Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

"Not if Russia decides to take over New Zealand to save private Garry B. :-) or Falklands. then you need own AWACS to direct your Kinzhals"
Nope. MiG-31s carrying them & their MiG-31/Su-30/33/35/57 escorts can act as mini AWACS by themselves. Using onboard radars, 4 of them can sweep 800km area. Future long endurance/range tiltrotors & drones may be designed to do the same.
To be fair, if access to Nikolaev shipyard is granted, they may build new CV/Ns sooner. I bet that by 2025, if not sooner, there'll be a regime change in Kiev & Russia will seize to be treated as an enemy state there. Then that shipyard will be put to good use again.

What for ? Buy them 300 million dollars to watch them destroy your 10 billion carrier ?

Just like a large cruise missile attack, being able to see the threat early enough means you are better able to defend yourself.

without AWACS you are limited to the horizon, which means you wont know what hit you...

Or maybe you mean to have the awacs on your side to help the missile find their targets ? You can use il-38 and A-100 for that.

What makes you think aircraft will be safe if carriers are not?

Why do you think Carriers have ever been safe?

AWACS.... A for Airborne... W for warning... C for control... in other words... being in the air... detecting threats and targets, and controlling forces in defence and attack.

Why do you think you don't need that?

KORNET... are you demanding everyone stop making tanks and armoured vehicles?

I mean what is the point... a Kornet can destroy an IFV from 8.5km... IFVs wont even know they are being attacked until it is too late... so don't bother making IFVs right?

The new swarm method is cool at the moment so use a swarm attack where all your infantry soldiers walk towards the enemy positions... they will run out of Kornets before you run out of infantrymen...

Carriers are vulnerable to attack, but they are less vulnerable than a surface group without a carrier operating with it.

The USSR lost the race to the Moon even though it launched Sputnik & the 1st man & later, a 1st woman into space.

The USSR beat the US in every race to space except for putting a man on the moon... but after getting someone into space and into orbit getting to the moon just took money to solve. They landed on the moon first... they got to the moon first, they took the first picture of the far side of the moon which had never been seen before by man... the only step the US won was getting a human being there.

I am not really impressed by the US achievement of getting people to the moon... especially using Nazis to do so...

It takes a decade at least for Russia to build a frigate sized ship. They should have engine ready by then. Sitting idle is idiotic.

If they can't solve engine problems in another decade then why bother?

Well they are 50 years behind the west in technology don't you know...  

But please explain why US rockets to space use Russian engines... what is that all about?

Can't they build their own?

Do they not know how to build rocket motors any more?

Maybe, despite their enormous economic power they don't think making their own rockets is important... they could always spend the money if they wanted, so why don't they?

Perhaps when Soviet destroyers and other vessels need to be withdrawn they might start building larger ships, but for the moment it is the smaller ships that need replacing first... smaller ships have shorter life spans and need replacement more often.

Nope. MiG-31s carrying them & their MiG-31/Su-30/33/35/57 escorts can act as mini AWACS by themselves. Using onboard radars, 4 of them can sweep 800km area. Future long endurance/range tiltrotors & drones may be designed to do the same.

A Mig-31 would not have the range to fly to New Zealand... you would need an aircraft carrier to get here at the bottom of the Pacific...

To be fair, if access to Nikolaev shipyard is granted, they may build new CV/Ns sooner. I bet that by 2025, if not sooner, there'll be a regime change in Kiev & Russia will seize to be treated as an enemy state there. Then that shipyard will be put to good use again.

Wake up my friend... Russia already has a shipyard in the far east that has been upgraded to build large ships (up to 350 thousand ton tankers if needed), why on earth would they ever consider building a carrier in the Ukraine?

It would cost 20 billion dollars just to upgrade the shipyard let alone build anything... the best use Russia could put that shipyard to is target practise.

Regarding carriers... they take 15 years to develop from scratch so talking about them now makes sense, but complaining there are no support ships makes no sense either because generally they don't take 15 years to develop.... Russia already has two Kirov based ships to operate with carriers, so they just need 4-6 destroyers... and they have 15 years to build them...

China would have to give a green light for Russia to take NZ, & Australia will need to be watched/attacked too to prevent her interference. Thus, MiGs & SUs will be using SC Sea/Indonesian bases & refueled in the air. It's the small world! But frankly SSN/SSGNs + Tu-95s/160s can take out all NZ power stations, bases, etc. with LACMs even w/o Kinzhals! The same goes for Falklands & S. Georgia. They'll be happy to help Argentina to take them if only to make London miserable! Afterwards, getting access to bases on them won't hart either!

You are to reasonable for this discussion, Gunship.

Russian shipbuilders to present designs of new aircraft carrier by year end

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said
Share

MOSCOW, May 16. /TASS/. The United Ship-Building Corporation will present several finalized preliminary designs of a new domestic aircraft carrier to the Defense Ministry by the end of this year, a source in the defense sector told TASS on Wednesday.

If one of the designs is approved, the experimental design work on the new aircraft carrier may begin in 2019, the source said.

"The United Ship-Building Corporation has been instructed to submit its finalized proposals [on the new aircraft carrier] to the Defense Ministry for examination by the end of the year. One of the versions envisage, in particular, building an aircraft carrier with a displacement of 75,000 tonnes," the source said.

If one of the designs is approved, "the ship’s technical designing and the preparation of the design documentation may begin from 2019 and the aircraft carrier may be laid down in 2021-2022 and its construction will last about 10 years, according to preliminary estimates," the source explained.

Russia’s state armament program for 2018-2027 stipulates "initial financing" under the new carrier’s program.

The United Ship-Building Corporation did not comment for TASS on the information provided by the source.

The Russian Navy currently operates the sole medium-size oil-fueled aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov (the heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser according to the domestic classification). As the Russian Navy stated before, the fleet expects to get a cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a displacement of no less than 70,000 tonnes by late 2030.

The Krylov State Research Center earlier designed and unveiled a preliminary design of an aircraft carrier for foreign customers, which was also offered for the domestic Navy. Project 23000 was named Storm. Its sketch design suggests the aircraft carrier will displace 80,000-90,000 tonnes and feature a combined powerplant (both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine). The carrier’s air group is expected to comprise up to 60 aircraft.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/1004641

Together with other news it seems the need to develop power projection capabilities is indeed perceived by Russia. See also:

http://tass.com/defense/1004567

"both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine"

Militarov wrote:"both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine"

Wait, this could actually make sense couldn't it? The nuclear reactor for cruising and the gas turbine for speeding?

LMFS wrote:

Militarov wrote:"both the nuclear reactor and the gas turbine engine"

Wait, this could actually make sense couldn't it? The nuclear reactor for cruising and the gas turbine for speeding?

Its called CONAS and its weird solution to say at least. Defeats the purpose imo.

Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL

How reliable? Very reliable most likely.

In reality that is how Arktika-class icebreaker is being powered.

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL

How reliable? Very reliable most likely.

In reality that is how Arktika-class icebreaker is being powered.

v
Then what makes them design solutions from 70-80 into 2030a? Isnt it easier to make all electrical besides power plant? where's the catch?

Militarov wrote:
Its called CONAS and its weird solution to say at least. Defeats the purpose imo.

Wouldn't that be rather CONAG? Gas turbines are mentioned

Militarov wrote:
How reliable? Very reliable most likely.

In reality that is how Arktika-class icebreaker is being powered.

Yes, reliability against immobilization of the ship is increased since there are two independent propulsion systems. Complexity increases though...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
Just wonder how reliable would be nuclear power plant + electrical motors?

@LMFS - and of course VSTOL      

Man, if they use a 80.000 ton carrier to launch that crap it would be too much for me

BTW, nobody commented on my suggestion in this thread to create a "take-off assistant" UAV to operate full-loaded conventional planes from a smaller carrier, so please answer sincerely, was it that dumb??

It takes over a decade for 5000t Gorshkov to get built so 70kt carrier would be well over a century at current pace...

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
v
Then what makes them design solutions from 70-80 into 2030a? Isnt it easier to make all electrical besides power plant? where's the catch?

Dont look at me, i just dont like oil fired boilers on a carrier. If they want conventional... go for gas turbines... if they want nuclear... go damn nuclear dont bring more problems to already complex system.

Isos wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
It takes over a decade for 5000t Gorshkov to get built so 70kt carrier would be well over a century at current pace...

Not really. The superstructure is not hard to build. Systems and implementation of the systems inside the hull are.

If they use same systems as on Gorshkov (radars, communication, battle management system, weapons ...) it could be achieved really quickly. There would be problems however with catapult and new system that are specific to cartiers.

In reality almost nothing from Gorshkov is useful for a carrier.

LMFS wrote:
Wouldn't that be rather CONAG? Gas turbines are mentioned

Yes, CONAG, i just had Kirovs in my mind when thinking about this so i wrote CONAS.

Isos wrote:

Militarov wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:
v
Then what makes them design solutions from 70-80 into 2030a? Isnt it easier to make all electrical besides power plant? where's the catch?

Dont look at me, i just dont like oil fired boilers on a carrier. If they want conventional... go for gas turbines... if they want nuclear... go damn nuclear dont bring more problems to already complex system.

Having two independent propulsions makes the carrier more survivable.

Maybe, maybe not. Reactors tend to be quite deep into the hull, so if something hits that deep to disable your electricity production, there isnt going to be much of survival happening anyways.

And oil boilers require fuel that you need to tank, which... makes things very weird to say at least. As you are on unlimited sea time but just not really because you need to visit some port next week to refuel otherwise you are limited to 15 knots. Or something of a sort. So yea... no.

And one of the most complex things to build on ship propulsion is the clutch... now... that would require few of them, and... you see where i am going.

Militarov wrote:

Dont look at me, i just dont like oil fired boilers on a carrier. If they want conventional... go for gas turbines... if they want nuclear... go damn nuclear dont bring more problems to already complex system.

Two advantages:

> Redundancy in the propulsion
> Allows reducing the rating of the reactor and use it fully most of the time. I don't know how convenient is to throttle ship nuclear reactors, the ones at power plants operate at base load and to cycle them is very slow and actually critical. The gas turbines on the contrary can throttle quite fast.

Maybe somebody in the know can comment on the above

~1 year ago: MOD: new CV/N to be laid down by 2025:
https://topwar.ru/120798-minoborony-rf-novyy-avianosec-zalozhim-k-2025-godu.html

According to the source, in the case of a positive decision on one of the projects, "the technical design of the ship, the preparation of design documentation can begin in 2019, the aircraft carrier can be laid in 2021-2022, its construction, according to preliminary estimates, will last about 10 years ". The interlocutor added that the state program of armaments for 2018-2027 provides for "initial financing" under the program of a new aircraft carrier. If you translate this into Russian, it means only one thing: there is no money and there will not be, but you are there, in the navy, hold on. That is, if the aircraft carrier in Russia and build, then in 20 years. And then, if oil prices are high.
How and for what money the aircraft carrier will build such a huge displacement, it is not clear. Especially when you consider that Russia does not build large warships today. The admiral seems to  have enough "mosquito fleet". Plans for the construction of large combat units - destroyers of the project "Leader" - are put on hold. No, if for sale abroad - for example, in India - the resources are. But for the destroyers for their fleet, as a rule, no means. Unless it's for small missile ships, it's good that they are even coastal zone, but with "Caliber". That is, they can at least frighten the adversary.
But who did not shout about the fact that Russia is ready to build aircraft carriers. And the deputy prime minister from the defense industry, Dmitry Rogozin (now, of course, already a former), and Senator Colonel Klintsevich (he generally promised to build a half-dozen aircraft-carrying cruisers in a couple of years). But everything ends as always - there are assumptions of sources, there are vague promises of admirals and, of course, readiness of shipbuilders to master budgetary money. If, of course, they will.
Meanwhile, as Izvestia writes If everything remains "as it is now," by 2030 Russia will essentially lose its fleet. "Of the 35-40 corvette / frigate class ships that were supposed to enter the fleet before 2020, at present only eight units have been transferred to the customer, and by the end of 2020 there will be a maximum of 14, the newspaper writes. Plans for the renewal of the amphibious forces of the fleet have been completely foiled - out of the six planned BDC project 11711 the fleet has not yet received a single one and the maximum will receive two units, and the construction of domestic universal landing crafts instead of Mistral those not received in connection with the Ukrainian  crisis has been postponed to the new program. At the same time, given the load carried by the remaining Soviet-built ships within the Syrian Express, this failure is fraught with a rapid reduction in the already small landing capabilities of the fleet in the coming years."
But if the country is not capable of building even large amphibious ships, what kind of aircraft carriers can we talk about?
http://www.ng.ru/columnist/2018-05-16/100_aviabo1605.html

I couldn't agree more with all of the above. New icebreakers, FFGs, DDGs, CG/Ns, & LHA/Ds r more important to build 1st.
http://nvo.ng.ru/realty/2018-05-11/6_995_why.html