an IFV armour, there would be around ten meters of armoured bulkheads and service spaces to overcome before reaching the reactors' compartment.

    I think people do not realize that a CVN is designed like an underground bunker.

    Most if not all of its vital systems are nearly impossible to reach, a mission kill is well possible, but sinking it would be very very hard, and nearly impossible with a single hit, whatever its yeld.

    A modern carrier is far far tougher than the best battleships from second world war, and decades of damage assessments and analysis coupled with modern CAD and simulation tools enable naval engineers to predict quite well most of the likely damages that present and foreseen future ordnance could inflict.
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 13271
    Points : 13313
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:11 am

    eehnie wrote:.......
    Are the smaller inmune to Zircons or what?

    No but when carrier gets inevitably blown out of the water navy operating smaller ones will lose fewer men, aircraft and shekels than Navy that operates massive ones.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15129
    Points : 15266
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kvs Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:52 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:.......
    Are the smaller inmune to Zircons or what?

    No but when carrier gets inevitably blown out of the water navy operating smaller ones will lose fewer men, aircraft and shekels than Navy that operates massive ones.

    In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket. Having two smaller carriers instead of one big one increases survivablity and
    also flexibility.

    But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against. It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.
    KomissarBojanchev
    KomissarBojanchev


    Posts : 1429
    Points : 1584
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 26
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev Sun Jan 28, 2018 4:54 am

    But apparently oil tankers are more important for Russia than CVs so no matter how they're designed their isn't anywhere to build them Rolling Eyes
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:09 am

    kvs wrote:
    PapaDragon wrote:
    eehnie wrote:.......
    Are the smaller inmune to Zircons or what?

    No but when carrier gets inevitably blown out of the water navy operating smaller ones will lose fewer men, aircraft and shekels than Navy that operates massive ones.

    In other words, don't put all your eggs in one basket.   Having two smaller carriers instead of one big one increases survivablity and
    also flexibility.    

    But I still do not see who Russia is supposed to use air craft carriers against.   It does not have colonies and it is not looking for any.



    But there is a problem with that, and the study put it clearly. Not only smaller aircraft carriers have lower performance to meet missions, they have also lower survability. In other words, it is clearly easier to lose a smaller aircraft carrier than to lose bigger aircraft carriers. To say it more clearly, there are situations where a smaller aircraft carrier would be lost, but a bigger aircraft carrier can survive.

    And that is said for the 70000 tons option (marked in blue to see it easily), the gap is fairly bigger still for the smallest options.



    eehnie wrote:If you want to read to US people about aircraft carriers, better if you read them talking about their own fleet, than about what Russia needs.

    There is a recent interesting study about different options of aircraft carriers for the US:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

    Aircraft Carrier Variants Considered

    Our  assessment  of  carrier  alternatives  and  their  operational  effective-ness considered four ship concept variants:

    •a follow-on variant continuing the current 100,000-ton Ford-class carrier but with two life-of-the-ship reactors and other equipment and system changes to reduce cost (CVN 8X)

    •a  70,000-ton  USS  Forrestal–size  carrier  with  an  updated  flight  deck  and  hybrid  nuclear-powered  integrated  propulsion  plant  with  capability  to  embark  the  current  large  integrated  air  wing  but  with  reduced  sortie  generation  capability,  survivability,  ship  speed, and endurance compared with the Ford class (CVN LX)

    •a  43,000-ton  variant  of  the  USS  America–class,  fossil  fuel–powered and arranged to support only STOVL operations but at a higher tempo than the current LHA 6 (USS America) (CV LX).1This  variant  would  incorporate  the  larger  ship’s  beam  excursion  that  the  Navy  examined  in  the  USS  Bougainville–class  flight  1  studies.2

    •a 20,000-ton variant that will resemble escort carriers that some allied navies currently operate (CV EX). Similar to the 43,000-ton  variant,  it  will  be  conventionally  powered  and  will  operate  STOVL aircraft.

    1 We depart from the Navy’s convention of using the LH designation for STOVL support platforms. We use CV to ensure that it is clear that these proposed variants are replacements for the current CVN force.
    2 Naval  Sea  Systems  Command  (NAVSEA)  general-purpose  amphibious  assault  ship  (LHA)  flight  1  studies  examined  alternatives  of  the  LHA  design  for  the  USS  Bougainville (LHA 8 ) AoA. NAVSEA, Surface Ship Design and Systems Engineering, provided the data.

    These choices were consistent with congressional language in the FY  2016  National  Defense  Authorization  Act.3

    Capability Conclusions for Concept Variants Examined

    Focusing on warfighting capabilities of the concept variants examined, a  lower-cost  Ford-class  carrier  (CVN  8X)  might  offer  an  alternative  with little diminishment in warfighting capability and retention of the overall  POR.  However,  the  study’s  excursion  examining  the  business  case for a life-of-the-ship reactor core, such as that now in the POR for all submarine classes, did not significantly lower cost. The Navy might want to consider Ford-class cost drivers that only marginally improve capability  in  light  of  the  observation  that,  in  general,  the  maximum  SGR levels and survivability attributes might be more-viable trade-offs with the current concept of operations than that in effect when the ini-tial KPPs were validated. It is likely, in any case, that Ford-class carriers in the POR will continue to evolve to reduce procurement cost to some extent with some risk-based capability trade-offs, and it might be tech-nically feasible, at some point in the future, for a transition to an IPS, for example. The department and Congress might also move to acquire these carriers in increased orders of quantity to yield cost savings. But there is certainly a limit in the cost “floor” for the Ford-class carriers, and their warfighting capacity, as set in the initial requirements, comes with a cost.

    One approach, such as the CVN LX concept variant, might offer significant  procurement  cost  savings  with  an  integrated,  current  air  wing  with  capabilities  near  current  levels  but  with  less  organic  mission endurance for weapons and aviation fuel. It will not have the same SGR  as  the  Ford class,  but  this  might  not  be  a  significant  limitation  for many of the warfighting scenarios. It will be less survivable in some environments than the Ford POR ship, will have less redundancy than the Ford class, and will degrade in mission execution more rapidly with damage or loss of systems, and these factors might drive different oper-ation  concepts.  The  major  means  of  reducing  cost  is  through  loss  in  engineering redundancy, speed, and air wing fuel capacity, and these trade-offs could affect mobility and theater closure.

    The  concept  variant  CV  LX,  which  pursues  a  larger  version  of  the LHA 6 platforms, might be a low-risk, alternative pathway for the Navy to reduce carrier costs if such a variant were procured in greater numbers, as presented in our analysis. Over the long term, however, as the current carrier force is retired, CV LX would not be a viable option as  the  eventual  carrier  force  unless  displaced  capabilities  were  reas-signed to new aircraft or platforms in the joint force, which would be costly. This platform would be feasible for a subset of carrier missions but, even for those missions, could require an increase in the number of platforms. This concept variant might, if procured in sufficient num-bers,  eventually  enable  the  Navy  to  reduce  the  number  of  Ford-class carriers  in  the  overall  force  structure,  but  more-extensive  analysis  of  missions, operations, and basing of such a variant and the supported air combat element are required.

    The smallest concept variants reviewed, the 20,000-ton sea-based platforms, do not provide either a significant capacity or an integrated air  wing  and,  thus,  force  reliance  on  other  legacy  platforms  or  land-based  assets  to  provide  key  elements  of  capability—in  particular,  AEW. As such, this concept variant is not really a replacement for cur-rent aircraft carrier capability to much degree and would require other platforms, aircraft, weapons, and capabilities in the joint force. These platforms  would  be  a  viable  pathway  only  in  broad  fleet  architecture  transformation providing a narrow mission set perhaps regionally and would require extensive analysis. Given that such a concept variant is not a viable replacement of an aircraft carrier, such analysis would be required to see whether any adjustment of the current aircraft carrier program would be feasible.A  decision  to  use  either  of  the  smaller  concept  variants  would  require a revision of fleet concepts of operations, a refocusing of aircraft procurement to more STOVL strike fighters, and a larger force struc-ture to keep the same number of aircraft in the stressing fights. Neither variant would be effective in warfighting scenarios if it is the first on scene before the arrival of units possessing AEW, airborne C2, and EA.



    Talking about smaller aircraft carriers for Russia, we are talking about lower performance and lower survability. And this is what pro-Western commenters want for Russia.
    eehnie
    eehnie


    Posts : 2425
    Points : 2428
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  eehnie Sun Jan 28, 2018 5:31 am

    Peŕrier wrote:
    Big_Gazza wrote:

    Seriously though, the Ford class Uber-mega-super-duper-floating-Pax-Amerikana-phallic_symbols are almost perfect weapons.  All they lack is a giant red bullseye on the sides of the hulls adjacent the reactor compartments, ammo stores and fuel tanks with giant Cyrillic letters "Insert Zircon here".... Twisted Evil

    It's quite unlikely, being the reactors and all related equipment located well below the waterline.

    Unless Zircon can swim, it has almost zero chances to reach a CVN's reactor.

    And even if it could swim, past the outer hull, in itself already hard as an IFV armour, there would be around ten meters of armoured bulkheads and service spaces to overcome before reaching the reactors' compartment.

    I think people do not realize that a CVN is designed like an underground bunker.

    Most if not all of its vital systems are nearly impossible to reach, a mission kill is well possible, but sinking it would be very very hard, and nearly impossible with a single hit, whatever its yeld.

    A modern carrier is far far tougher than the best battleships from second world war, and decades of damage assessments and analysis coupled with modern CAD and simulation tools enable naval engineers to predict quite well most of the likely damages that present and foreseen future ordnance could inflict.

    We saw recently ships far smaller still on surface after serious missile hits.

    When the posted study is talking about lower redundancies in smaller aircraft carriers is talking in part about the structural security systems of the ships, and also is talking about other active systems of defense like the aircrafts.
    kvs
    kvs


    Posts : 15129
    Points : 15266
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Turdope's Kanada

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  kvs Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:15 am

    BS. One target has less survivability compared to two. That is physics and not forum onanism.

    Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.

    One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster. That would actually
    be a clear advantage.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov


    Posts : 3699
    Points : 3679
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  SeigSoloyvov Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:33 am

    kvs wrote:BS.   One target has less survivability compared to two.   That is physics and not forum onanism.

    Let's recall that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks anyway without their support ships.  

    One of the things they can do with smaller carriers is to make them faster.   That would actually
    be a clear advantage.  

    Not really since two carriers no matter what size can easily be attacked, at the same time.

    You need alot more then two to make them harder to sink if your plan is "Make so many the enemy has to distribute their Anti-ship weapons more across the globe to counter all the carriers"

    which is the only logic to that defense and two strike groups are harder to maintain than one since that one carrier requires it's own dedicated escort and submarines. you will never find an AC out in the open ocean without support ships.

    No Smaller carriers would go the same speed, smaller the carrier smaller it's propulsion, which makes it slower. Bigger carriers have MUCH bigger propulsions, A smaller carrier could turn faster sure but go faster in a straight line? nope.

    I spent time on flattops,

    Sponsored content


    Future russian aircraft carriers. #2 - Page 8 Empty Re: Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Apr 25, 2024 12:36 am