Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Hole wrote:A modern torpedo will hit the ship from beneath and break the backbone (keel) of it. After that the ship is finished. No repair possible.

A damaged ship will be even better then a destroyed one. Imagine a carrier with large holes in its sides and deck, burned interior, damages from explosions. To bring it back to a harbor they would have to guard it, which means less ships for an attack. One good hit on a carrier would brake up a whole battle group.

It would take more then one direct torpedo hit to sink a carrier, you realize the keels and layout are designed to stay afloat even if part of it destroy or underwater.

Not saying you cannot sink a carrier with torps but one torp isn't going to do it alone will take a good amount of em.

LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

LMFS wrote:Just to start some fires or damage the deck (i.e. one big hole in the middle of the landing strip) is enough to disable the ship. A carrier from which no planes can operate is nearly useless.

and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too

Hole wrote:The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

LMFS wrote:

and that can be done bu missiles fired form VSTOL fighter too

Hole wrote:The keel of ships is not armored. If a torpedo with 200kg warhead explodes after impacting the keel the ship is done, no matter how big it is.

LMFS wrote:@Gunship: don't convince me, I am in favour of multifunctional carriers! 

Nevertheless, the discussion about bigger CVs gets distorted if the real price estimations are not mentioned. Prices as stated by the design bureau are not 16 billion but rather between

1,5 and 3,75 billion dollar. Amphibious assault ships were estimated at 300 million:

Those above are VERY interesting interviews with Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye Design Bureau, they are among the references of cost estimations for the future Russian Navy posted by George1 few days ago. They address many of the issues discussed here (EMALS, AWACS, costs etc.), though they are a bit old

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

and who says AWACS has to be in  one big plane and not many small drones for example?

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.  


As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough.  And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs      

william.boutros wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

william.boutros wrote:
What is the point of an aircraft carrier let alone a nuclear aircraft carrier without an AWACS plane?!

and who says AWACS has to be in  one big plane and not many small drones for example?

The mission of the navy would define the aircraft carrier. A VTOL plane would probably mean a beefed up MISTRAL type ship for a SYRIA like operation.

There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Unfortunately a modern VTOL with some aspects of stealth development and production would most likely cost around a catapult equipped carrier. It would also have reduced capabilities compared to normal aircraft, limited export potential and...you will not have a proper carrier nor a carrier building dock.

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.  


As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough.  And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs      

AWACS is much more then a number of UAVs given current technologies.
VSTOL aircraft on an LH America or a Japenese carrier is certainly a way to go but with its limitations compared to a carrier. Generally such ships are built to save on costs or beef up support for carriers. In 1-2 units there may not be much cost difference if you factor in new aircraft development.

william.boutros wrote:
AWACS is much more than a number of UAVs given current technologies.

VSTOL aircraft on an LH America or a Japenese carrier is certainly a way to go but with its limitations compared to a carrier. Generally such ships are built to save on costs or beef up support for carriers. In 1-2 units there may not be much cost difference if you factor in new aircraft development.

kumbor wrote:

AEW equipment is nowadays still rather bulky, so it can`t be installed in UAV. You need big electronics that need much volume and you need big antenna. Also, you need human complement to edit and evaluate data given by electronic equipment.

Concerning "proper" carriers, USN carriers are offensive ships with complete and full capability to launch and proceed with attack and defensive operations. In russian naval tactics, aerial component was always there to provide aircover for surface battle group and submarines at first place. Their attack capability is limited. It will be so even with hypothetic new carriers in the future.

GarryB wrote:

and who says AWACS has to be in one big plane and not many small drones for example?

Indeed... did you hear the Russian Air Force has cancelled the A-100 and is just buying lots of Su-30s for use as "mini AWACS" platforms.... NOT.

Check LHA America. And yes does Russia need anything else for now?

Is gay...

Decision is already made by supreme commander. VSTOL will be.

Wont be supreme commander when it comes time to put ships in the water...
By which time they will have made their pitch and have been rejected as just a silly idea from the start... and cancelled.

As for costs: and programme for light fighter without VSTOL is for free ?! what is propper carrier? Midway battles are gone for Syria 20-30 fighters is more than enough. And costs ratio 1/4 between "proper" and "improper" CVN

The whole point of an aircraft carrier within the navy is to carry aircraft to support the navy and you think the best carrier is the one that carries less aircraft?

EMALS? Royal Navy gave up because of costs. US navy put 1 billion and still is not ready, Ah yeah RN also have improper CVs - no emlas and with VSTOLs

Except EMALS are for AWACS platforms... Russia has fighters that don't require VSTOL performance to get airborne from a carrier the size of the K or bigger...
The Royal Navy gave up because it is spending so much on F-35s that it could not afford EMALS... the US Navy is spending less than the price of 10 F-35s to develop EMALs...

If VSTOL is so useful... why are they only going to be deployed on carriers?
Why aren't all F-35 sales of the VTOL type?

But even if they manage a miracle and develop an impressive fighter... they still wont build a small carrier... they will likely do what the US has done and develop a VSTOL model and a normal takeoff model for ski jump take on carriers and for land operations from normal airstrips, and the odd couple of VSTOL models... the thing is that even on smaller ships they need a 60m deck at least to get average performance with a rolling takeoff... if they have to take off vertically you are better off using Ka-52Ks.

ATLASCUB wrote:

Conventional aircraft will still be the main type of aircraft to take-off from carriers, for now and in the future and it's the very reason the Su-33 exist, as is the modified Mig-29 - in the Mig-29K, not some revived production line for some crappy old VTOL Yak handicapped to hell and back for the Kuz. This is regardless of Russia's decision to go for small or big carriers in the future.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Big_Gazza wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

A bruised and torn sphincter?.... Pls explain why you are posting porn in this forum?  

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

ATLASCUB wrote:

Conventional aircraft will still be the main type of aircraft to take-off from carriers, for now and in the future and it's the very reason the Su-33 exist, as is the modified Mig-29 - in the Mig-29K, not some revived production line for some crappy old VTOL Yak handicapped to hell and back for the Kuz. This is regardless of Russia's decision to go for small or big carriers in the future.

OK so you live in 80s like GarryB dont you? in 2030 Mig-29 and su-33 ill be 50 years of frames. Dunno if there will be Yak or MiG LMFS anyway this is gonna be a new development.
Yup,  progress in engines, avionics, materials for last 30-40 years took place. Really you can trust me


There not much  difference in performance between conventional and VSTOL. And VSTOL is a great fighter for point defense + great in ship requirements.

BTW Yak 141 , as a deck fighter. was already by light years ahead from contemporary Harriers or F-4 - advanced avionics, hud, R77/R27.


BTW Russian Staff and aerospace engineers made all analysis and feasibility. Then decision was made. hmm but OK you can believe in whatever you want  
like tooth-fairy for example