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


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4040
    Points : 4036
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Sun Dec 16, 2018 7:29 pm

    Well they have been making Yak-130s, but no front line fighters that need modern self defence avionics suites or combat radars etc etc.
    They r now organizationally "under the same roof" with MiG & Sukhoi which can help in design.
    Not suggesting it could operate on its own but it wont need a large escort most of the time...
    We discussed it already.. They'll need at least 2-3 medium/large surface escorts per UDK/CVN.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5545
    Points : 5537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:23 pm

    They r now organizationally "under the same roof" with MiG & Sukhoi which can help in design.

    Competition was and is huge between them. Even during communist time. Let alone now that contract are smaller and fewer.

    Yak and mig can be happy to have yak-130 and mig-29k/35. Sukhoi is is the best choice for any future 5th generation fighter since they have already done huge work on su-57.
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 293
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:39 pm

    LMFS wrote:Russians have told they will build multifunctional assault ships. They have also said they discuss the STOVL plane and one of the functions of their proposed assault ships would be carriers. In line with many other navies and with the own doctrine of creating combatants that are an asset and not a liability constantly needing external support, I can understand from a theoretical point of view that having maybe half squadron STOVL on board a LHD can be considered useful. It can help an assault group to operate effectively and autonomously in lower risk environments, and Russia will probably not build LHDs and CVs in big numbers, so it would make sense that one does not need from the other every time, the same way that not every deployment calls for the same type of assets. Of course the economic viability issue puts a big question mark on the project, to the point that I don't see this really going anywhere unless in cooperation with China. Other solutions like the proposed high speed Kamov could also weaken the case for the STOVL plane

    Helicopter, even a fast one is completely different aircraft from classical airplane. They cannot support each other in any way. Helicopters have one scope of missions, and airplanes different one!
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24999
    Points : 25543
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:32 am

    We discussed it already.. They'll need at least 2-3 medium/large surface escorts per UDK/CVN.

    You are confusing Russia with the US.

    In the US the aircraft is the focus... the large carriers are all about the aircraft with pathetic weapons comparable to corvettes otherwise.

    The purpose of the US navy ships is to protect the aircraft carriers and the purpose of the aircraft carriers is to carry aircraft that do everything.

    For the Russians the aircraft carrier is to protect the ships the carrier is operating with.

    It uses aircraft to extend the vision and reach of the weapons of the ships and to add a layer of defences against air and sea threats.

    A group of small speed boats or incoming low flying missiles can be detected well over the horizon and intercepted by aircraft... without aircraft those threats would be detected and identified much later and have to be dealt with much closer to the ships... which is dangerous.

    Carriers make surface ships safer in Russian forces.

    Carriers are the weapon in US carrier groups.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4040
    Points : 4036
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:48 am

    The sum doesn't change if #s changed places. UDKs will still need escorts while all CBG combatants & AWs will support each other. Also, their future UDK/TAKR/CVN hybrids may be pressed to strike land targets & that's why they practiced for it in Syria.


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 17, 2018 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total
    eehnie
    eehnie

    Posts : 2461
    Points : 2470
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  eehnie on Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:31 am

    Tsavo Lion wrote:
    If it is uncertain, why you say "only 2 will remain for years"?
    Because its modernization will take a few years once it starts.

    Not finished by 2030?  dunno
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1436
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Mon Dec 17, 2018 2:33 am

    kumbor wrote:Helicopter, even a fast one is completely different aircraft from classical airplane. They cannot support each other in any way. Helicopters have one scope of missions, and airplanes different one!
    This is correct... for existing helicopters. One that flies at 700 km/h propelled by turbofan engines and lifted by fixed wings like the model "leaked" by Kamov would make the frontier between capabilities and roles much less defined than today (STOVL is a fixed wing aircraft trying to emulate one of the helicopter's main advantages to start with). Probability is that it could cover most of needed strike roles and still be way cheaper to procure and operate than a STOLV fighter, and having a really effective hovering capability. This would apply especially to COIN and low intensity conflicts where countering enemy fighters is not a real issue, even when I read some references about the very short detection ranges of stationary helicopters at low altitude vs. current fighter radars and how this could actually allow the helos to act effectively also in AD role... this is just a theory but it may hold water, have not searched much about it yet.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4040
    Points : 4036
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:25 am

    Well, future tilt-rotor gunships, worth 2-3 Mi-24/-35s & Ka-52s in firepower each, could act like the OV-10 Broncos. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bell-pushes-v-280-gunship-shipboard-variants-recon-in-works/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco#Specifications
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#Specifications_(Mi-24)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-28#Specifications_(Mi-28N)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Specifications_(Ka-50)


    Last edited by Tsavo Lion on Mon Dec 17, 2018 4:29 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : add link)
    avatar
    hoom

    Posts : 2081
    Points : 2071
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  hoom on Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:54 am

    Seems you equate a harrier carrier to a helicopter carrier...

    They wanted a vessel to land Russian Naval Infantry forces... they did not want a half arsed little piece of shit shoe box with crap VTOL targets on it.

    Russia hasn't got any F-35s, and even if they did WTF would they want that many fixed wing aircraft supporting a landing?

    Helicopters and landing craft are vastly more valuable than some show pony piece of crap carrying 6 AAMs... expecially for the 200 million dollar a pop you would be paying for them because you would only be making about 60 planes tops.

    Flexibility is nice, but usefulness is rather more important.

    Just because a new carrier could carry useless VTOL fighters doesn't mean you would ever want it to.
    You seem to be assuming I'm talking about 25-30Kton Invincible size ships, I'm talking 40-45Kton Wasp/Vikramaditya size which provides significantly more useful air complements.

    I specifically include Vikramaditya since its STOBAR.
    I'm thinking basically an optimised Vikramaditya type/size STOBAR carrier with a well deck & vehicle access to the hangar.

    My opposition to the idea of spending limited $$$/engineering effort developing an F-35 style VSTOL fighter is already stated & I'm still not entirely sold that they are actually doing so but if they are, does it make sense they build an 80-100Kton dedicated carrier for it?

    Usefulness of a smaller type comes from being able to build more of them for the same amount of $$$ -> have some capability always available & the possibility of bringing multiple ships to stack capability when needed.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5545
    Points : 5537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:51 am

    Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

    Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 293
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:06 am

    Isos wrote:Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

    Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

    Maybe it looks to you as a quick and cheap solution, but otherwise, politically and militarily it would be a complete idiocy!
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5545
    Points : 5537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:34 am

    kumbor wrote:
    Isos wrote:Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

    Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

    Maybe it looks to you as a quick and cheap solution, but otherwise, politically and militarily it would be a complete idiocy!

    Why ?  They can make an agreement like the carrier for ToT of su-33 plus some money.

    Politicaly there is no probleme. Neither military since the carrier was made for su-33 and mig-29k. Chinese are getting their own carriers designed for their own jets so unlikely that they use lioning for other task than training. And then training can be done on their own carriers.

    Every country is happy to get ride of a big carrier that is useless for them.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24999
    Points : 25543
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Thu Dec 20, 2018 10:33 am

    The sum doesn't change if #s changed places. UDKs will still need escorts while all CBG combatants & AWs will support each other. Also, their future UDK/TAKR/CVN hybrids may be pressed to strike land targets & that's why they practiced for it in Syria.

    The difference is that the carrier is not there to attack or invade the enemy, it is there to carry the aircraft to see threats early and to assist in the defence of the other ships.

    A Russian carrier should be well able to defend itself from attack, and the ships operating with it even more so... the aircraft just add an outer ring of detection and identification and interception that makes the surface ships safer.

    One that flies at 700 km/h propelled by turbofan engines and lifted by fixed wings like the model "leaked" by Kamov would make the frontier between capabilities and roles much less defined than today (STOVL is a fixed wing aircraft trying to emulate one of the helicopter's main advantages to start with).

    But what sort of payload are these high speed helos going to be able to manage... to achieve those speeds they will be sleek low drag designs... so likely no external rocket pods or large missile packs like current attack helos... and likely not heavily armoured either.

    Probability is that it could cover most of needed strike roles and still be way cheaper to procure and operate than a STOLV fighter, and having a really effective hovering capability.

    Helicopters tend to be rather fragile... in terms of attack however... I would think a Hermes missile from 20km range wont care if it is launched from a Ka-52K or Su-25 replacement...

    Personally I think cruise missiles for deep strike for navy vessels, and a few gun vessels with 152mm and 203mm naval guns to offer NGS.

    EMALS could be adapted to angle launch standard aircraft bombs... for instance...

    Well, future tilt-rotor gunships, worth 2-3 Mi-24/-35s & Ka-52s in firepower each, could act like the OV-10 Broncos.

    Hinds can already carry 500kg bombs... twice the weight of the weapons the Broncos carry... Broncos are more recon forward NGS support type aircraft than pure attack types...

    My opposition to the idea of spending limited $$$/engineering effort developing an F-35 style VSTOL fighter is already stated & I'm still not entirely sold that they are actually doing so but if they are, does it make sense they build an 80-100Kton dedicated carrier for it?

    It makes sense to build a 80-90KT carrier, because you could operate Su-57Ks from it as well as anything that comes from the VSTOL programme.

    The simple fact is that even Hind helicopters that are designed to take off vertically normally use a rolling take off at heavy payload/fuel weights... it simply makes things easier and improves performance.

    Usefulness of a smaller type comes from being able to build more of them for the same amount of $$$ -> have some capability always available & the possibility of bringing multiple ships to stack capability when needed.

    But that does not work.

    It is like saying having 20 Corvettes each with one uksk launch system is better and cheaper than having 1 cruiser with 10 UKSK launchers... you get twice as many missiles for a start and 20 corvettes around the place can be rather useful.

    The problem comes when you try to operate on the other side of the planet with them... 20 corvettes are not the same as one cruiser... the cruisers radar and sensors and systems will be much better than any fitted to a corvette.

    Smaller carriers means smaller radars and less room for stuff... and it means more than one ship to maintain and service and man.

    Do you think it is possible that Russia buys back chinese Kuznetsov once they got their domestical carriers ? The ships looks very good, better than Russian K. They did a very good job but looks like they keep it only for training.

    The problems they are having with the Kirovs.... upgrading and replacing all the systems and wiring... it is just not worth having to do that again with a carrier...

    They need to work out exactly what they want and then build them.

    Two kuznetsov with 24-30 mig 29k is what they need right now and it could be a quick and cheap solution.

    There will be an enormous number of changes they will want to make to the design of the Kuznetsov based on operational experience with that carrier... buying another one would not be very useful and would not bring any of the benefits their experience has created.

    Why ? They can make an agreement like the carrier for ToT of su-33 plus some money.

    Because it is an old design and they can probably do much better...

    Politicaly there is no probleme. Neither military since the carrier was made for su-33 and mig-29k. Chinese are getting their own carriers designed for their own jets so unlikely that they use lioning for other task than training. And then training can be done on their own carriers.

    I doubt Russia will be happy operating Su-33s and MiG-33s on new carriers... remember they have committed themselves to replace Soviet era equipment and the Su-33s and MiG-35 are based on Soviet era technology... when they get new carriers they will carry new STOVL fighters or, more likely Su-57Ks...

    Every country is happy to get ride of a big carrier that is useless for them.

    Why would Russia be happy having to completely overhaul another carrier with their new technology?

    China can use the carrier for decades, learning how to operate at sea with aircraft... the experience would be useful.
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 5545
    Points : 5537
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Isos on Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:14 am

    Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

    Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

    Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

    Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

    Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.
    Tsavo Lion
    Tsavo Lion

    Posts : 4040
    Points : 4036
    Join date : 2016-08-15
    Location : AZ, USA

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Tsavo Lion on Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:08 pm

    Ideally, it would make sense to have it in the Pac. Fleet, but the SSBN bastion there is well protected by air & naval bases on Kamchatka, Sakhalin & the Kurils; moving it to the Black or Barents Sea won't be cheap.
    The CV-17 & CVN-18/-19 crews will be trained on the CV-16. By the time China has 3-4 CVNs, the CV-16 will need a major overhaul.
    They won't do it just before selling it to Russia, & it would be too expensive for her to buy it anyway. The Russian yards will be too busy building & refitting other ships & subs to get involved with the CV-16.
    The Kra-Canal could be of an enormous economical benefit to Thailand and it could become a center of gravity for trade between the Pacific and Indian Ocean. The plan is to develop an industrial zone for heavy industry, including dry-dock and ship-building facilities and a deep-sea port at the canal entrances.
    https://www.iims.org.uk/kra-canal-project/
    https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/11/26/the-kra-canal-and-the-reform-of-thailand/

    In 10-15 years, the Kra Canal will be built & Thailand may want to buy a 2nd CV to replace it's own, now useless & w/o STOVLs:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

    The Kra Canal will be to the RTN CG what the Panama Canal is to the USN & CG.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1436
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Fri Dec 21, 2018 9:16 am

    GarryB wrote:But what sort of payload are these high speed helos going to be able to manage... to achieve those speeds they will be sleek low drag designs... so likely no external rocket pods or large missile packs like current attack helos... and likely not heavily armoured either.
    Chief designer at Kamov already said some time ago that he sees the future helicopter as faster, streamlined, with weapons integrated in bays. The model leaked fulfils his statements. This layout would be completely different and new technology so we would need to see how it would be used and with what capabilities. Rolling TO could be used for instance for increased payload, a bit like a different form of STOVL plane. Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

    Personally I think cruise missiles for deep strike for navy vessels, and a few gun vessels with 152mm and 203mm naval guns to offer NGS.
    Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

    In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24999
    Points : 25543
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:21 am

    Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

    Even if they took possession of the now Chinese carrier, it would take 4-5 years just to rip the guts out of it and replace it with their own systems and equipment and get it back into the water...

    They recently flew Tu-160s to Venezuela and I am sure they would like to follow that up with a visit by the Russian Navy, but really they need to expand their existing fleet before they start doing too much of that... they need at least 3-4 destroyer sized vessels and a cruiser to go... and by then the Kuznetsov will be out of refit and will be needing a decent trip to stretch its legs and test the new equipment and upgrades.

    Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

    It certainly can operate the Su-33, though it was expected that the slightly larger Ulyanovsk class carrier that was to replace the Kuznetsov class would be the main platform for the Flankers...

    Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

    New systems and equipment would need new wiring...

    Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

    Changes in technology means a lot of equipment and wiring just would not cut it today... the original very likely did not have much fibre optic cable at all... as an example. Communication wires might have operated at fax speed rather than broadband speed today...

    Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.

    Russian carriers are not American carriers... they will likely want to fit UKSK launchers and also Redut and naval S-500 for their new carriers.

    On the current Kuznetsov they might consider eventually fitting S-500 in the Granit launcher area, or they might go with UKSK... the Granit launchers on the Oscars allowed three Onyx missiles per Granit, so if the same holds true with the Kuznetsov that would mean up to three UKSK launchers could be fitted into the space if the dimensions allow... potentially for 36 Zircon anti ship hypersonic missiles... by 2022 they should know...

    Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

    Except that we know from experience with MiG-15 through to MiG-27 that fast is not necessarily better for ground attack... hence the Su-25.

    For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...


    Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

    To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.

    For targets deeper in the enemy rear, then aircraft from a fixed wing carrier with a mix of guided and unguided weapons would allow deep strikes relatively cheaply, but in the situation where the enemy actually has modern defences then SEAD armed fighters plus cruise missile and hypersonic missile attack could be the better options.

    In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.

    Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 293
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Sure a new carrier with su-57 would be thousand times better but unlikely they got it any time soon.

    Even if they took possession of the now Chinese carrier, it would take 4-5 years just to rip the guts out of it and replace it with their own systems and equipment and get it back into the water...

    They recently flew Tu-160s to Venezuela and I am sure they would like to follow that up with a visit by the Russian Navy, but really they need to expand their existing fleet before they start doing too much of that... they need at least 3-4 destroyer sized vessels and a cruiser to go... and by then the Kuznetsov will be out of refit and will be needing a decent trip to stretch its legs and test the new equipment and upgrades.

    Plus K class can carry big su-33 which means any new smaller and lighter VTOL mig could be used without big changes neither on the deck neither in the hangar neither on the lift.

    It certainly can operate the Su-33, though it was expected that the slightly larger Ulyanovsk class carrier that was to replace the Kuznetsov class would be the main platform for the Flankers...

    Wires and engines are already new, chinese build but new.

    New systems and equipment would need new wiring...

    Kuznetsov was in a very bad situation that's why it needed an upgrade.

    Changes in technology means a lot of equipment and wiring just would not cut it today... the original very likely did not have much fibre optic cable at all... as an example. Communication wires might have operated at fax speed rather than broadband speed today...

    Weapons system can be removed and install only pantsirs and paket nk. It will have escort anyway to protect it from missiles. Radar and russian computers could be installed easily.

    Russian carriers are not American carriers... they will likely want to fit UKSK launchers and also Redut and naval S-500 for their new carriers.

    On the current Kuznetsov they might consider eventually fitting S-500 in the Granit launcher area, or they might go with UKSK... the Granit launchers on the Oscars allowed three Onyx missiles per Granit, so if the same holds true with the Kuznetsov that would mean up to three UKSK launchers could be fitted into the space if the dimensions allow... potentially for 36 Zircon anti ship hypersonic missiles... by 2022 they should know...

    Ceiling would be also potentially higher than normal helos due to the wings, plus long range missiles like Hermes and strongly increased speed could mean better survivability despite maybe less armour.

    Except that we know from experience with MiG-15 through to MiG-27 that fast is not necessarily better for ground attack... hence the Su-25.

    For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...


    Cost and flexibility of dumb bombs dropped with SVP24 have proven difficult to beat IMHO. You would need intelligent ammo to come close to its precision with a cannon and despite the amount of explosive delivered would be quite smaller. Cannons would be range limited, CMs expensive in comparison.

    To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.

    For targets deeper in the enemy rear, then aircraft from a fixed wing carrier with a mix of guided and unguided weapons would allow deep strikes relatively cheaply, but in the situation where the enemy actually has modern defences then SEAD armed fighters plus cruise missile and hypersonic missile attack could be the better options.

    In general I think the experience in Syria shows that most important aspect for strike is intelligence and proper coordination. Then a limited number of aircraft can make a big difference, but reducing its operational costs (compare flight hour costs of helos and jet fighters) would always be welcome.

    Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.


    One more new idiocy and ignorance, common on this Forum! 152/203mm systems to fire at the range of 70/120km!!!???. There is no classical ammunition, even ERFB/BB, super, hyper BB, or else to fire at such range. You need state of the art guided/homing ammunition, whose price will soon amount to 1 million $ for a single 203mm missile of doubtful usefulness, not to talk about HE effect on target of one single 50kg warhead! What kind of C4I would you need to achieve accuracy on such range. Counter-battery radars, UAVs, what kind of UNOBSTRUCTED surveillance on the battlefield in real war. KINDERGARDEN THOUGHTS!
    avatar
    mutantsushi

    Posts : 285
    Points : 307
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  mutantsushi on Sat Dec 22, 2018 12:27 am

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Vulcano_range_BAE_Systems_Leonardo_DSEI_2017
    avatar
    kumbor

    Posts : 293
    Points : 289
    Join date : 2017-06-09

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  kumbor on Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:03 am

    mutantsushi wrote:Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Vulcano_range_BAE_Systems_Leonardo_DSEI_2017

    Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive  & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

    USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1436
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sat Dec 22, 2018 3:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:For delivering troops, I think faster helos make sense, but not for ground attack...
    Time critical targets need as fast an aircraft as possible. Also ceiling and speed affect the engagement window of any AD weapon, and also of the own offensive means. An important issue to survive missile attacks would be the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, since the rotor is not loaded during high speed operation it is possible that the overloads attainable would be substantially higher than in current helicopters, maybe even approaching that of fixed wing aircraft. With the added advantage in this case that the high speed helo can do all those things normal ones do, like using low speed and altitude to hide.
    To support a landing most of the main targets will be on or near the beach... a NGS vessel with a couple of 152mm turrets firing to 70km, and perhaps a couple of 203mm guns firing to perhaps 120km or so with Glonass guided shells should not be too expensive... and the rate of fire with naval guns with water cooled barrels should be rather high... I have read that the naval 152mm gun can fire at about 20 rounds per minute and the ship could carry thousands of rounds, so all weather, day/night support with relatively cheap artillery shells.
    Artillery is always the best solution for cheap attack at short range, but at the distances you mention you would need ammo which is currently very expensive , way more than dumb bombs. And you don't want your ships exposed to the same kind of retaliatory bombardment from land so you need to be far from the shore in any case. And remember the Syrian lesson is rather to increase the size of the warhead than to reduce it, in order to destroy fortification work of the enemy and compensate for less than perfect precision.

    Indeed, their first focus from 2008 to about 2015 was C4IR, and it shows they got the results they wanted... finding and IDing targets is the first critical part of the operation. Communicating that to the relevant attack platform is the next step... but that attack platform could be a range of platforms in the near future including manned and unmanned platforms or weapons.
    Yes, for COIN a very good solution would be a long endurance UCAV, but I don't know if that could be practically deployed from LHDs.
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Guest on Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:01 pm

    kumbor wrote:
    mutantsushi wrote:Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Vulcano_range_BAE_Systems_Leonardo_DSEI_2017

    Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive  & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

    USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!

    To my knowledge cost per round was about 450.000 USD for those 150 ordered for testing. It was to cost 35-40.000 USD per piece upon serial production starts. Basically similar price to modern guided shells used in howtizers.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 24999
    Points : 25543
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:48 am

    One more new idiocy and ignorance, common on this Forum!

    I find your tone rather disrespectful.

    152/203mm systems to fire at the range of 70/120km

    The 152mm Coalition land based artillery system has a range of 70km... that is a fact.

    It is known that the land based Coalition was a joint development with the navy to produce a long range artillery weapon, so a naval version was also designed and tested.

    There is no classical ammunition, even ERFB/BB, super, hyper BB, or else to fire at such range.

    They have stated that the guided rounds reach 70km and the standard rounds 50km. I would expect no less for the naval rounds.

    You need state of the art guided/homing ammunition, whose price will soon amount to 1 million $ for a single 203mm missile of doubtful usefulness, not to talk about HE effect on target of one single 50kg warhead!

    We are talking about Russian weapons, not gold plated American ones... and 152mm shells are 45kgs, 203mm shells would be more like 110kgs... which is pretty much equivalent to half the weight of a normal aircraft delivered bomb... which has plenty of effect as long as it is accurate enough.

    What kind of C4I would you need to achieve accuracy on such range. Counter-battery radars, UAVs, what kind of UNOBSTRUCTED surveillance on the battlefield in real war. KINDERGARDEN THOUGHTS!

    Of course... kindergarten amateurs... that is what the Russian Navy is... they would never consider recon... they just fire their guns at random for shock and awe...

    Now if you have finished being a dick...

    The Russian Army has decided to not retire their 203mm guns and 240mm mortars, and to keep them operational for situations where their special features might be more useful than standard weapons. Situations like mountain warfare or urban warfare... which means keeping the 203mm and 240mm ammo in production... in fact continuing to develop new guided rounds for those weapons.

    But obviously I am being unreasonable to suggest that if the Army wants to keep 203mm ammo and weapons that the navy might want to introduce a 203mm version of a 152mm gun they have already joint developed with the army.

    But if they do introduce a 203mm gun... what are the chances it will have a 30km range, when the 152mm gun is known to have a range of 70km?

    Naw... that is all just kiddy stuff... why would the Russian navy expect their gun artillery to have performance figures like US naval gun artillery? ... after all it is not a race...

    Paper data is one thing, but real chance of hitting something 60km far is nearing 0. Of course you can use guided ammo, but it is prohibitively expensive & makes very small amount of total quantity of rounds. Not to mention destructive effect of one/two hits of 127mm caliber on 5.000tD frigate, which is small, except if it directly hits C&C quarters or powerplant! . The recent catastrophe of RNM Helge Ingstad frigate tells a lot about design flaws and vulnerability of modern fighting ship. Shame!

    We are talking about NGS.... naval gunfire support... if the target is a 5,000 ton frigate then they would use anti ship missiles obviously.

    If the target is inland and is a machine gun position firing on Russian troops during a beach landing then a 40kg HE shell from 70kms away is just the ticket to make them go night night...

    Besides... a 40kg HE shell through the bridge front window would certainly effect the performance of any corvette or frigate... while a tanker that refuses to stop can be stopped with a 40kg shell just below the water line on the bow... unless it wants to sink...

    USN MK51 AGS LRLAP is cancelled as foolishly expensive and of doubtful efficiency! One LRLAP missile round amounts to 1million $!!! which is completely mad thing!

    All calibres of Russian artillery have guided rounds and they are not expensive... in fact even the french have bought them for their 155mm guns... Krasnopol-M.

    there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.

    Putin has already stated that guided rounds are a good way forward so that fewer rounds will be needed to get the job done... and do the job faster which is also important too.

    An important issue to survive missile attacks would be the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, since the rotor is not loaded during high speed operation it is possible that the overloads attainable would be substantially higher than in current helicopters, maybe even approaching that of fixed wing aircraft. With the added advantage in this case that the high speed helo can do all those things normal ones do, like using low speed and altitude to hide.

    Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...

    Artillery is always the best solution for cheap attack at short range, but at the distances you mention you would need ammo which is currently very expensive , way more than dumb bombs.

    I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.

    And remember the Syrian lesson is rather to increase the size of the warhead than to reduce it, in order to destroy fortification work of the enemy and compensate for less than perfect precision.

    Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...

    Yes, for COIN a very good solution would be a long endurance UCAV, but I don't know if that could be practically deployed from LHDs.

    I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.

    Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.

    As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1442
    Points : 1436
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  LMFS on Sun Dec 23, 2018 3:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:there was talk of a new fuse for Russian artillery of 152mm and larger calibre that has control fins and replaces the nose fuse of the old rounds that turns them into GLONASS guided shells... less than $1,000 each... which is pretty damn cheap if you ask me.
    Was unaware of such prices, have you got some link? In that case the scenario changes of course

    Sorry, I can't agree with that... if you think an aircraft can dodge incoming modern missiles then you are not being serious... most would flash past in an instant with no time to manouver...
    Not so fast... helos in low-level conflicts are shot down with AAA, ATGMs, MANPADS and the like. The same way speed + overload capability helps a plane attack and egress in the needed time window to escape AD it would help a helo against more basic assets like the ones mentioned above. Nobody is talking about a helo dodging a modern SAM...

    I disagree... we know US attempts to create accurate long range artillery are expensive, but we also know that shorter range guided artillery rounds are widely used by Russia and are a fraction of the cost of western equivalents.
    OK, would be great to have examples

    Precision means smaller payloads can still be effective... old cruise missiles with a CEP of 250metres would only be effective with a nuclear warhead because they could miss the target by 250m or more. A CEP of 5 metres means it will at least hit the building so a 400kg warhead can be used... if the CEP was 10cm then you could probably make it a kinetic weapon with no warhead for killing individual people...
    Yes this logic is clear, and it is clear also that Russia will use an increasing amount of guided munitions. But in practical terms reaching certain level of precision is very difficult and very expensive. A big blast makes your ordnance less reliant on sensitive guidance and this has been noticed and put in practice in Syria

    I am talking about a separate NGS ship... a vessel designed to provide dedicated gunfire support to landing or landed troops.
    OK. Any existing proposal of a ship of this kind? Battleship comes to mind, and they were all decommissioned. Calibre of modern naval cannons is substantially smaller now and it does not seem there is a big push to change this. The rail gun on the Zumwalts was to be the substitute but I don't see it is going anywhere soon. So NGS is supposed to be pursued still but I don't see real determined efforts, with the focus being rather on missiles and air power.

    Guns on carriers for fire support would need enormous range to keep the carrier a safe distance from the shore.
    Agreed, but they could house rail guns with long range. Since we are talking about future systems...
    A specially designed rail gun maybe could make the projectile overloads small enough to launch missiles without booster and heavily increased warhead sizes to very long ranges and at reduced costs.

    As I said a Coalition gun on a Serna landing craft could be deployed offshore to fire on targets on land during the landing and then once the position is secured they could land and provide support as the ground forces moved inland...
    The land based opponent would have a huge advantage in numbers, being able to base their artillery on land. Would the Serna or similar landing craft withstand this use?
    avatar
    Guest
    Guest

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Guest on Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:08 pm

    Krasnopol was trialed by French like decade and half ago togerher with designs from Sweden, US, South Africa, South Korea... it was never obtained in quantities nor introduced in service.

    Sponsored content

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3 - Page 17 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #3

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:27 pm