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


    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25927
    Points : 26473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 16, 2020 8:37 am

    Russia doesn't need a ultra-heavy aircraft carrier (complimented with 90 aircraft), but a light carrier with comparable deck length at 1/3rd the weight may'be ideal ticket for carrying fixed winged aircraft. Ideally speaking the capability to carry up to 30 aircraft (20 fixed and 10 helicopters with 50 armored vehicles and 500 marines) is the way to go. This would better justify the idea of developing LMFS, and if not they can go with an off-shoot or a deeply modernized/modified Yak-130 with a mix of S-70 Hunter as their fixed winged compliment.

    Most of the helicopters on a helicopter landing ship are not attack helicopters.... the vast majority are transport types for lifting gear and for delivering troops... it is amusing people criticising me for suggesting a CVN should have UKSK launchers and SAM launchers to defend itself and make itself a useful platform for a range of missions but don't say anything when others suggest taking a perfectly good helicopter carrier and screwing it up to try to make it into some sort of Helicopter carrier mini CVN wannabe... Having upgraded Yak-130 jet trainers as fighters would be a joke... if they only wanted 10 helicopters they could have made it a 20k ton ship like the Mistral which would make it much cheaper.

    They scaled the design up to carry more armour and more troops... they would be pretty damn stupid to then replace the helicopters that would help get them to the beach quickly with useless token fighter planes that wont last much longer than simple drones.

    These landing ships will operate with CV support so there is no need to take away valuable and useful helicopters and replace them with useless bantamweight fighters... an Su-25TM would probably make a more effective fighter than a Yak-130.

    Just to clarify, I didn't mean that they will convert LHDs they are building now into aircraft carriers but that they will probably use that design and modify it for later construction (as in adding angled deck and reactors)

    Ships they build (and will build) in the current setup will remain LHDs

    They need to get a few years experience with these new ships to work out whether to scale up and make a CVN or try something completely new.

    These are replacing their Mistrals so odds are they will end up building four... two for the Pacific and two for the Northern Fleet and the upgraded Ivan Gren landing ships will likely operate in the Black Sea and Med environment (these new ships are too big for the Black Sea... and would be essentially trapped in a HATO lake in the Baltic Sea).

    Personally I think those multihull designs with a super wide hull and therefore also wide hangars and decks looks promising for getting max volume and capacity at minimum weight.

    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 814
    Points : 860
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:33 pm

    I wonder what they could do with a 100+ ton multi hull design.

    Obviously though a carrier long enough to not need not need a catapult to launch fully loaded heavy fighters and strike aircraft would be ideal.

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 17, 2020 5:24 pm

    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
    avatar
    william.boutros

    Posts : 121
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  william.boutros on Mon Aug 17, 2020 6:09 pm

    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

    The guy is very emotional, but he is right with regards to UDK. This ship will probably end up a light aircraft carrier. Whether it will be so from the start or modified at a later stage remains to be seen.

    In a libya type scenario one light carrier could very well offer sustained air support to support a Russian landing party in an operation with allied local troops.

    What a light aircraft carrier cannot do is cover with proper AWACS a large area distant from shore based reconnaissance but that capability is usually needed against NATO grade opponents. In this case Russia would be on the defensive and not sending an expeditionary force.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Mon Aug 17, 2020 7:36 pm

    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 dunno
    avatar
    william.boutros

    Posts : 121
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2015-08-13

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  william.boutros on Tue Aug 18, 2020 7:43 am

    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 dunno

    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
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:06 pm

    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.

    It is already flawed doing land attacks with a real carrier, imagine doing it with STOLV planes from a LHD... it brings a very limited capability.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 814
    Points : 860
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Tue Aug 18, 2020 4:16 pm

    If they wanted the capabilities of a light carrier they would have just dumped a couple of billion rubles into the sea and periodically dumped in a couple of dozen million after that.

    If they have no intention of using these landing ships as landing ships then they would not have built them as landing ships, an aircraft carrier that also carries ground troops is completely retarded, it is like a ballistic missile submarine that equipped with battleship guns for shore bombardment.

    LMFS likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:03 am

    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
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 9372
    Points : 9454
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  PapaDragon on Wed Aug 19, 2020 1:34 am

    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...

    What does it say?

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:06 am

    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
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2082
    Points : 2084
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:07 am

    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.

    Really? Suspect

    Care to be specific, rather than issue a weasly generalized smear?

    Rushed? It been 5 years since the feckless French bowed to Murican pressure like a bunch of gutless pissants. You think 5 years isn't enough time to "russify" a Mistral??

    This article is a BS beat-up. Who the F is the author anyway and why should I put any credence into anything they write?

    "In order to assess the potential of the ZPKB, it is enough to familiarize yourself with the projects it offers for foreign customers"

    "The absurdity of the designer's choice becomes less absurd, if you make a fairly obvious assumption about what exactly is being built in Kerch, hiding under the pseudonym 23900."

    "French partners, whether there is a need, can even secretly convey to us the missing RKD. "

    Pfftt.. FFS, if this is indicative of the authors thought processes, i can tell that reading this shitful article is going to 15 minutes of my life that could be better spent.

    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... No
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza

    Posts : 2082
    Points : 2084
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Big_Gazza on Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:08 am

    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.

    No, there isn't.  Its a BS mish-mash of allegations and assertions. If I had to guess its a hit-piece penned by someone associated with a design bureau that lost the tender.

    FFS, the title is "A Sad Holiday"??? WTF?? Then look at the paragraph headings: French trace, Copyright, Empty Vanity, Aesthetics.... then some utter BS about the vessels being named after allegedly "undeserving" (my description) figures, despite the previous use of Rogov & Moskalenko for a prev generation of ships.

    P.S I smell Ukropi involvement in this article.  Some Banderite trench-whore who is deeply unhappy that Zaliv yard is back to building big ships instead of being a decaying post-Soviet ruin like the other legacy enterprises in West Buttfuckistan  Laughing
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Wed Aug 19, 2020 3:49 am

    I don't understand why people think the article is such a stretch. Russia built large sections of their Mistrals and planned to build 2 more domestically. So the entire ship, its operations and integration of Russian weapons was complete. Plus the industrial capacity to built them was created. So now Russia cannot source the propulsion systems, and a bunch of western systems. Would it really make sense to do a clean sheet? Why on earth? You have at most 20% of the design that needs to be rejigged to accomodate propulsion. Why you are at it, may as well fix the thing you never liked. I think what he says happened but disagree its such a bad thing.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 19, 2020 4:20 am

    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...   No

    Hey, no need to get triggered just because some criticism. The Russian shipbuilding has still serious problems. Supporting its development (something the author has been doing for many years) does not imply agreeing everything is fine. The development of the 23900 project is very weird to me and I understand it is weird to this guy too. BTW, the tone of the piece is not uncommon at all in Russian publications, thankfully they are not exceptionalists that think their shit smells like roses.

    That being said, the project may end up well and certainly there will be reasons supporting the current course of actions, but to me there are definitely many aspects that don't make much sense as of now.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25927
    Points : 26473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:54 am

    Maybe it is just me, but I don't understand what is the big deal about it being a "light carrier" or not.

    The big deal is that it is a copout....

    Imagine an accountant saying these big Su-57s are very capable but they are so expensive.... why not build Yak-130s because they are much cheaper and when you use anti aircraft weapons to shoot them down it will take more missiles to shoot down 10,000 Yak-130s than it would to shoot down 200 Su-57s...

    Ignoring the fact that 10,000 Yak-130s couldn't do what Su-57s do and would probably cost rather more to operate than 200 Su-57s do... so smaller carriers can't do the same job fewer bigger carriers can do and would not be cheaper because you would end up needing more...

    Having a cheap 9 mm submachine gun with much more bullets does not make it better than an assault rifle.

    The Finns showed the Soviets that a SMG in a forest is better than bolt action rifles, because at short range the fire power of the SMG can overwhelm even a quite large group of men with bolt action rifles, and the weak pistol calibre ammo becomes rather potent at short range when delivered in bursts with multiple hits.

    The Soviets took that new knowledge into combat with them against Germany and the Germans suffered and the German solution was the Assault Rifle... effectively medium range fire power so they could back off from the SMG to ranges where the SMG was ineffective and their semi auto and full auto rifle bullets still overwhelmed the guys with the bolt action rifles. The German adoption of assault rifles was a response to the close range fire power of Soviet SMGs.

    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...

    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.

    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...

    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.

    The Yak-41 never had a range... it was never fitted with full operational systems and was never in service... all the performance details were theoretical.

    In practise it was less capable than the MiG-33.

    If they have no intention of using these landing ships as landing ships then they would not have built them as landing ships, an aircraft carrier that also carries ground troops is completely retarded, it is like a ballistic missile submarine that equipped with battleship guns for shore bombardment.

    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.

    Cheap means easy to shoot down and expendable... in other words a drone.

    Cheap means short ranged and lacking payload.

    If you are building an entire extra ship for air defence then how cheap is it going to be... and it is it not going to be cheap then why not stop being cheap and spend proper money getting something that is useful.

    The Russian Navy has a strong history of landing forces.... naval infantry... just like their air force has a strong history of air droppable forces... the VDV...

    The Russian Navy is not going to forget its landing forces any more than the Air Force will stop buying transport aircraft...

    But the Russian Air Force is not going to operate transport planes over enemy territory without fighter air protection... so why would the Navy expect landing forces to operate in enemy held airspace?

    That being said, the project may end up well and certainly there will be reasons supporting the current course of actions, but to me there are definitely many aspects that don't make much sense as of now.

    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... cheers russia
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Wed Aug 19, 2020 12:41 pm

    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...

    I am open to see the STOVL or any other idea implemented in an original and maybe more intelligent way than until now and accept they could bring advantages in performance vs. helos, but in general I fully agree with you. The places where you can deploy your LHD-based STOVL are roughly the same kind of conflicts where you could deploy already without them.

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

    That is actually what they are designed to do, so better keep some space for helos and amphibious forces yes...

    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.

    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.

    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...

    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". 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. 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.

    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...

    I completely agree they need to get moving and if this was the best option to do it, then it is ok. 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.
    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 1941
    Points : 1941
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  LMFS on Thu Aug 27, 2020 4:59 pm

    Interview with AK Bars boss Renat Mistakhov dealing mainly with the new UDKs:

    https://tass.ru/interviews/9296405
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:51 am

    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...


    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.
    The-thing-next-door
    The-thing-next-door

    Posts : 814
    Points : 860
    Join date : 2017-09-18
    Location : Uranus

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  The-thing-next-door on Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:18 am

    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.

    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.

    Light carriers are also so inefficient that it would be better the use cruise missiles for all your targets rather than a light carrier.

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25927
    Points : 26473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 28, 2020 1:57 pm

    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... Sad

    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...
    avatar
    mnztr

    Posts : 495
    Points : 525
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  mnztr on Fri Aug 28, 2020 10:06 pm

    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...


    There is no such thing as a really small carrier and with CATOBAR all you need is enough length for the catapult and elevators etc to operate heavy fighters. Case in point the De Gaulle is less then half the size of a Nimitz and can operate Rafale, which is probably superior to the (not so)Super Hornet. Size only adds quantity. 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
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 25927
    Points : 26473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 29, 2020 12:37 pm

    There is no such thing as a really small carrier

    Of course there is... the Brits led the way in the 1980s with the Hermes, and the Soviets had the Kiev class carriers too... the accountants dream... small an much cheaper than the much bigger US carriers... but notice the new British carrier and the current Kuznetsov are about the same size... 50-60K ton instead of the 20-30K ton of the mini carriers... and the Russian Navy is talking about wanting new carriers slightly bigger than Kuz... 70-80K ton... like the Ulyanovsk...

    Having fighter planes with your ships is good, but it is important when the enemy actually has aircraft too that yours are better because you wont be able to take that many...

    The UK was very very lucky in 1982 that the Argentines didn't have any aircraft with BVR missiles or they would have been in serious trouble.

    Even if they only had MiG-23s they could have used their speed and range and BVR missiles to fly in and pick off any AEW radar helicopters they were using at the time and to also pick off Harriers too.

    With MiG-23s they could have operated from airstrips on the islands and the Vulcan attack probably could have been dealt with using them as interceptors.

    The side mounted engine exhaust nozzles on the Harriers would have made them exceptionally vulnerable to the R-23T IR guided medium range AAMs the MiG-23s had... launch both missiles at a Harrier and they would have had a good chance of a kill... if they both missed turn and climb and accelerate away... there would not be a huge amount the Harriers could do about it... especially if they coordinated their attacks so as one turned the next aircraft launches their missiles from 30km range...

    If the Argentinians had F-4s they would be in just as much trouble... they could launch hundreds of Sparrows at them and the Harriers couldn't get close...

    Ironically if it was a Soviet invasion of the Malvinas... the Mirage and Skyhawks would probably have slaughtered the Yak-38s, but I think the Soviet air defence missiles would have done a better job protecting the ships...

    CATOBAR all you need is enough length for the catapult and elevators etc to operate heavy fighters.

    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.

    Case in point the De Gaulle is less then half the size of a Nimitz and can operate Rafale, which is probably superior to the (not so)Super Hornet. Size only adds quantity.

    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?
    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 6185
    Points : 6177
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Isos on Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:19 pm

    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.

    K is a joke compare to De Gaulle.

    Rafale is the best fighter right now in the world specially the naval version. It takes lot of space on a carrier however because no folding wings.

    De Gaulles carrier is perfect IMO. It carries one type of fighter, 2 AWACS and has aster-15 for self defence.

    K is made with lot of "too much". Too much of missiles, too much of helicopters. And not enough of fighters and space for them. Su-33 is also totally outdated and doesn't stand a chance against modern fighters like rafale M. The ski jump also limits its payload. They made it as a carrier + cruiser + ASW heli carrier when it should have been only a carrier. It will always have an escort anyway.

    Its propulsion is also a joke. Soviet/russians mastered nuclear propulsion for decade and they should have given it to the K. They were stupid on this decision.

    The little shtorm is clearly what they need with 1 catapult and nuk propulsion. They also needs just one type of aircraft on it instead of su-33/mig-29. Su-57K being the best choice. It would provide air cover in far deployment and strike capability against land targets. With a barrage of kalibr they could quickly gain total air control by destroying enemy planes on the ground over an area when halping friends like in Syria or Lybia or Venezuela.
    SeigSoloyvov
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 2030
    Points : 2022
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Aug 29, 2020 10:57 pm

    Imagine trying to downplay Rafale cause of your bias.

    Those Aircraft are complete boss and far superior to anything Russian can field on an AC.

    Sponsored content

    Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship - Page 6 Empty Re: Project 23900 "Ivan Rogov" Amphibious assault ship

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:19 am