STOVL fighters are a dead horse that needs no more money pissed away into it...
Obviously the business case of the STOVL is still unclear and at 10 planes per ship they better sell many abroad or the project will not make any economic sense.
They will never sell enough to cover their costs and make it a good idea... it was just lucky the Russians were able to sell the Americans the technology to develop the F-35, which ruined its aerodynamics and internal design to make it a white elephant... they don't need to stand on the same land mine...
There is no advantage to an aircraft taking off vertically... the compromises in the design make it useless as a fixed wing fighter.
The article details the apparent contradictions in the time line of the program, there is no time to develop the technical project, they in a very brief time announce an unexpected design bureau, show some layout and start building without even having the technical details, few weeks after starting "building" (what do you build without a finished project?) they say it is not 25 kt (which had been announced only shortly before) but "more than 30 kt".
And what should be read in to that... that the information released has been vague and contradictory... so what.... who cares. There were probably quite a few design bureaus working on a replacement and each probably had different solutions scaled to different budgets and requirements... the Navy will be issuing requirements and demands for the use of the final design so having one design makes no sense at all... they need a few different options they can mix and match with in case they decide they want this or that extra capacity... if you have three different designs in three different weight classes with different options for different things then no matter what they ask for you can say yes... this design, if tweaked can work the best.
Besides... pick a girl... put a ring on her finger and 25kt to 30kt happens real fast...
If you don't even know the size of the ship you cannot plan commissioning dates, much less when they are as close as 2025 for a lead ship you have never built or tested.
Well they are laying two down together and one is due 2025 and the other 2027, so they obviously intend to work on one and use what they learn on the other...
Didn't they describe the Mistrals as helicopter barges?
Their electronics and sensors and other equipment will be standardised for new ships so this will be good experience for them working on a bigger ship.... and despite the tears and complaints here on this forum, it would certainly not be the end of the world if it didn't hit the water on the day of 2025.
It looks definitely messy from a program management perspective, I may be saying this as an outsider but not as a layman. The author apparently graduated in the Leningrad Shipbuilding Institute. Now anyone can think what they want.
Of course it is a messy programme... they should be ordering two more from France right now, but France fucked things up... no surprise there, so they are having to solve the problem themselves. I say good... the French don't need the contract for two more ships... Why would Russia want ships built in the third world anyway...
It just means program may be longer, more difficult or produce something less effective than if it was set up in another way, but sometimes you don't have the option to set up projects in the best way.
Usually you know it is less effective or worse because they are reducing funding and the new ship will be smaller than originally expected.
Normally when it is bigger that means they are getting more of the things they wanted.... not less.
Interview with AK Bars boss Renat Mistakhov dealing mainly with the new UDKs
Interesting... more helicopters and troops and armour more equipment than Mistral, and also able to fill the rear well with armour as well if just transporting equipment and not needing to "land them". So instead of landing ships or hovercraft in the rear well you could load armour which can be driven off the ship in port so more vehicles can be carried when they don't need to go ashore... and armour can also be placed where the helicopters are kept to further increase the number of armoured vehicles carried when helicopters are not needed.
it mentions that land based helicopters can also be used in addition to naval helicopters...
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.
What do you mean rival? Do you think Russia has an Air Force to match HATO? Why does it have an air force with all those SAMs they have and all those radar and air defences... surely it is a waste of billions of dollars having an air defence AND an air force... unless they don't eliminate the need for each other but instead are complimentary.
I fully agree Russia should not build fixed wing aircraft carriers if the purpose is to fight the US, because that is just stupid... there will be one fight and the outcome will be everyone dies.... fucking pointless.
However I don't think Russia can afford to spend billions of dollars on destroyers and new cruisers and new landing ships and not spend a little more on air protection for those ships and subs. A small carrier sounds cheaper but it isn't. A small carrier requires a fighter and a VSTOL fighter is going to cost you more than a full sized CVN will cost you... building 4 or 6 mini CVNs with enormously expensive and not particularly capable VSTOL fighters wont be anywhere near as good as two full sized CVNs that can actually do a decent job.
No they wont sink all 10 US carrier groups, but a group of Russian ships with a CVN to support them will be much much better defended than a group of Russian surface ships on their own... their hypersonic anti ship missiles means the US surface ships will take pains to avoid Russian carrier groups because aircraft in the air will detect them early and start the missile attack from the Russian ships to the US ships much earlier and much more effectively... taking their carriers first means they will be much more vulnerable to other attacks and more than likely will just withdraw.
Can't say the same with mini carriers with no decent AWACS or fighter capability.
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.
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...
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.
The fact that a helicopter is a useful alternative to a STOVL fighter tells you everything you need to know about STOVL fighters...
The problem with your suggestion is that a Russian aircraft carrier would need more endurance than a us one in order to maintain a presence of Russian airpower in a region, thus light carriers will not do.
A very important point.
Light carriers are also so inefficient that it would be better the use cruise missiles for all your targets rather than a light carrier.
Indeed... a light carrier with VSTOL fighters would require the enormous expense and time to develop a new 5th gen stealthy VSTOL fighter... how much did the F-35 cost? It would need to be as good as that too.
In actual fact a helicopter carrier with a Ka-31 radar helicopter offering 250km range radar coverage down to water level plus a few Ka-52s with four packs of Igla-S AAMs on its three underwing hard points would be about as effective as an F-35 for shooting down incoming anti ship missiles... the F-35 doesn't carry 12 AAMs....
A Russian aircraft carrier would not be used against pindostanski CBGs directly but rather it would be used to locate the CBGs which would then be destroyed by submarines and missile cruisers while the carrier stays safely out of range of enemy CBGs. Unless ofcourse it runs into a lone CBG in which case a direct engagement would favour the Russian carrier.
The whole point of having a carrier is the AWACS aircraft detecting enemy ships at extreme distances... avoiding the whole getting surprised thing and adding a good solid aircraft based air defence ring around the entire surface group with highly mobile mach 2 capable radar and missile platforms that can fly out and identify a target so you can decide whether to engage or not... based on useful information rather than guy instincts...