Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Some more from IMDS http://bastion-karpenko.ru/lamantin-npkb/





Confirming its Ulyanovsk based is the Project code 11430E vs Ulyanovsk 1143.7

It is just a model, but those aew&c aircrafts remind me a lot the yak-44

Bare in mind that I remember seeing Soviet carrier models from the 1970s that had MiG-23s on them because they really didn't want to reveal that they had MiG-29s and Su-27s in development at that time.

This model looks like a Yak-44 but that could change too... they might develop new radar arrays that don't need to be carried like that but still give a 360 degree field of regard that could be built in to the aircraft structure and electronically scanned instead of manually rotated to detect targets...

This one?

No obvious funnels on there for GT engines...

Nuke propulsion does not only mean compact and powerful energy source, but it means unlimited endurance for the basics of sailing around, and it leaves more space on board for aviation fuel and ammo which is the main endurance and persistence limiter for a carrier.

Seems pretty clear they want helicopter carriers first, and regarding new aircraft carriers they already have an aircraft carrier but a new CVN will add much better AWACS support.

I wonder if they might consider a biplane based on the An-2 but with a much more powerful engine and scaled up a bit with folding wing structures... AWACS aircraft don't need to be fast and large wing areas means low speed takeoff and landing speeds... it would just be a question of how high it can operate at...

Ooh, just noticed something on this pic


There was that quote about 'innovative deck layout for simultaneous launch & recovery' and look we have a CVA-01 style 'Alaskan Taxiway' outboard of the island.
Its a bit weird in that they have to then pass over/around the forward elevator but the point is they actually went for that solution.

There is no Alaskan Highway on K


There is a pretty wide bit of deck on Vikramaditya but its clearly too narrow to be an Alaskan Highway I think its just legacy of the Kiev class.

Half the stuff on this LEGO set doesn't exist and other half is long past obsolete

It's safe to say that this one goes straight into eehenie's wunderwaffle trashcan alongside Anime-class destroyer

Idk. The 70kt is another carrier but with conventional propulsion. It was presebted at army2019 but no photo were leaked. This one is a nuclear carrier.

No. The 70K ton carrier will be a nuke propelled vessel, the only conventional designs they talked about are the 40K ton light carriers.

It's weired that they didn't propose it with only catapults. There is space for another two instead of the skijump. Maybe they don't trust the catapults or that would make it very expensive. Seeing how chinese and indians wants to switch from skijump to catapult, maybe they shoukd also start looking for a full catapults carrier.

The only aircraft that will need catapult launch are the AWACS platforms... the fighters will operate from the ski jump, so there will be two EMALS that can get AWACS and inflight refuelling aircraft airborne along the landing strip that is flat, and the fighter aircraft will be able to take off from 3-4 takeoff positions using the Ski jump.

The route behind the command structure means aircraft can be prepared for launch and moved to the front two ski jump launch positions without getting in the way of the landing area.

It means you can keep up a launch tempo even while landing aircraft and also gives you another line of preparation for launch when you are not landing aircraft... ie you can continuously launch two at a time whether landing planes or not. You can launch 4 at a time otherwise with separate preparation streams that don't overlap or interfere with the other... which makes them faster. Launching AWACs and inflight refuelling aircraft you could do two at a time, so they might adopt a procedure of launching one of each and once the AWACS is up and away it can immediately top up to max fuel and then start operations while the inflight refuelling aircraft tops up any fighters in the air and then lands again.

It's not weird. It is a choice. Russians want to be able to takeoff without a ramp with their fighters.

Using wheel chocks integrated into the deck and exhaust shields, also integrated into the deck means using the ski jump is faster and easier than the catapult and with an air to air load they can probably already operate at normal weapons load and full fuel load anyway.

Half the stuff on this LEGO set doesn't exist and other half is long past obsolete

It is an indicator of what it will be like... it will basically look like this but might have totally different aircraft or electronic sensors and systems on board when it enters service... if it does.

Its worth pointing out that this new Ulyanovsk variant is not just some crazy stuff out of Krylov, its from Nevskoye.

hoom wrote:Its worth pointing out that this new Ulyanovsk variant is not just some crazy stuff out of Krylov, its from Nevskoye.

Personally, I don't see the reason not to use existing blueprints just alter them for the timeline it's being built in change around how the inside of the ship works.

A carrier is a floating platform, whose job is to serve and launch planes, have a nice big deck and facilities to support Naval warfare.

Long has the design can do that and is built for the modern era. Who really cares.

The Russians should just pick one and start building it when possible, that would also shorten the time they need to develop it.

IMO they are being way too picky with their carrier ideas right now.

Yes, I'm not complaining that its Ulyanovsk based, just making clear that is what it is.

Also https://flotprom.ru/2019/%D0%9C%D0%B2%D0%BC%D1%8113/

“The concept-project of the aircraft carrier Lamantin is based on the developments of the Ulyanovsk project 1143.7 atomic heavy aircraft carrier cruiser. Accordingly, we propose to consider the option of a nuclear power plant and the Russian Navy” PKB Alexey Yukhnin.

Price will already be high without them.

Price of a few UKSK modules is nothing compared to the rest of a 70-80Kton CVN.
The model has 4* rectangles in the bow area about where K & Ulyanovsk had Granits.

Edit: they're further aft, between the bow launch spots

That location would mean they don't need high-speed compatible covers like the Granits.

Idea of alaskan passageway is interesting but at this point it would be better to expand it further: i.e. transform it into a full angled deck that can be used to manage helo/stol operations separately from planes.
Also the idea that catapult are needed to operate Awacs planes is IMHO worth of a second thought: Su-25UTG were able to operate from Kutnetzov so why not to try to design an high initial thrust radar carring plane?

Isos wrote:

Hole wrote:According to a book about russian AWACS/AEW planes by Yefim Gordon the Yak-44 had (at least theoretically) enough power to start without a catapult.

It would be better if you could quote Yakovlev officials.

There was a reason the engines selected for the Yak-44 were what they were.
For comparison..
The E-2 Hawkeye had a maximum take off weight of 26t and maximum installed power of 10 000hp.
The Yak-44 had a MTOW of 40t and a maximum installed power of 28 000hp.
So the Yak-44 was about 50% heavier, yet had almost 3 times the power.
This was no accident.
It was designed to take off both with catapult and without a catapult, and indeed, was intended to be based not only on the Ulyanovsk, but also on the Kuznetsov class.
The order to Yakovlev to launch of the Yak-44 programme preceded not only the Ulyanovsk programme, but also the ordering and laying down of the Kuznetsov.

Personally, I don't see the reason not to use existing blueprints just alter them for the timeline it's being built in change around how the inside of the ship works.

Because when the existing blueprints for the Ulyanovsk were made they had totally different weapons and sensors and electronics equipment.

They would have rooms space for electronics that these days could be done on a laptop... and their power distribution requirements will have changed too.

The Russians should just pick one and start building it when possible, that would also shorten the time they need to develop it.

Considering the amount of time it will take to set up shore facilities to berth a few carriers not to mention the rather large ships they will operate with, just what is the urgency in getting a carrier in the water?

They already have the Kuznetsov, which together with a couple of upgraded destroyers and one of the two remaining Kirovs upgraded or a few upgraded Slava class vessels they have a reasonable but not amazing surface group.

It is more important to get it right than to get it right now.

What is not clear is if it will carry some UKSK VLS modules (I hope so).

If we are right about the UKSK-M being able to carry cruise and ballistic missiles as well as SAMs then I suspect it will be equipped with rather large numbers of UKSK-M... most of which will carry short range and medium range SAMs as well as ABM missiles based on the S-500.

Very unlikely. All the models have no uksk on them. Price will already be high without them.

See above.

Also the goal of a carrier is to carry fighters which can have their own cruise missiles. Like kh59mk2 which is smaller and cheaper than kalibr.

The carrier will be protected by frigates and cruiser that will have their own uksk in very big numbers.

These are not US carriers, their purpose is primarily air defence... for the Americans what they have is called a carrier group... a large group of ships centred around an aircraft carrier... the ships protect the carrier and the carrier delivers the strike by aircraft.

Russian carriers are different and are there to support the ships, so a group of ships will have an aircraft carrier attached to it to protect it from enemy air attack via aircraft, drones, or missiles, and to extend the effective range of basically surface located radars and sensors. Those ships of course can use Ka-31s to detect low flying threats out to reasonable distances, but a carrier with AWACS does it better... out to greater ranges for longer periods of time.

Price of a few UKSK modules is nothing compared to the rest of a 70-80Kton CVN.
The model has 4* rectangles in the bow area about where K & Ulyanovsk had Granits.

Keep in mind that at the very least they could load up the UKSK tubes with anti sub ballistic rockets to engage subs detected by bow sonar or by helicopters embarked on the ship.

Nothing says go away to a sub like a mach 2.5 ballistic rocket silently delivering a torpedo to within a few hundred metres of your sub with no warning... the first warning you get is the splash of the torpedo hitting the water nearby...

Idea of alaskan passageway is interesting but at this point it would be better to expand it further: i.e. transform it into a full angled deck that can be used to manage helo/stol operations separately from planes.

The purpose of that feature is to create a line where aircraft can be prepared for launch that don't get in the way of launches or landings.

You have to arm and fuel aircraft on deck which is not super fast, and once loaded these aircraft are "dangerous" so you can't load and arm them below decks in case of an accident.

Using this feature they can fuel and load aircraft and at the same time launch the two fighters on the front launch positions lined up with the Ski ramp, and if they want to they can launch two aircraft via EMALS cats, or they could be landing aircraft, or set up two more aircraft on the long takeoff strips for the ski jump... ie two short run planes take off and then their blast shields are lowered and then the long range planes take off... and now you have four launch positions to fill... so the next four aircraft that have been loaded and armed can be moved into position... chocks raised to hold them in place and blast shields raised to protect deck crew and other aircraft and when they are ready they can launch too, while new aircraft are moved from their places on the deck to be armed and fuelled...

It has all the advantages and features of an assembly line...

Also the idea that catapult are needed to operate Awacs planes is IMHO worth of a second thought: Su-25UTG were able to operate from Kutnetzov so why not to try to design an high initial thrust radar carring plane?

Well as I keep mentioning a long endurance airship could carry an enormous antenna and have enormous persistence... it could operate from a relatively small ship from a tether that provides power and two way communication via fibre optics, so it could operate in passive modes and indeed in some crazy frequencies that enemy aircraft wont even detect or can't get a lock on like L band or below...

Aircraft with enough thrust to get airborne would have shorter endurance... the problem is that to get airborne their need a very high power to weight ratio... but once they are airborne a very low power to weight ratio makes them more efficient for cruising at moderate speed for very long periods.

Some weight can be saved by launching with the minimum weight of fuel and also launching a refuelling aircraft to fill them up once they are airborne, but that refuelling aircraft will do better with cat launch as it will allow it to take off with more off loadable fuel... you end up shifting the requirement for the cat from the AWACS to the inflight refuelling aircraft based on the same design.

There are lots of STOL designs... I even mentioned the AN-2 in its upgraded form has a stall speed of about 60km/h... so a carrier heading into the wind might already have that wind speed coming over the deck before the aircraft has even started its engine... some sort of biplane design where the wings can fold around to the fuselage and they can do something with the radar so it is not some huge draggy lump would be interesting... they are developing these new photon based radar... does it look like an AESA radar or is it an optical thing?

You could fit two high bypass turbofan engines on an upgraded composite An-2 and put a huge radar antenna in the nose and the tail and large side panel arrays, with a main upper and lower wing that rotate 90 degrees to lie flush with the fuselage... fill it with electronics and fuel and give it fully retractable undercarriage and an extendible inflight refuelling probe and you might end up with something that wont need a cat launch from carriers and could be operated almost anywhere on land for the role of AWACS... it could even be used on helicopter carriers.

It would not be fast, but AWACS aircraft don't need to be fast... it could be designed to operate at useful altitudes... perhaps 8-10km, and with a new generation radar system it will be rather interesting...

The Yak-44 had a MTOW of 40t and a maximum installed power of 28 000hp.

That is only 14,000hp per engine... I would expect they could manage rather more power from high bypass turbofans these days...

EM cats are a bad idea for a Russian carrier IMHO.  The Americans have spent years and mucho $ on it and still can't get it to work reliably on the Ford class, plus I have read that an EM cat sends out a strong radio signal with each launch, bad if you are trying to hide. Why try to solve these problems on what will likely be a one off ship? Steam is a much more practical.

New Sensors and electronics can be adjusted for in a design stage, yes they would need to rework it some but that's easy to do on a blueprint stage level, if the ship was already built sure that's different. This isn't a reason at all, there is a reason companies keep using it has a base because there is no reason to right now.

The difference between a newly designed carrier and a reworked Ulky wouldn't be that big just minor.


Again readjusting the inside of the ship wouldn't be hard, on a blueprint level. The Ulky's Hull is fine for a 21st Century carrier yeah they would need to shift around the guts some but not by much and extend the deck other than that. The work is mostly done for them,

Your second response to me was also pointless you will notice I said "When Possible" not "RIGHT NOW".

Russian Navy isn't the Soviet Navy they want Strike carriers, not defensive carriers. They have been clear about that get rid of that Soviet Era mentality.