Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dino00 wrote:MOSCOW, December 30 - RIA Novosti. The displacement of the universal amphibious assault ships - helicopter carriers, being built in Kerch , will amount to 40 thousand tons, twice as much as previously reported, said Deputy Defense Minister Alexei Krivoruchko .

"Under the leadership of the President of the Russian Federation, two universal amphibious assault ships of a new project with a displacement of 40 thousand tons each were laid down," he said in an interview with the Krasnaya Zvezda newspaper.

https://ria.ru/20201230/vertoletonostsy-1591490559.html

These two ships would take China about 1 year to build. While it's true Russian shipyards aren't as modern as Chinese shipyards, it should take Russia about 2 to 4 years to build.

That was your last warning. It's about time to take Old Yeller out to pasture!

Is there a photo of the construction?

This makes a LOT of sense, I look forward to hearing what the propulsion choice is. These make the ships about the size of the de Gaulle which is pretty darn efffective IMHO. If they can deploy EMALS it would be great of they are CATOBAR ships and if they can use the propulsion from the Arktika class that would be SWEET!!!

Maybe not with the Ships No. 1 and 2.

mnztr wrote:This makes a LOT of sense, I look forward to hearing what the propulsion choice is. These make the ships about the size of the de Gaulle which is pretty darn efffective IMHO. If they can deploy EMALS it would be great of they are CATOBAR ships and if they can use the propulsion from the Arktika class that would be SWEET!!!

They are UDKs not CVNs

LMFS wrote:

They are UDKs not CVNs

Who says anything needs to be in a fixed catagory. Some of the US ships were built without a dock, word is the Chinese will put a catapult on theirs. (and they are not as big as the Russian ones.)

Rodion_Romanovic wrote:
If i am not mistaken Charles de Gaulle carrier needs to be almost constantly replenished,  much more often than their American counterparts... furthermore 40 rafales is stretching their capabilities as well. Even the american super carriers do not operate at full aircraft load because they will have other issues.

Never confuse the max capacity with what they typically do. Planes can easily be flown out to the carrier to enable surge operations.

mnztr wrote:
Who says anything needs to be in a fixed catagory. Some of the US ships were built without a dock, word is the Chinese will put a catapult on theirs. (and they are not as big as the Russian ones.)

The UDK typically is a vessel where internal space is maximized because it needs to carry a substantial amount of forces for a landing, its sea-keeping capacities and specially navigation speed are secondary. The carrier is an oceanic ship that needs high speed and endurance, has no need for a dock and that is optimized for he operation of fixed wing aircraft. There are substantial differences created by those requirements in the propulsion, hull and onboard systems. What US does needs to be strongly filtered for meaningfulness before replicating it, they demand to have 15 CSGs to be capable of attending all the hot-spots they could see themselves involved simultaneously, so of course they want some of their LHA and LHD to be as close as possible to a carrier as possible. If that makes any sense is questionable. Meanwhile, VMF has no UDK at all, and they would need ships capable of fulfilling their main role first and foremost. They are not going to built 20 UDK, so the likelihood of them making frivolous experiments with them is low IMHO. What has been said until now is clear: they will carry helicopters and land forces for an amphibious operation and will have conventional propulsion, other options would be us simply speculating.

LMFS wrote:

The UDK typically is a vessel where internal space is maximized because it needs to carry a substantial amount of forces for a landing, its sea-keeping capacities and specially navigation speed are secondary. The carrier is an oceanic ship that needs high speed and endurance, has no need for a dock and that is optimized for he operation of fixed wing aircraft. There are substantial differences created by those requirements in the propulsion, hull and onboard systems. What US does needs to be strongly filtered for meaningfulness before replicating it, they demand to have 15 CSGs to be capable of attending all the hot-spots they could see themselves involved simultaneously, so of course they want some of their LHA and LHD to be as close as possible to a carrier as possible. If that makes any sense is questionable. Meanwhile, VMF has no UDK at all, and they would need ships capable of fulfilling their main role first and foremost. They are not going to built 20 UDK, so the likelihood of them making frivolous experiments with them is low IMHO. What has been said until now is clear: they will carry helicopters and land forces for an amphibious operation and will have conventional propulsion, other options would be us simply speculating.

Yes I know that but the possibility is that the larger version of the Ivan Gren class will fullfill this while the new ships are more focused on the essential aviation component of a successful landing of troops.

Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

I agree. The eventual use of VSTOL planes will be an added functionality of this class of ships..I see it as a sort of cherry on the top. A (very) useful addition (and it can also facilitate sales of the aircraft and the vessel to foreign countries) but it will not replace a full carrier (and it is probably not very wise to try and add to the ship too many new functionalities and untested technologies.


And yeah the upgraded and enlarged 11711M will solve some of the needs for amphibious ships especially if they produce several of them.

By the way, it is also possible that if they cannot build them in a good number some smaller ships would be useful too, as an example some cheaper landing transport docks with a full displacement around 4000 tons, like the old project 775 (Ropucha class) and the 1171 (Alligator class).

The ones existing are quite long in the teeth and have been used extensively. I see the enlarged Ivan Gren more as a replacement for the old Ivan Rogov class (even if with different functionalities) as a replacement for ropucha and Alligator.

I would also be curious to hear more news about the VSTOL combat planes, whether they are actually working on them and at what stage of development are they.

Concerning the proper aircraft wing and the catapult, eventually Russia will build a full carrier with both an angled ramp and a catapult.

The most promising project that I have seen was a sort of modernised Ulyanovsk, called Lamantin, but that is totally another story.
https://www.ruaviation.com/docs/4/2020/2/10/273/

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

SOTVL requires an aircraft be developed which is super high risk and expensive. STOBAR is somewhat logical, but the point is EMALS is not necessarily super complex and lends itself to a whole range of important tech the Russians need anyway.

marcellogo wrote:Certainly the 23900 having a catamaran i.e.double hull would open IMHO a series of new possibilities into developing something that could bridge the gap btw CV and UDK.

"Wet" part of the twin hull could be designed to get higher speeds that the ones possible with a conventional one, loading space would instead sit over the waves.
Another advantage of such a configuration could possibly be the possibility of having a larger flying deck that the one on a single hull ship.
I would however try to keep them as simpl as possible i.e. no EMALS or CATOBAR.
STOVL or STOBAR would be more than enough.

The proposal by Krylov (Priboi) was a semicatamaran, I was holding still some tiny hope they would go that way since I had proposed something similar (trimaran hull) time ago. They are very fast, they have good sea-keeping and of course they have the logical advantages you have mentioned, together with way smaller propulsive needs if the speed is kept low as other UDKs do. But the model shown has nothing to do with that, so the hope they use the breakthrough design proposed by Krylov with its huge advantages is essentially gone. They should know what is best and what is possible right now. We will see, but at least from what we read, the project is not even close to being finished.

Considering its primary fighter aircraft is an expensive dog I would say it is a dumb idea...

GarryB wrote:Considering its primary fighter aircraft is an expensive dog I would say it is a dumb idea...

Its more of a delivery truck ...lol

If your truck is breaking down continuously it´s time to change the model/supplier.

Isos wrote:Buying yak 141 docs for a new jet. Not building the old yak 141.

Make their own f-35 but without going crazy like the US.

Then use that experience to create a normal fighter and get ride of US fighters.

The cost of designing, building and testing a plane is BILLIONS. Even the crappy Korean T50 cost billions to design and put into production. Just to take the T-50 and evolve it into a fighter cost 2B ...fighternomics are not forgiving.

Isos wrote:Billions that stay within the country and create jobs but also an industry that will create high qualified jobs for a hundred of years.


100 f-35 cost billions (more than a local program for a vtol jet) and they go in US pockets. And they keep being US dogs controled by the US that can make those f-35 as flyable as a horse shit by stoping supply of spare parts if korean gov doesn't obei and switch for russian/chinese/european/local firms instead of US firms in the civilian or military market.


Any guy with 2 cells in its brain would choose the first option.

100 F-35s will cost about $9B or so plus S. Korea is part of the F-35 partner group and gets contracts to develop and manufacture parts of the plane. if you contrast the options, Japan spent 12.7B to buy 98 slightly larger F-16s with updated avionics (F-2). The T-50 was the best Korea could come up with with US assistance, they are now working on the KF-X. Even using GE-414 engines this is a 9B R&D effort. (just R&D)