Any non Russian ships in the Caspian not fitting through Russian canals... tough...
Perhaps that is the key... maybe they want the canals widened so in 10 years time they can start sailing bigger ships through there to get to the Caspian Sea to extract materials from the former Soviet States and perhaps Afghanistan through a former Soviet State and therefore bypass Pakistan...
The missile needs a certain energy and speed to make high g manoeuvring while finishing the approach to the ship. It is not a sustained turning and really in such cases you would need to make numbers to know for sure what can be done with the kinetic energy of the missile depending on its speed, drag, approach time, needed maneouvering and so on.
A missile that uses speed for effectiveness would benefit from being powered during its dive to target...
Air density at 40 km is like 1% of that at sea level. A scramjet designed to operate at that altitude is going to operate with 100 times more air going into the intake?
They make air intakes adjustable for that very reason.... look at the engine of the SR-71... the cone centre of it can be moved right forward at high speed reducing incoming air to a narrow slit around the outside of the cone into the intake.... most scramjets seem to have rectangular intakes so raising the lip to create a narrow slit inlet is probably the idea there too...
As said previously, at low altitude and very high speed the drag and temperature the inlet and engine would create may be a serious problem, it may well be better to detach the engine completely.
Even if it is running in idle to counter some drag in the last few seconds of flight the extra mass and material will add to the impact...
No it is not... at least the carrier has a squadron of ASW helos and maybe UAVs too offering much better coverage than what any other surface ship can have. But I think it is very unlikely that the carrier is going to be alone without a sad frigate to help. This would be unheard of.
Having large numbers of medium helicopters with dipping sonars triangulating the location of enemy subs is very useful but once the targets location has been approximated a mach 2.5 ballistic rocket will cover 40km in less time than it would take a torpedo or a helicopter to cover that distance... and it would mean those subs could continue listening for other targets and perhaps listen to the engagement to ensure a kill or request a follow up shot...
A 90K ton aircraft carrier can carry dozens of UKSK launchers without problem... there will be plenty of corners with the space needed...
USN has some new VLS that can be installed at the border of the hull. There was a corvette from Krylov with some similar approach. More equipment means less space for the air wing, more cost, less reliability and more crew. I think it is not worth it and read the guys from Krylov and Nevskoe saying the same. But maybe I am wrong!
Apart from the hatches, these systems should have electronic monitoring systems and not need under deck access to check individual missiles like the Rif and Klintok missiles before them.
Having 300+ short range SAMs sitting in launch tubes ready to go is vastly cheaper and more effective than trying to keep aircraft airborne 24/7 armed with live missiles just in case there is a surprise sneak attack like the one executed against the Saudis oil fields...
For all we know these new photonic radars might be able to see 500m into sea water and submarines might be rendered useless, but it would likely still operate with a few around it... and having some land attack or anti sub or even anti ship missiles on board just makes it a more flexible ship/weapon system.
They might develop a reusable vertically launched 10 metre long 750mm calibre UAV that is scramjet powered but can land using a tail hook back on the carrier.... launched from a UKSK launch tube... able to cruise out at mach 10 to use a radar and EO systems to scan the area and then fly back to be reused... the solid rocket fuel booster replaced and internal fuel replaced after landing and reloaded into the UKSK system where its batteries are recharged and electronics tested and checked in place... or perhaps a much slower HALE or MALE subsonic model for launch in bad weather conditions with serious crosswinds or other issues that prevent conventional aircraft taking off. After a few dozen launches you could take out the unnecessary (more expensive) electronics (for reuse) and use it as a drone target for target practise or as a weapon to hit ISIS targets in Syria or Libya...
IMHO that would be very problematic, because supporting the air wing is already very space and personnel demanding. The carrier is an specialised vessel.
The role of the Russian aircraft carrier is to provide air cover for Russian surface ships and subs... effectively its job is to be the air force for the navy.... it is essentially being an AEGIS cruiser to protect the cruisers and destroyers of the Russian Navy... which are already better protected than US AEGIS cruisers....
Why do you think a US AEGIS cruiser is not safe on its own?
- First of all, the automation of such a ship should be increased, its electronic armament should be improved, the means of protection (for example, anti-aircraft weapons), the habitability for the personnel who will live on this ship should be improved. The aircraft fleet and all the necessary devices and mechanisms that this aircraft fleet will operate will be improved. Together with the development of our science and technology, these ships should also "grow".
Redut and UKSK are not manually operated weapons that need rotary launch systems maintained and monitored... both will be operated from command by a sailor at a set of controls...
Whether they will be big or small is not an obvious question. But be that as it may, the seaworthiness of a small ship is much lower than that of a large one. And the restrictions on aviation flights directly depend on seaworthiness.
It also adds persistence when in operation... a carrier that can carry 90 fighters plus all the other aircraft it needs might have stores and supplies to operate for two or three weeks depending on the tempo of operations, but if you only load up 48 fighters but carry full munitions and fuel capacity that should mean operations for four to six weeks just using standard available stores... without stacking shipping containers of extra material on empty areas on the deck for instance or in the hangar areas for those other 42 fighters you don't have on board...
The operation might require 90 fighters but I think that is a bit excessive... but that is the point... having CVN with 90 fighters is more useful than three tiny carriers with 30 fighters each because a lot of the time you would probably take two of the smaller carriers when one big one would do...
If you are worried about spending money then curl up in a little ball and let the rest of the world play soccer with you...
Usually, several ships go with an aircraft carrier, which solve all related tasks. And his business is to launch and receive aircraft back.
The carrier is likely to be the flagship of any group of Russian ships and needs to be able to perform any role needed.... I am not saying put 152mm or 203mm artillery guns on it, but the universal attack missile launchers add flexibility and could be scabbed on the sides of the ship most of the way around without getting in anyones way and without reducing the number of type of aircraft carried... and the same for Redut and other systems.
I am not saying they need 100 UKSK launchers on the ship... I don't think they should make it into an arsenal ship with thousands of missiles... but I would expect at the very least that there would be 6 Pantsir systems... one in each corner and two waist located systems... along with as many Duet gun mounts (6 double barrer turrets)... located close to the Pantsir systems, and I would think the new version of Naval TOR in a fixed cell launcher instead of the mechanised rotary system on the Kuznetsov could carry twice the number of ready to fire missiles in rather less space because the missiles are half the size and also no rotary launch systems with empty unused space, so two lots of 192 missiles... should be easy to fit.... so 384 missiles... and then I would go for perhaps 3 Redut systems on each side of the ship... front, middle, and rear on the edges out of the way, so that would be 6 x 12 launch tubes... assuming you are right with missile numbers then that would be 6 x 12 x 4 9M100 missiles which is 288 more missiles... so perhaps 8 UKSK launchers in total would give 48 anti sub rockets, or if necessary 400km range SAMs or 9M96 redut missiles or combinations of all three.
In addition, saturation with various systems and weapons will automatically lead to an increase in the cost of the project. The hull of the ship, "iron" is a penny in comparison with the cost of components, radio electronics, weapons. As soon as we start to "push" something into it, the price starts to rise. This is the most intelligible argument for those who expect everything from an aircraft carrier at once.
They could reduce costs by fitting for but not with some of the systems... the improved TOR missiles are cheap but accurate command guided missiles as are the Pantsir, so they would certainly be a priority over Redut and UKSK launchers which could perhaps be added later... all their new ships are getting these launchers so after a while the price should become more reasonable... because they will be standard.
Any ship formation far from its native shores in the event of full-fledged hostilities is doomed to destruction without air support.
To be fair, even without air support it would probably still be doomed, but with air support they will be able to extract a price from the enemy for fighting them that the enemy might not be prepared to pay.
We have seen in Syria that air defences only can take so much... what is needed is an active defence that strikes back at the attacker to weaken and perhaps even stop attacks before they form up properly and become a real threat. Syrian fighter planes operating near Syrian borders looking for enemy aircraft launching stand off weapons would escalate the situation but also make Israel have to decide to continue an attack of 1,000 cuts in which they lose aircraft... which they can't afford, or escalate and perhaps lose even more aircraft which they can't afford or adopt a different tack to deal with their perceived problems like stopping supporting terrorists trying to over throw Assad and therefore give Iran no reason to have forces there in the first place...
If it is equipped with various weapons, the price will increase dramatically, if you put only anti-aircraft systems, the cost will be less.
The presence of a UKSK and all the needed software and electronics makes the ship more flexible and safer, and considering all their new destroyers and cruisers will have the exact launchers and software means it should not be a big problem as you are effectively installing a launcher that can launch a dozen different types of weapons... the hardware should be unified and standardised and the software too.
"most planes" isn't = all planes.
Even if it is just three planes a day it is a problem.
their airline & traffic controllers may also be contacted,
What traffic controllers? An Air New Zealand flight from Auckland to Hawaii on its way to the US to get to London is not under air traffic control all the way across the Pacific Ocean and contacting the Auckland office of Air New Zealand wont do you much good either.
& they better not be flying over Russian ships that can be as trigger happy as the West.
How would they even know? They have no surface search radar fitted AFAIK.
If there is a military exercise then that is publicised but during peacetime and outside of conflict zones they don't say where their ships are.
Why spend $Bs on CVNs just to be nice, "talking softly & carrying a big stick"? The Russians r, or should be, like the US Marines who "can be ur best friend or ur worst enemy".
Because those billions of dollars spent on air power that operates everywhere you surface ships do makes them much safer and much more powerful... they can still talk softly, but it puts nails in the end of their stick and sets it on fire....
they may keep the other 2 & upgrade them later- stay tuned!
I think it would be good if they did... I would think after all this time they have new nuclear power plants for large ships so a big ship whose reactor is shot would be a good opportunity to take it out and deal with it, while at the same time put in a new NPP and give it a test in a real ship... a modern and much safer NPP that can operate without expensive and dangerous refuelling every few years would be an important step forward for them... a reactor that will operate for 30-40 years without refuelling would make nuclear propulsion rather cheaper and safer and testing it in a ship that has proven OK makes more sense that trying to fix large numbers of problems with lots of different brand new technologies never tested before like Zumwalt and Ford and LCS.
by the same token, they may have published it to prevent canal modernization, using reverse psychology.
Their reasoning is not Russias problem... the Russians will know what they want and need... they have not been getting their ideas from western think tanks so far, and it seems to be working out well for them.
I rather suspect the west has plans to open up an alternate route to Afghanistan perhaps or some other dirty scheme.
than u better not discuss its contents; if I was so biased, I would stop reading this forum all together!
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but I would not expect anything of use or value from that source... they made their bed... I would not read anything from Hilary Clinton on what Russia can do to become great again... for the same reasons.
N-S trade trade corridor from India will pass via Iran & the Crimea isn't its main destination by any measure.
Getting taken off a ship and put on a train means the Russian ports in the Caspian will get work... sending it through canals into the Black Sea means it will then sail through the Black Sea and down past Turkey to European ports... how would Russia benefit from bypassing its own transport infrastructure from India to the EU? For quite some time I suspect there will be little bulk transport from Iran to the EU, so we are just talking about stuff from India.
they do in Astrahan & Baku:
If they build them in the Caspian and find they are too big to leave then whose problem is that?
Baku is not in Russia so it is not Russias problem if they can't leave the Caspian Sea...
And they are hardly going to build ships in Astrakhan that are too big to get out if they need them to operate outside of the Caspian.... they could make them in the Crimea instead...
good way to lose transit & port fees on ships from Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan & Iran.
Good way to earn port fees transferring the goods from ships to trains to get to where they are going.
If they want goods to travel via Russian canals then they need to send them on ships that conform to the size the canals can take.
not as immense as having CVNs that won't be there 24/7/365 anyway.
CVNs can move about with the groups of Russian ships that are doing things that are important... not every single Russian ship in international waters needs air cover but some of them will.
With good targeting & guidance, even SSBNs can use SLBMs to slam warheads filled with concrete/high explosives on their decks from Ks of miles away.
S-500 will be able to shoot such things down.