Future russian aircraft carriers. #2

That's the 1 Ex-TAKR he is talking about! The Adm. K. is also officially TAKR, follow on & based on the Kiev class.

Tsavo Lion wrote:That's the 1 Ex-TAKR he is talking about! The Adm. K. is also officially TAKR, follow on & based on the Kiev class.

Although KUZ is formally pr.11435, follow on to 1143/11434, 11435 is a very different and much bigger ship!. Ulyanovsk was pr.11437, although she had very little to do with 11435.

..11435 is a very different and much bigger ship!

That's besides the point; it's still a TAKR but with missiles under forward deck, a bow rump, similar defensive armament, & ~1/2 of AW r ASW/SAR/EW helos.

Kiev class TAKR with ski jump? What are you talking about?

Vikramaditya.

It was originally Kiev.

Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways.

Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...

GarryB wrote:

Bigger bombs, not CMs r needed to crater runways.

Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...

I always wonder why russia still doesn't design such version of kalibr. That's the weapon they should have against NATO.

GarryB wrote:Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...

And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!

Tsavo Lion wrote:

GarryB wrote:Specialised cratering submunitions are best for the job and a CM could easily be designed to fly the length of a runway releasing submunitions all the way down the runways length...

And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!

Detecting a cruise missile is very hard. There is a story of soviet cruise missile/test drone that went into Sweeden. It was detected by the radars but the fighters never saw it. And it was a BIG missiles like kh-22.

Now with reduced rcs and terrain following it's useless to send fighters, let alone helicopters. Maybe above flat terrain like sea.

AAA would be good if it is connected to a network of radars and if it has the range to shoot them down. If the missile can release smart submunition from 2km altitude with some mannoeuvres, then AAA is useless too. Something like pantsir or tunguska missile would be the best and NATO doesn't have anything comparable. Only manpads which will have hard time acquiring a 2km altitude flying cruise missile.


BTW cruise missile are enough to make a big hole into the ground.

EW means can be used to confuse their altimeter sensors/radars, once they climb high enough, it's easier to detect & shoot them down with SAMs. A better strategy is to hit C4 sites, fuel/ammo dumps & a/c hangars instead.

well perhaps you can do this technically. Why not? My question would be what why? you already have Zircon securing ~ 1000km radius around your fleet without need for development of  costly, redundant, risky

IMHO Kinzhal is a stopgap before new missiles/or better hypersonic weapons pop up.  GZUR Phase II (is to be ~14Ma)

I think I understand what you mean but a weapon system that leaves your opponent defenceless and will do so for the next years is not a stop-gap measure. Kinzhal is not an air-breathing hypersonic missile but due to long range, high speed and flexibility of air launch is a terrific weapon. And above all and differently to the others you mention, it exists and is being already deployed.

Occam's razor: you can solve problem in many ways the question to me is which one is best in terms invested resources vs. return. Before you develop Su 57, Kinzhal +integrate with new aircraft carriers => 10-15 years. Kinzhal might be not first choice because of technology.  Zircon is now  (OK in 2 years).
To me they always plan a marathon not sprint.

Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?

We know only that Zircon or something similar has been tested and should start being deployed sometime soon. Will still be shorter ranged and slower than Kinzhal. A massive improvement but as explained above it does not have enough range to keep your capital ships safe from a CVN's air wing. It is better having the enemy beyond attack range than having to trust in your SAMs to stop a massive missile salvo.

do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian  CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ?   I thought we were talking about 2030s.

Hey, now applies to everyone: F-35 and its associated AA missiles are not on par with R-37M, period.
A Su-57, IF the basic compatibility with carrier operation is given (which I have to assume considering the Flanker heritage and some elements of the plane) could be ready for deployment within 5 years. The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs  

Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.

I consider you are going to deploy a force to a contested area far from Russia yes. If you are going to stay very close to the Motherland then you can spare your LHDs and STOVLS all together too.
As shown above, in order to keep your force safe you need to be capable of retaliation in case of attack, that means, being in reach for actually hitting the enemy vessels. In the situation you describe above you are badly outranged by the enemy's air wing and therefore rendered a target.

Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.

Ok what is the deterring capability of the small ships with short-ranged aircraft against USN? I am not seeing it sorry...

precisely this is what I am talking about - in conventional war you cannot win with larger opponent, with better demographics and economy.

Well, if it was about total war then it is clear that nobody will win. And even if there were no nukes, real capacity of Russian economy at war was seen by the Germans in WWII and they didn't like what they discovered.
But what we are talking about now IMO is having enough conventional deterrence capacity FAR from Russia to dispute geopolitical space. First Russia improved the nuclear forces, then general state of its armed forces for mere defensive reasons. But once this is ensured, in order to protect and encourage their economical development they need commercial relationships and alliances abroad, this is a normal sequence in the development of a nation so I don't see why Russia should be an exception and remain isolated. We are seeing in Syria BTW that they do not reject exerting power abroad, as any other country in the world.

The situation in Syria wouldn't be different if you had 40 Russian fighters there too. They'd ask 2 more CVNs and what?
Russia doesn't play sea control strategy but sea denial. Both are working second one is much much cost effective.  

BTW NATO?  doves of piss to me  

Sea denial by what means? I am not seeing it very clear sorry

Oscar & Yasen SSGNs, Akula SSNs, Kilo SSKs, 1 TAKR, TU-22M/142s, SU-24/34s, IL-38s, + AshMs ashore.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:@LMFS  -thsi is  a must read for you  

Oh boy... have you red all that I have written here for months???? Here is what the author says:

Universal carrier - all the best

Having considered all pro et contra, it is possible to make final conclusions.

Russia is now a world leader in the creation of air defense systems and anti-ship missiles, our aircraft of the 4++ generation in no way inferior to foreign analogues, and in many respects superior to them, and the on-Board electronic warfare systems (and in General for all EW) - we have gone far ahead. Why all these advantages are not to be put together?

Future versatile ship, in my opinion, should occupy an intermediate position between the classic and the carrier classic helicopter. The composition of the wing need to sign fighters (e.g. MiG-35), AWACS aircraft, attack and transport helicopters (or convertiplane), intelligence blah BLAH.

In the Arsenal of the wing should be a missile of class "air-air" (URVV-DB URVV-MD, URVV-SD) and PCR (X-35, "Dagger"). In addition, the vehicle should have the defense electronic warfare systems and multi-channel defense systems of a large (similar to s-300) and small (similar to "tor-M2") range complexes antisubmarine protection (similar to "Package-NK"), and as shock weapons - complexes with anti-ship missiles "Calibre" or RCC "Zircon".

In any case, the universal carrier should not be ship-dependent, surrounded by "seven nurses". It should be an important addition to the GAC, allowing it to flexibly and efficiently to solve any problems in the ocean and distant sea areas of Russia's interests. The similarity of the arsenals of ships in the GAC as an additional argument in favor of universal.

Will close with the words of Admiral of the fleet of the Soviet Union V. G. Gorshkov: "Our state - the great continental and Maritime power in the world - at all stages of its history was needed a powerful fleet is an integral part of the Armed forces."

What we can add to this?

   A modern shipyard to build universal carriers we already have - in the far East. It remains to wait for the project. ■

> I proposed a new design of hybrid carrier allowing to spare the LHDs and a good part of the escort due to increased internal volume, VLS cells and optimized deck, hangar and operations
> I have proposed the use of Kinzhal by the carrier's aviation
> Have proposed STOBAR fighters, AWACS etc.
> The mission as stated by the author is to perform far from Russia like I posted above

I have no disagreement with what the author says, you think otherwise?

Having said this, Sergey Vlasov from Nevskoye has the opinion that a carrier needs to be a carrier and that's it... no clear wrong or right here I guess

I always wonder why russia still doesn't design such version of kalibr. That's the weapon they should have against NATO.

What makes you think they have not?

The AS-18 Kazoo is described as able to carry a submunition warhead... and Iskander also has the option of submunition warheads too...

And be shot down by the AAA or fast helos &/ fighters on CAP! The CM will need to be a big bomb truck to inflict lasting damage, not worth it!

Actually several UK Tornados were shot down in Desert Storm flying down Iraqi runways dropping submunitions in the very same job and a few of those were actually shot down... but then the whole point is to first deal with the air defence systems at the air field before you try to damage the runway...

And BTW why do they bother with anti runway submunitions if nothing can penetrate the air defences to deliver them?

Would it be better to send in some ARMs first and then a few cruise missiles, or some ARMs and some fighter bombers...

AAA would be good if it is connected to a network of radars and if it has the range to shoot them down. If the missile can release smart submunition from 2km altitude with some mannoeuvres, then AAA is useless too. Something like pantsir or tunguska missile would be the best and NATO doesn't have anything comparable. Only manpads which will have hard time acquiring a 2km altitude flying cruise missile.


BTW cruise missile are enough to make a big hole into the ground.

Cruise missiles would be very effective but an unmanned drone like Skat perhaps with four external Kh-31 ARMs and the internal bomb bay equipped with fixed KGMU submunition dispensers could be used... at 100km from the airfield it could search for radar emissions and launch all 4 Kh-31s at the targets... then approach in line with the runway at max speed at 20m altitude and release concrete piercing anti runway submunitions as it flys down the runway...

An Iskander with a 500kg HE warhead would make a big hole in a runway, but two KGMU-2 bombs could carry 20 odd BETAB-M concrete piercing submunitions 2 at a time down the length of the runway.

These munitions are designed to accelerate to enormous speeds and penetrate into the surface and then detonate to destroy the underlying concrete foundations... if the airfield is well defended you could send a dozen Skats that come in at the same time from each end.

If you do actually send a dozen you could load each with one KGMU-2 and one Kh-31 or Kh-29 to hit other targets of opportunity...

EW means can be used to confuse their altimeter sensors/radars, once they climb high enough, it's easier to detect & shoot them down with SAMs. A better strategy is to hit C4 sites, fuel/ammo dumps & a/c hangars instead.

It certainly can, but when do you use it?

And do you have it at every airfield the enemy wants to hit?

If you use it and they have UAVs with antennas listening for signals they might detect your jamming and launch a separate attack on your jamming equipment... or might send an encrypted command to the vulnerable platforms to go to inertial mode.

Fuel and ammo dumps, and hangars with planes in them are valuable targets but hitting airfields is also a valuable way of avoiding having to wipe out the enemies air force...

And above all and differently to the others you mention, it exists and is being already deployed.

Development of a longer air launched model will be interesting because that would mean if it was land launched it could exceed 500km range, but of course as long as it is not land launched it wont violate the INF treaty... but how long is that treaty going to last anyway.

Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?

Zircon can be launched from any platform with the UKSK launcher... including corvettes and submarines and shipping crates... not every NATO ship operates with carrier escort...

Will still be shorter ranged and slower than Kinzhal.

Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...

It will probably also be about 2.5 tons instead of the 5 tons of Kinzhal so an Su-33 could probably carry three of them.

A massive improvement but as explained above it does not have enough range to keep your capital ships safe from a CVN's air wing.

And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.

The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs

I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.

What is this 15-20 years in the future LHD bullshit with STOVL aircraft... you already suggest that the current carrier is not good enough with the new missile, why cripple the future fleet with a pissant carrier and lame girly fighters that crash all the time?

Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.

The only time a small carrier is good is close to home... which means it is not the cheapest option... land based air power is much much cheaper and much more effective.

Development of a longer air launched model will be interesting because that would mean if it was land launched it could exceed 500km range, but of course as long as it is not land launched it wont violate the INF treaty... but how long is that treaty going to last anyway.

Not sure what missile you are referring here...

Zircon can be launched from any platform with the UKSK launcher... including corvettes and submarines and shipping crates... not every NATO ship operates with carrier escort...

Of course Zircon on small vessels and subs would be a massive asset. I was just referring to the case when a naval group from Russia is operating in a disputed area far from the country and subject to the potential threats coming from USN's CSG that would be with certainty deployed in response to a Russian presence. In such circumstances any platform  which is not covered by the air wing of the carrier, is turned into a target. A corvette that can launch Zircons is a very dangerous corvette indeed, but it cannot repel air attacks as a carrier group can, I think we both agree in that.

Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...

It has been said that it was tested to 8 M but the operational speed is unknown. According to the patent the scramjet would propel the missile during its high altitude cruising and then detach for the descent to the target.

It will probably also be about 2.5 tons instead of the 5 tons of Kinzhal so an Su-33 could probably carry three of them.

Where do you got the data that the Kinzhal weights 5 ton? The Iskander is 3.8 tons, why would the air-launched version be heavier? The Zircon is a VLS missile, so quite probably a huge one. Indian MKIs can only carry 1 similarly sized Brahmos (2.5 tons actually) on special suspension points so I see no way a Su-33 could ever carry 3 Zircons.

Regarding what would be better, air launched Zircon or Kinzhal: it is unclear to me what is the range of the later is, decoupled of the effects of the carrier. It was reported 2000 km from MiG-31 and 3000 km from Tu-22. This can only mean that the missile alone has far shorter range. But again, flight profile of the carrier (is a dash attack meant or slow cruising + dash to launch speed) and the availability of IFR would have a significant influence here. Maybe the Zircon from an air launched position would be longer ranged than the Kinzhal? Then it should be adopted of course.

And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.

Agree. Su-57 would allow Russia to counter USN with a way smaller amount of carriers. And with air launched AShM like those mentioned above it would in fact have the upper hand ...even grossly outnumbered. Only option for USN would be (coherently with what they are exactly doing) create a fleet of tankers with high endurance and payload to extend the range of their multirole fighters. This is where catapults pay out and the reason I start to think Russia may do well sticking to the concept already shown on Storm and the new light carrier, with ski-jump for the fighters and catapult for the tankers and AWACS. I still think distributed AEW with fighters and specialised UCAVs can substitute heavy cumbersome  turboprop AWACS in the future, but in regards of tankers it seems USN will have an advantage in terms of launching planes with very big fuel payloads and so compensate for their lesser missile technology and naval fighter's performance.

I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.

Well, they don't have any carrier right now so they will try to get the K back asap. The Su-57 is another issue, probably no decision will be taken until the 2nd stage engines are ready. It would be an error to task the MiG-35 with the role as sole carrier-borne fighter for RuN IMO, it will not provide the edge needed against the superior resources of USN.

Russia would IMO need 4 carriers: North, Pacific and Med/warm waters + repair.

What is this 15-20 years in the future LHD bullshit with STOVL aircraft... you already suggest that the current carrier is not good enough with the new missile, why cripple the future fleet with a pissant carrier and lame girly fighters that crash all the time?

Are you confusing me with Gunship? Just trying to make sense of the news about LHDs and STOVL. These would point out to Russia planning small flat tops for expeditionary forces, maybe equipped with STOVL fighters. I don't think this makes much sense but cannot know what Russian officials are thinking on exactly. To me, carriers with STOBAR planes are needed in any case, in fact as my search of information indicated, F-35Bs have longer take-off runs than current MiGs and Sukhois aboard the K...  

STOVLs could be very useful on land too since most Russian & foreign airfields they may deploy to r vulnerable to bombing &/ guerrilla attacks. They can use less runway length & be easily dispersed, just like helos. In the Arctic, they can self deploy to forward areas w/o LHA/LHD/NS (icebreakers) & help patrolling & defending MPA/TA, Border Guards, SLOCs & their claims there. The Marines + NAF will bring their order #s up & make them less costly per unit.

Tsavo Lion wrote:STOVLs could be very useful on land too since most Russian & foreign airfields they may deploy to r vulnerable to bombing &/ guerrilla attacks. They can use less runway length & be easily dispersed, just like helos. In the Arctic, they can self deploy to forward areas w/o LHA/LHD/NS (icebreakers) & help patrolling & defending MPA/TA, Border Guards, SLOCs & their claims there. The Marines + NAF will bring their order #s up & make them less costly per unit.

To land them on ships you need reinforced structure on your ship.

If you wand to them on the ground it will send dust and everything that is on the ground in the engines. You still need a clean and large road. It was the main idea of harrier, to use it from anywhere, but in reality it proved to be not possible and they only used them from airport or from carriers.

They have nothing in common with helicopters.

They can do rolling takeoffs/landings, & even ski-jump rumps could also be built. There isn't much dust in the woods, tundra & on Arctic islands. Large old bulk carriers/container ships could also be so modified, towed & anchored moored on the rivers, lakes & the sea cost with other support barges for le$$ than building bases in the middle of nowhere. If & when needed, they all could be moved to new locations.

GarryB wrote:

Will still be shorter ranged and slower than Kinzhal.

Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...

It will probably also be about 2.5 tons instead of the 5 tons of Kinzhal so an Su-33 could probably carry three of them.

this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?

A massive improvement but as explained above it does not have enough range to keep your capital ships safe from a CVN's air wing.

And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.

and that's precisely what Russia is doing : VSTOL instead of using necronomicon to keep 50 yold Su-33/MiG-29k undead. They will face F/A XX generation.

The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs

I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.

What is this 15-20 years in the future LHD bullshit with STOVL aircraft... you already suggest that the current carrier is not good enough with the new missile, why cripple the future fleet with a pissant carrier and lame girly fighters that crash all the time?

wow you know Russian light fighter are crashing all the time before they are even designed?! You kno wwhat is th main difference between a small carrier and the large one? Small one does it job and you can afford. Big one can do it job too but only in your dreams unless anybody is gonna waste billions extra on something you already have.

Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.

The only time a small carrier is good is close to home... which means it is not the cheapest option... land based air power is much much cheaper and much more effective.
[/quote]

North fleet: with 750 combat radius you cover ~2square kms area free for your subs. and if you wont you need to keep 24/7 fighters. what fighter can fight 1500 form your shore? ah imaginary one only.

OK light carrier sucks in Midway

BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised. With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.

Borisov evaluated the prospects for the construction of helicopter carriers

MOSCOW, September 14 (Itar-Tass) - RIA Novosti. Russia will build helicopter carriers for the Navy in the amount necessary to fulfill the development strategy of the Russian Armed

Forces, told reporters on Friday, Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov.

Heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser of the Northern Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov.  Archive photo
RIA Novosti / Igor Ageyenko
Go to the photobank
Experts commented on the American rating of the worst aircraft carriers in the world
"Everything depends on the military - it's up to them to decide which class of ships corresponds to one or another strategy for the development of the Armed Forces." I think helicopter carriers are in demand for a certain type of conflict, and they will be built in the required quantity, "Borisov said, The construction of helicopter carriers in the state program of armaments until 2027

https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20180914/1528537758.html

Tsavo Lion wrote:They can do rolling takeoffs/landings, & even ski-jump rumps could also be built. There isn't much dust in the woods, Arctic islands & tundra. Large old bulk carriers/container ships could also be so modified, towed & moored on the rivers, lakes & sea cost with other support barges for le$$ than building bases for them in the middle of nowhere. If & when needed, they all could be moved to new locations.

Perhaps its a bit optimistic with container ships but true that STOL (not even with vertical component) is easier to operate in remote areas or close to front line as landing strips can be definitely shorter (120-160 vs 500-700)

Isos wrote:

If you wand to them on the ground it will send dust and everything that is on the ground in the engines. You still need a clean and large road. It was the main idea of harrier, to use it from anywhere, but in reality it proved to be not possible and they only used them from airport or from carriers.

Soviets started experimenting with STOL fighters (120-160m) starf for any airfield. 30 years ago. Harrier is 50yo tech. You know if you extrapolate VSTOL  fighter capabilities on what was 50 years from now on it would be fair to exptapolate what was with F-4  to F/AXX.

Isos wrote:
To land them on ships you need reinforced structure on your ship.

so you will if needed wheres the problem? BTW you need by constant starts and landings not casual.

LMFS wrote:
Of course Zircon on small vessels and subs would be a massive asset. I was just referring to the case when a naval group from Russia is operating in a disputed area far from the country and subject to the potential threats coming from USN's CSG that would be with certainty deployed in response to a Russian presence. In such circumstances any platform  which is not covered by the air wing of the carrier, is turned into a target. A corvette that can launch Zircons is a very dangerous corvette indeed, but it cannot repel air attacks as a carrier group can,

true one corvette is never meant to attack CSG alone. It is going to be a distributed firepower with external support and Intel. None the less couple of Zircon armed corvetter create pretty nice sea denial  area

Range is believed to be 1,000km and speed mach 7-8, with a scramjet engine providing power from launch to impact...

It has been said that it was tested to 8 M but the operational speed is unknown. According to the patent the scramjet would propel the missile during its high altitude cruising and then detach for the descent to the target.

Zircon was patented in US?      

Regarding what would be better, air launched Zircon or Kinzhal: it is unclear to me what is the range of the later is, decoupled of the effects of the carrier. It was reported 2000 km from MiG-31 and 3000 km from Tu-22. This can only mean that the missile alone has far shorter range. But again, flight profile of the carrier (is a dash attack meant or slow cruising + dash to launch speed) and the availability of IFR would have a significant influence here. Maybe the Zircon from an air launched position would be longer ranged than the Kinzhal? Then it should be adopted of course.

last year there were an article about 2 air launched missiles Kh-50 and GZUR(Phase I) both ~1500km range. They both are supposed to firn into internal launcher of Tu-22M3. Mind that Kh-15 did. Kh-15 was  4,8m and weight 1,200 kgs

If GZRU/Kh-50 is gonna be similar then perhaps this is gonna be used by deck fighters.

And that is why Russia needs carriers... with competent fighters with decent range and speed and missile payload capacity for air to air engagements.

Agree. Su-57 would allow Russia to counter USN with a way smaller amount of carriers. And with air launched AShM like those mentioned above it would in fact have the upper hand ...even grossly outnumbered.  I still think distributed AEW with fighters and specialised UCAVs can substitute heavy cumbersome  turboprop AWACS in the future, but in regards of tankers it seems USN will have an advantage in terms of launching planes with very big fuel payloads and so compensate for their lesser missile technology and naval fighter's performance.

I cannot believe waht I am reading.  Lesser missile and fighter performance? Su-33 is dead with F-35 and we do not knwo if Su-57 would better than 2 decades younger F/A-XX. Lesser missile performance in 2030s? so you know what they gonna have then right?


LARSM stealth and high subsonic max  1600km range. Kh-50 same. Where is that "worse performance"

I personally would have liked to have seen a more ambitious upgrade of the K to include NPP and naval Su-57s... which would make 2 new CVNs good enough... one carrier in upgrade/overhaul and two operational/training at any given time.

Well, they don't have any carrier right now so they will try to get the K back asap. The Su-57 is another issue, probably no decision will be taken until the 2nd stage engines are ready. It would be an error to task the MiG-35 with the role as sole carrier-borne fighter for RuN IMO, it will not provide the edge needed against the superior resources of USN.

how much F-!8 Superhornes is worse than MiG-35? cannot get where precisely?

Russia would IMO need 4 carriers: North, Pacific and Med/warm waters + repair.

wy not 6? or 10? the fact is that Russia has 10x smaller military. There are thing expensive as missile forces or aerospace forces you cannot stop funding.  What expenses would you cut first then?

There is 4:1 cost ratio between 100kt:40kton CV. Not to mention that with CVN you need also have an  extra LHD. And with all of those you have 0.1 money.

Fro smaller CVs is better but IHMO not worth it. if you need go for longer series.
QE2 (70kton:LHA America 45kton)  - 5,2bln:3,4bln

Just trying to make sense of the news about LHDs and STOVL. These would point out to Russia planning small flat tops for expeditionary forces, maybe equipped with STOVL fighters. I don't think this makes much sense but cannot know what Russian officials are thinking on exactly. To me, carriers with STOBAR planes are needed in any case, in fact as my search of information indicated, F-35Bs have longer take-off runs than current MiGs and Sukhois aboard the K...  

not f-35, F/A XX you mean? Stobar planes are cool the only problem is you cannot afford it.If you buy CVNs you need extra LHDs. And you need LHDs anyway.

LMFS wrote:

Ok, some numbers for you: F-18 has 700 km radius, plus what MQ-25 adds to that (they talk about delivering 6800 kg of fuel at 900 km from the carrier) plus range of the LRASM >500 km. Now what is the use of your Zircon?

Zircon makes ~3,15 mns squqre kms area secure . for your ships from othe navies. Not every ship has F-18. If you fight CSG then perhaps you have own air cover either from deck. then you need something lighter like Kh-50/GZUR or Tu-22M with kinzhals.

It is better having the enemy beyond attack range than having to trust in your SAMs to stop a massive missile salvo.

no ship-borne fighter can ever carry such heavy missile. IT better to have sarmat with avangard too you know

do you suggest Su-57 is on new shiny Russian  CVNs are happily navigating around the world now ?   I thought we were talking about 2030s.

Hey, now applies to everyone: F-35 and its associated AA missiles are not on par with R-37M, period.
A Su-57, IF the basic compatibility with carrier operation is given (which I have to assume considering the Flanker heritage and some elements of the plane) could be ready for deployment within 5 years. The Kuznetsov will be ready in 3-4 years. Who says K is not compatible with a naval Su-57 and new carriers are necessary? What is 15-20 years in the future is the STOVL fighter and the fleet of LHDs  
[/quote]

Kuz is for max +20 years. Nobody ever mentioned to use on fleet heavy fighters. F-35 wond be hit by R-37M because Su-33 is not gonna carry them. neither can see F-35. F/A-XX can be just better then Su-57 and smaller too. On top ot things you have 0.1 of US budget and symmetrical coping US solutions is simply way to nowhere.

They got now 10 you have one old. You buy 2 new . they will build extra 3-4.

Actions against US fleet in conditions of numerical air-superiority was already tried in Japan. They called it Kamikaze. Fighters in such numbers will be treated as extra cover not and major force. Me thinks you mix US approach to the Russian one.

I consider you are going to deploy a force to a contested area far from Russia yes. If you are going to stay very close to the Motherland then you can spare your LHDs and STOVLS all together too.
As shown above, in order to keep your force safe you need to be capable of retaliation in case of attack, that means, being in reach for actually hitting the enemy vessels. In the situation you describe above you are badly outranged by the enemy's air wing and therefore rendered a target.

That's why you dont fight their CVNs with yours. thats what you dont seem to get. Its waste o lives and money. LHDs are for different conflicts like Syrian, like humanitarian/personnel extraction/north fleet cover . Close to motherland can mean 700km from shore in north before anything gets there you still appreciate 20-30 fighters to cover you.

Agreed that's why idea of small aircraft carriers fits good here.

Ok what is the deterring capability of the small ships with short-ranged aircraft against USN? I am not seeing it sorry...

why short ranged?! same parameters are on both sides. Contested area is no midway just to show your presence. Of course you dont see it because you wait for midawy.
Any attack of Russian fighter by US one is an act of war. Ypu think a fleet of Tu-22Ms or T-160M2, Anchar/Avangard are for?

But what we are talking about now IMO is having enough conventional deterrence capacity FAR from Russia to dispute geopolitical space. First Russia improved the nuclear forces, then general state of its armed forces for mere defensive reasons. But once this is ensured, in order to protect and encourage their economical development they need commercial relationships and alliances abroad, this is a normal sequence in the development of a nation so I don't see why Russia should be an exception and remain isolated. We are seeing in Syria BTW that they do not reject exerting power abroad, as any other country in the world.

Again showing you flag is nto fully pledged war. If 30 fighter wont be enough 60 wont be too. You first tof all dont have money to build large end expensive ships and on top LHDs.
It is no like you buy a Maybach so you get rich. This works th other way around. UK and Us worked on gangster mode but still capital ships came AFTER they were rich. First Drake was a pirate robbing Spaniards then UK could build more ships.


Besides lets assume Russia gets in nominal terms to 4-5trillions USD. say 2x bigger PPP. it is still 1/3 US GDP. You cannot copy their approach and expenses. Less human capital too.

Sea denial by what means? I am not seeing it very clear sorry

Ships wit Onyx, Calibers/S-300F. Subs is typical sea denial. Large CSGs is sea control.

this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?

What is Brahmos but a P-800?

BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised.   With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.

What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.
Again: a fighter with the T/W ratio of the Su-57 could take off from the short runs of the K fully loaded EASILY. That is way less than the F-35B from an LHA you know

What is Brahmos but a P-800?

Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.
Ru Wiki says the air-launch version is 2500kg vs 3000kg ship launch.

LMFS wrote:

this is called a day dreaming mate, is there ANY P-800 carried by any Su-30/30? mno it too heavy. no way it is possible. It is planned GZUR though. I dotn know about its weight only thet will be only airborne. Perhaps lighter Zircon?

What is Brahmos but a P-800?

Not sure what  do you mena? Brahmos and P-800 are closely related. I've never heard about any fighter in Russia carrying P-800.  True I've found 1 Brahmos can be carried by Su-30MKI tho but nothing starting from CV.

For carrier based fighters Indians developed Brahmos-NG (5m/1,5tons vide Kh-50/GZUR)

BTW North fleet is definitely first place to go. No Su-57 will ever had combat radius bigger then 900 km I'd be surprised.   With 4 AAMs perhaps and looooooong take off.

What combat radius you estimate for a fighter with a range of 3500 km on internal fuel? It should be > 1500 km.
Again: a fighter with the T/W ratio of the Su-57 could take off from the short runs of the K fully loaded EASILY. That is way less than the F-35B from an LHA you know

[/quote]


Su-57 is surely capable but cannot have both payload and lots of fuel  and short take off. Takeoff weight for AA mission for Su-33 is 3300kg.

BTW What F-35 are you talking about? Russian fighters will meet  F/A-XX at same level at least. 20 years younger tech then in Su-57.
Mind that deck version as in Su-33 was ~70%more expensive. With small series Su-57 would be for free either.

hoom wrote:

What is Brahmos but a P-800?

Its a P-800 with a reduced size fuel tank & Indian electronics.
Ru Wiki says the air-launch version is 2500kg vs 3000kg ship launch.

Stated weight for both Brahmos and P-800 is 3 tons. Yes air launched version is 500 kg lighter but it remains a close P-800 derivative.