Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

The-thing-next-door wrote:I wonder what they could do with a 100+ ton multi hull design.

LMFS wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:I wonder what they could do with a 100+ ton multi hull design.

That one would have a way bigger flight deck than a US CVN...
Martyanov is also following the possible UDK evolution into carriers:
http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/08/thats-russia-for-ya.html

LMFS wrote:Maybe it is just me, but I don't understand what is the big deal about it being a "light carrier" or not. The UDK already has a substantial air wing, even when it is not fixed wing it already covers some aspects of the fire support, AEW and naval strike roles. I get that STOVL would make it better in some regards but would not turn it into an asset capable of being deployed far from Russia on a high intensity conflict /substitute of aircraft carrier. Equally, high speed helos or drones like Fregat with increased dynamic capabilities vs conventional helos would make its air wing more capable without turning it into a "light carrier", would they? The hull of the UDK is still designed for low speed, high internal volume and amphibious operations, I don't see it jumping category just because it carries some STOVL planes

william.boutros wrote:Attack helicopters have limited range, altitude and armament. Ka-52 has a range of 600 KM whilst YAK-41 has a 2500 KM range. Most of the bombardment in Syria was carried out by Su-24.

LMFS wrote:Navy-Korabel analyses the 23900:

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/246646.html

Sadly I have to agree on many aspects and still keep scratching my head over the decision of the basic design, designer and rushed course of action. I keep my hope alive based on some official stating that they would use these vessels as a way to gain experience and that they planned further units, but only after a thorough evaluation of the first two. Also it is supposed that now, after the 11711 debacle, every new naval design must go through Krylov's scientific assessment, hopefully they manage to turn that eyesore into something better...

PapaDragon wrote:What does it say?

LMFS wrote:Navy-Korabel analyses the 23900:

https://navy-korabel.livejournal.com/246646.html

Sadly I have to agree on many aspects and still keep scratching my head over the decision of the basic design, designer and rushed course of action.

LMFS wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:What does it say?

In summary that given the development schedule it must be indeed a Mistral built by an inexperienced bureau and that the program does not look promissing. But it is best to read it, there are many interesting considerations done in the article.

Big_Gazza wrote:Final comment - It's a little depressing that other members of this forum seem to lack the common sense to smell a pile of politically-motivated bovine excrement when they come across it...  

GarryB wrote:Adding STOVL fighters would make it much worse by making it less of a landing ship and more of a half assed nothing... neither an air defence carrier, nor a landing ship because it needed more helicopters...

A landing ship is made better with extra transport helicopters and armour to deploy on land.

The only way you could justify putting fixed wing fighter aircraft on board is if you built an extra complete ship and replaced all the helicopters and armour and troops with resources to operate aircraft which would also mean spending billions of dollars developing a working VSTOL fighter... the obvious problem there is that you would be spending more money on a small cheap 5th gen stealth fighter that is also a VSTOL aircraft... which is a total contradiction in terms.

What exactly does not make sense?

They wanted helicopter landing ships and they are making two helicopter landing ships.... all the "doesn't make sense now" BS is guesswork. We don't know enough about it to know anything does not make sense...

What does make sense is that they are building some ships for the Naval Infantry forces to be based in... and to operate from which probably means a whole range of amphibious armoured vehicles also got the nod for development and production too...

GarryB wrote:

How do you think an enemy will respond to Soviet tiny carriers with short range fighters and helicopter based AEW aircraft... it is pretty straight forward... small carriers are not free and will cost a significant fraction of the cost of a big carrier with big aircraft... ironically VSTOL fighters wont be cheaper than Su-57s used in a naval role because the small production runs and low numbers of actual aircraft needed will make any ship based carrier aircraft expensive, but look at US experience they went from long range F-14s to medium range F-18s and now short range F-35s... so Backfire bombers carrying anti ship missiles would actually be more effective today than in the 1980s... a simple modification to carry four Kinzhal missiles, and soon enough carrying Zircons as well and those US carriers are in real trouble... but mainly because they have gone backwards in terms of onboard interceptors...

[

Adding STOVL fighters would make it much worse by making it less of a landing ship and more of a half assed nothing... neither an air defence carrier, nor a landing ship because it needed more helicopters...

mnztr wrote:

It depends who the enemy is, most enemy knowing the Russian planes are packing KH-31s will probably bug out. As for the USA Russia will never build a carrier fleet to rival the US carrier fleet so there is no point even building a couple as the US will just deploy 2 or 3. I like what the Chinese are working on. Smaller carrier with catapult that can launch a very heavy strike platform (UAV or fighter) that can carry long range ASMs. No naval force will take such a threat lightly. A STOVL Plane does not really compromise as a landing ship, if you replace a KA-52 with a STOVL Plane you have a strike platform that can carry a much higher payload and deliver a much higher sortie rate.

GarryB wrote:

A small carrier with a cat system could probably launch a small fighter with a full weapon payload... not a heavy fighter with a full weapon payload... so we are not talking particularly great performance...

Why pick De Gaulle? The Rafale is not a big fighter. At 42K tons it is on the small size, but at 261m long it is rather bigger than the modified helicopter carriers the VSTOL zealots suggest be used.... but I think the Kuznetsov at 55K tons normal load with Su-33s without a catapult is rather more impressive.

GarryB wrote:

Not really... the sort of mini carriers they talk about... essentially 20K to 30K modified helicopter carriers... you can't launch something like a Hornet from them... even with cats... you would have to take Harriers or F-35Cs. Despite the presence of a catapult it takes distance to get a heavier aircraft airborne and it also takes distance to land them.



Why pick De Gaulle? The Rafale is not a big fighter. At 42K tons it is on the small size, but at 261m long it is rather bigger than the modified helicopter carriers the VSTOL zealots suggest be used.... but I think the Kuznetsov at 55K tons normal load with Su-33s without a catapult is rather more impressive.

A 30K ton ship can probably operate an air wing of 8 heavy fighters, which is really a pretty massive amount of fire power. Maybe 20 aircraft in total

That is bloody useless... that is barely enough to keep two fighters in the air 24/7... and what about AWACS?

Would be worse than useless... it could barely protect itself let alone the ships it was operating with...

50% the cost of a real ship and 5% of the capacity... waste of money and time.

An enemy attacking your carrier group is going to send more than one plane to attack you... probably four flights of four aircraft at a bare minimum... how are your fighters going to deal with that?