Syria was a capability test. Russia cannot build large carriers and that capabililty is about 10 years away.
They have just spent billions of dollars upgrading at least two ports in the far east to allow production of ships up to 350K tons, including military vessels and ships with nuclear propulsion... I really don't think the military invested in that so the energy sector could get their oil tankers and gas tankers subsidised...
By about 2022 Russia should be able to build large military ships... and I mean 50K ton plus ships.
The 23900's are about 1.1B/ship for the first 2, the next 2 will be cheaper.
The cost of a 5th gen stealthy STOVL fighter... which is what you would need from such a tiny vessel will be 10-20 times that figure with no guarantees it will be any use.
No chance at all of using the Su-57 from such a platform.
I think the 23900s will be excellent for what they are... naval infantry landing ships, and will provide the helicopter support any such landing would need.
They would never mount a landing without all their biggest ships including the Kuznetsov and any cruisers they have available so putting fighter planes on these helicopter carriers makes them worse helicopter carriers and totally ineffectual aircraft carriers.
Hopefully in a few years time they might build a couple more as hospital ships that can carry lots of helicopters and amphibious vehicles and trucks for disaster relief as well as supporting landings with a few more helicopters and troops along with hospital bed space for those that need it.
As mentioned by the designer, when it is not being used as a landing ship it can carry lots of vehicles, so for delivering ground forces say to Syria.... it could carry enormous numbers of vehicles too.
Later on perhaps an anti sub version with helicopters and perhaps drones... air, surface and underwater drones... some sort of drone mothership that can sit in international waters and send drones secretly in to look at beaches and test currents and all the things useful to know for a landing operation...
I don't think a tiny fixed wing aircraft carrier makes sense however...
You cannot compare tank usage to ships. Tanks very rarely operate at full power for sustained periods.[/quoet]
Electric drive vehicles are the way of the future... electric buses, trucks, cars, motorbikes, bicycles, tanks, BTRs, BMPs, aircraft, helicopters, drones already, ships, subs, trains... they are all going to electric drive, and depending on their size the best solution is going to be a gas turbine or nuclear power... diesels are reliable and fuel efficient but they are also big and heavy... gas turbines are light and powerful and when run without load turning a generator they can be very fuel efficient... the tank example is just a real world example of a vehicle that uses a GT the wrong way, which leads to high fuel consumption... but even in that situation they are still compact and offer more power than diesels... the cost is much higher fuel consumption...
Once you separate the propulsion system from the propeller (ie screw or wheels) then manouverability becomes amazing because the wheels or screws can be put in pods that have 360 degrees of rotation... like a shopping trolley but all four wheels turn... parallel parking will stop being a problem.... vertical take off will stop being a problem... but more importantly from a design perspective you can put the engine or power generation components anywhere you like.
Instead of using dead useless weight that reduces performance but is necessary to keep balance, you can use your propulsion system as ballast and therefore have a much lighter vessel and widely spaced energy generation systems will be better protected from combat damage taking out all your power.
For very large ships you might want a few options in terms of power generation so even a nuclear powered ship might have diesel backup generators or gas turbine generators... if you wanted to be clever with fuel cell technology you could use nuclear and other power generation sources to get oxygen from sea water for breathing in a sub, and use the hydrogen to create electricity in fuel cells, or burn the hydrogen in the gas turbines as free fuel for a ship...
They might develop nuclear batteries that are just what batteries are now, but these batteries work for 20 years at their power rating.
A 2MW battery on its own wont be that much use but a large ship you could have them located all over the place... 30 or 40 of them... 60-80 MW would be useful and could run the nearby electronics on a reliable power supply even if main power is lost... they could power weapons or fire fighting equipment and pumps... when they run out of power in 20 years time replace them.... nuclear batteries should be fully rechargeable....
With ships you have cruise turbines that are sized to operate at full power during cruise where they are efficient. at partial load Turbines are not very efficient, only at peak load and high power are they efficent.
But the whole point of mixed power is to get the features of the different propulsion systems... diesels are cheap but need to be enormous to get good power levels, while GTs are small and compact with plenty of power but they do tend to burn more fuel depending on how they are used.
In a ship they are generally used for bursts of high speed so of course they are never going to be efficient... but in this case when you need the speed it is more efficient to use GT for a burst of speed at the cost of high fuel consumption while running fast, than to put in the amount of diesel horse power you would need to achieve your higher speeds.
In terms of cars it is like having a smaller engine but using a turbo supercharger to get the power to drive fast when you need it, so that when you don't you are driving around on a cheap small engine. The other way to get that performance is to just use a really big powerful engine which mean everywhere you drive you are burning lots of fuel...
Yes the next gen tanks should be Turbine/Elec, or Diesel Elect. Either one would be fine.
Not really... diesel electric might be good for trains or ships where weight and volume don't matter, but even buses, let alone tanks, the gas turbine offers more power in a given space... and they are lighter too...
If you are operating in CATOBAR as 23900 would need to, then you need to launch every 2-3 mins just to get the strike package off. Russia can have probably 4 23900s for the price of a 80K ton CVN.
23900 is only a 30K ton ship... it is 10 thousand tons lighter than the CDG... so we are talking perhaps 6 fighters and one or two AWACS aircraft at the very best... which would be totally useless.... the French basically custom built the CDG to their needs... do you think they are idiots... do you think if they could have made it 10K tons lighter they would have...
Smaller ships means less deck space... tiny ships means constantly moving stuff around because everything gets in the way of everything else... it would seriously be a dog.
But not a cheap dog.
Russia now has bases in the ME and can count on Venezuela, Cuba and probably Vietnam.
Can it? The Americans are
, but sometimes their continuous mission to undermine human rights and democracy in countries that do not obey don't fail as badly as they have recently in Syria and Venezuela...
[quote]Notice they sent Kuz to Syria where they DO have a base and logistics nearby. [ /quote]
But that wont always be the case... smaller carriers in larger numbers will need a much bigger support fleet... which in itself will be vulnerable too.
The Russian navy cannot match the USN, they don't have the GDP, but what they can do is have a few platforms to establish local logistics.
Russia doesn't need to match the USN ship for ship... with Onyx in service and Zircon on the way it is hard to say Russia is at a disadvantage.
If Russia does not develop a blue water navy its GDP will never grow in any significant way because it will have to rely on countries coming to it while surrounded on its european side by hostile enemy states that don't want it to grow and succeed.
Why would countries bother to trade with Russia and risk western isolations and sanctions? The other countries want to buy stuff and develop and grow, but they can see what the west has done to Venezuela and Syria and Libya and Iraq and Cuba and North Korea and Vietnam and even Egypt and Iran... not all of those countries were best buddies with Russia... in fact when the attitude from the west changed with Syria and Libya and Egypt and Iran those countries were trying to get friendly with the west and the EU and they all got burned and most have now turned to the alternative... Russia and China... they didn't really choose them but when the west turns on you they are all that is left if you want to have a say in your own country about what you want... and you don't want western companies to come in and take over everything....
With no cruisers or destroyers they will have no global reach, and with no aircraft carriers those cruisers and destroyers are going to be much more vulnerable to surprise attack and defeat by an opponent that will use air power.
Putting a tiny token force of weak fighters is just pissing money away... the Russians have just cancelled all the Flanker purchases and also the Su-57 programme and the new LFMS programme and they are going to build 48 MiG-29M2s, which is going to be their entire fighter protection force for the whole country... because they think their Nudel, S-500s, S-400s, S-350s, S-300s, etc etc etc are already good enough... the money spent on new aircraft can be saved and put into better missiles and more missiles...
[quote] I think AWACs can be a STOL platform ,does not need a CAT, maybe the transport planes do, but they can also use MI 26 for this./quote]
They couldn't operate an Mi-26 on a Ford class super carrier, let alone a 30K ton lite carrier.
The Mi-26 would be a poor choice for AWACS simply because it is too big and heavy and would burn enormous amounts of fuel doing something a much smaller lighter aircraft could do much cheaper.
Notice using an An-124 as an AWACS does not make sense either... the bigger the plane the more it costs to buy and run and operate... if you need to transport 150 ton payloads then an An-124 is excellent, but to carry around a radar and extra fuel would be very very inefficient.
The key for an AWACS plane is that it spends most of its time cruising at an efficient flight speed, so traditionally airliners have been used as their base aircraft.
For the Soviets, they wanted a more rugged plane that could operate from poor runways with little infrastructure so they picked their Il-76 transport plane for the role.
AWACS planes don't have big powerful high thrust engines like fighters do, because that would mean they would burn fuel too fast and not be able to fly for very long periods.
For Russia the only reason it needs cats is for AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft.
But they do need to be able to fit on the deck lifts otherwise they would have to remain on deck all the time which would get in the way of takeoffs and landings.