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


+53
Broski
Russian_Patriot_
Mir
Lurk83
Kiko
jhelb
AlexDineley
11E
owais.usmani
flamming_python
arbataach
limb
walle83
RTN
JohninMK
dino00
lyle6
magnumcromagnon
TMA1
Backman
lancelot
Isos
SeigSoloyvov
PhSt
Tai Hai Chen
LMFS
Tsavo Lion
Arrow
kvs
The-thing-next-door
william.boutros
George1
ultimatewarrior
kumbor
mnztr
Regular
PapaDragon
miketheterrible
medo
Gazputin
andalusia
x_54_u43
Big_Gazza
GarryB
ATLASCUB
GunshipDemocracy
Swede55
wilhelm
Hole
marcellogo
hoom
Rodion_Romanovic
AlfaT8
57 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 pm

    Arrow wrote:
    What kind of dry dock near Murmansk?   Belokamenka ?

    https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/05/murmansk-gets-russias-biggest-dry-dock

    There are also plans underway to lift the sunken PD-50 in Kola Bay but I don't know if they will be able to do so and f they plan to put the dock back in service?
    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 2855
    Points : 2855
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Oct 23, 2021 4:50 pm

    They might raise the PD-50 but only to remove a navigation hazard.  It was (reportedly) in poor condition before it sank, so after 4-5 years submerged it will be a complete write off. Heck, even if it was in pristine condition, it would still be utterly rooted (*).

    BTW that Barents Observer article is ~2.5 years old.

    (*) Aussie slang. It means FUBAR

    GarryB and Mir like this post

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Sat Oct 23, 2021 7:02 pm

    I just grabbed the first article that came up on the new dry dock construction in Murmansk for Arrow's info.

    PD-50 is definitely FUBAR yes! Laughing

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31566
    Points : 32096
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:34 am

    That's just the thing Gary - two islands actually takes away some deck space - no matter how small the second structure is. By combining the two you end up with a bit more space on the deck. I never mentioned aesthetics as a factor - only deck space. In fact the Shtorm is a very handsome design and I quite like it.

    Looking at the drawings provided I don't think you are right. The actual foot print area of the one design with two separate towers doesn't look any worse than the other designs using single towers.

    If you take into consideration the positioning too the rear most tower is much further back than any other design allows and they are both far apart enough to almost give both towers full 360 degree views which is not possible with one tower as each group would occupy their own area of the tower limiting the views possible when the space is shared.

    I don't think this is an accident either because the concept of two separate towers would be driven by having a smaller footprint on the deck and having the best views possible from each tower... that would be the core motivation for having two separate towers in the first place.

    For the Kuznetsov obviously that would not be possible because the engine funnel exhausts are also incorporated in the tower to raise the smoke up and away from the operational deck so the island is always going to be rather big anyway.

    I am glad to hear that looks do not sway your views...

    PD-50 is definitely FUBAR yes

    But may need to be removed for normal operations to continue where it is currently located...

    Would need to be inspected in detail and might need to be cut to pieces and removed that way... which would not be easy... or cheap.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:29 am

    It is true that most carriers have the island offset slightly to the rear. The French carrier is probably the exception. In fact most carriers have only one island with the British carriers currently as the sole exception. Just looking at it tells me they had to implement a lot of extra reinforcement to support the separate structures - hence the reason why they are fairly large. My thinking is that if you only had only one island a lot of the reinforcement structure would be unnecessary - making the total volume smaller. Hopefully that makes some sense?

    Side note: The British carrier's control tower seems to have a less than ideal view?

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Qe-cap10
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Cv-cap10
    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1083
    Points : 1081
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:08 am

    Mir wrote:I just grabbed the first article that came up on the new dry dock construction in Murmansk for Arrow's info.

    Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years. So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.
    avatar
    hoom


    Posts : 2320
    Points : 2310
    Join date : 2016-05-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  hoom Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:24 am

    Arrow wrote:Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years.  So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.
    You mean Belokamenka or the merging of 2 docks for K?

    Belokamenka is already well underway building the first 2 massive concrete platforms (Google earth pic dated June 2021)
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 0vb5EOm

    The merger of docks for K had a slow start but picked up speed after some ass-kicking, discussed in the K thread
    https://www.russiadefence.net/t7140p750-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-news-2#329305
    Status also as of June 2021
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 3rq4nd10
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Xof7gn10


    The British carrier's control tower seems to have a less than ideal view?
    As Garry said: the front one is for helming, the rear is for air-group, has a big windowed control tower thing on the port side.
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 MH170003059
    I'll add that they have backup secondary function so the ship can be helmed from the rear island & airgroup controlled from the front if one or the other gets damaged. (less well certainly but still better than no backup if something goes wrong)

    They also actually have the gas-turbines in the sponson below the islands, made possible by electric main motors & light weight of gas turbines.
    It saves weight & volume on exhaust trunking vs if they were deep in the hull but being more exposed they also went for separate islands to reduce the chance of both units being taken out with one hit.


    With nuclear propulsion & large ships the US made their their islands as small & as far aft as they can to suit their aircraft deck handling process & simultaneous launch/landing ops.

    The French carrier is too small for an aft-island/simultaneous ops so they put it up forward which gives them a maximised aircraft handling area aft of the island.

    GarryB and Mir like this post

    avatar
    Arrow


    Posts : 1083
    Points : 1081
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Arrow Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:56 am

    hoom wrote:
    Arrow wrote:Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years.  So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.
    You mean Belokamenka or the merging of 2 docks for K?

    That's what I meant about a dock built from a combination of two. Thank you. The question is whether a new CVN may arise here. It will rather be a repair dock, etc. Unless they expand the entire infrastructure, etc., they will create new shipyards.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:04 pm

    [quote="Arrow"]
    Mir wrote:
    Yes, but I haven't found any news confirming any work on this dry dock in almost 3 years.  So I guess the work is going very slowly or not at all.

    It has been discussed here quite a few times already. Smile
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:13 pm

    hoom wrote:
    As Garry said: the front one is for helming, the rear is for air-group, has a big windowed control tower thing on the port side.

    I'll add that they have backup secondary function so the ship can be helmed from the rear island & airgroup controlled from the front if one or the other gets damaged. (less well certainly but still better than no backup if something goes wrong)

    They also actually have the gas-turbines in the sponson below the islands, made possible by electric main motors & light weight of gas turbines.
    It saves weight & volume on exhaust trunking vs if they were deep in the hull but being more exposed they also went for separate islands to reduce the chance of both units being taken out with one hit.


    With nuclear propulsion & large ships the US made their their islands as small & as far aft as they can to suit their aircraft deck handling process & simultaneous launch/landing ops.

    The French carrier is too small for an aft-island/simultaneous ops so they put it up forward which gives them a maximised aircraft handling area aft of the island.

    The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Cv-qe-10

    If you compare it with the Kuznetsov - which is a hybrid aircraft carrier cruiser - the control room gives almost all round visibility.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Kuz-vi10

    The similar island from the old Baku gives you an even better view of the control room.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Baku-v10
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31566
    Points : 32096
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Oct 25, 2021 4:11 am

    In fact most carriers have only one island with the British carriers currently as the sole exception.

    Most of the important and relevant technologies in aircraft carrier design... the lights landing system, the angled deck, the catapult, the arrester gear, was mostly invented by the British...

    Just looking at it tells me they had to implement a lot of extra reinforcement to support the separate structures - hence the reason why they are fairly large. My thinking is that if you only had only one island a lot of the reinforcement structure would be unnecessary - making the total volume smaller. Hopefully that makes some sense?

    If you look carefully at that picture you posted that extra structure seems to have been put to good use because between and behind the towers appears to be aircraft lifts... which would benefit from structure support.

    The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.

    The thing is that different ships have different setups... the upgraded Kiev class ship modified for India actually has a deck level position for landings:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Ff5d5b10

    While the Kuznetsov has rear and side and front windows to view landings, deck operations, and takeoffs... on its island, it also has a deck level viewing position for landing in the same location as on the Gorshkov:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Aviane10

    You can see the deck position here, there is an Su-25 parked at the rear of the island... directly below it on this photo on the other side of the ship in front of the naval TOR vertical launchers is a box shaped position with three windows... well actually windows all around it.... which is where they control the landings from.

    In comparison this is the view from the Island looking backwards:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Nl4sds11

    If you compare it with the Kuznetsov - which is a hybrid aircraft carrier cruiser - the control room gives almost all round visibility.

    Radar will give all aircraft carriers 360 degree views, but there is no point giving them views of directions aircraft would not be allowed to approach from... essentially 360 degrees of view is not needed...

    If you look at the British carrier you can see the glass sticks out sideways to give a very adequate view of the deck...

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 R08-hm10

    Meanwhile here are some better images of the deck level landing viewing position on the Kuznetsov:

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 5cf90510

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Rian_010

    An elevated view from the tower would be useful, but not critical and a view from the deck level would immediately warn the crew if the aircraft is coming in too low.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:40 am

    Most of the important and relevant technologies in aircraft carrier design... the lights landing system, the angled deck, the catapult, the arrester gear, was mostly invented by the British...
    Yes and I never disputed that. The Americans have since taken over that role and since the carrier disasters in the 60's they have had a good safety record.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Cv-ent10

    If you look carefully at that picture you posted that extra structure seems to have been put to good use because between and behind the towers appears to be aircraft lifts... which would benefit from structure support.

    In the space between the towers the space avialable on either side of the lift could have been more useful if they only had one island structure. Each lift usually have it's own structural support. But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference. 

    The thing is that different ships have different setups... the upgraded Kiev class ship modified for India actually has a deck level position for landings:While the Kuznetsov has rear and side and front windows to view landings, deck operations, and takeoffs... on its island, it also has a deck level viewing position for landing in the same location as on the Gorshkov:

    My post earlier on >>
    you already have people on deck keeping a very close eye on landing proceedings which is most critical. These guys make the actual call if the landing is either good or bad.
       
    Radar will give all aircraft carriers 360 degree views, but there is no point giving them views of directions aircraft would not be allowed to approach from... essentially 360 degrees of view is not needed...

    During peace time it's fine but in a heavy ECM environment when your radar is jammed or and your coms are down you will have a bit of a problem...

    If you look at the British carrier you can see the glass sticks out sideways to give a very adequate view of the deck...

    As I've said before >>
    The control room on the British ship does give some exceptional view over the carrier deck - that I'll grant you. However it has a huge blind spot to the rear up to about 8 o'clock.


    An elevated view from the tower would be useful, but not critical and a view from the deck level would immediately warn the crew if the aircraft is coming in too low.

    Pilots rely on the landing lights to tell them if they are either too high - too low - or good to land and the info from the flight control room. The guys in the "hut" near the stern's job is to see if the arresting hook has taken the cable. These are the guys on deck I referred to earlier.


    Last edited by Mir on Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:37 am; edited 1 time in total
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:34 am

    Some notes on air traffic control from a carrier >>

    The air controllers use an array of radars, electronics and communication equipment to keep in contact with aircraft but visual contact is absolutely crucial. On the Nimitz they not only have the control room but they also have what is known as the vulture's row that stretch all the way around the island - giving you a 360 eyeball view on proceeding. The bridge below has an identical structure for that same purpose despite having all the radars and electronics available for navigation.

    All of them still rely heavily on their own eyes to keep tabs on activity around the ship.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Nimitz10

    Starboard view >>

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Nimitz11

    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:03 am

    Now I am a little biased here but which one of these queens would you prefer if you were forced to make a choice? Laughing

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Qe1-ca10
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Qe2-ca10

    Big_Gazza likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31566
    Points : 32096
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:27 am

    In the space between the towers the space avialable on either side of the lift could have been more useful if they only had one island structure. Each lift usually have it's own structural support. But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference.

    Looks to me like there are two lifts.... one between the two islands, and a second lift behind the rear island.

    During peace time it's fine but in a heavy ECM environment when your radar is jammed or and your coms are down you will have a bit of a problem...

    Not being able to see aircraft from every direction is not critical because aircraft only ever land in one direction and only ever take off in one direction... approaching from any other direction is not normally allowed.

    Pilots rely on the landing lights to tell them if they are either too high - too low - or good to land and the info from the flight control room.

    I know, but people at deck level watching the landing can call it off if they are coming in too low to prevent a crash... I realise they see colours in the mirror and use that to achieve the perfect glide slope, but sometimes mistakes are made... the guy in the pilots seat might see red and raise his nose and increase power and do other things to reduce his sink rate, but there will come a point where it is not going to be a safe landing and at that stage the guy in the box might call it off and flag the pilot away to come around and have another go.

    The guys in the "hut" near the stern's job is to see if the arresting hook has taken the cable. These are the guys on deck I referred to earlier.

    Why?

    The hook either catches or it does not but when that aircraft touches deck the pilot will be engaging full thrust and bracing himself for either a sharp stop or a touch and go... there is little a pilot can do with any information from the guy in the hut except if he is landing early and bouncing his hook or late and not getting a chance to pick up at all four cables...

    The air controllers use an array of radars, electronics and communication equipment to keep in contact with aircraft but visual contact is absolutely crucial.

    On the Kiev class carriers there was a landing autopilot for the Yak-38 and Yak-38M... the aircraft themselves had a safety system so that if sink rate or AOA or Yaw exceeded certain numbers or an engine surge or flameout, the pilot was automatically ejected.

    But if you prefer tthe 2 island structure that's fine with me. It's just a personal preference.

    I don't know enough about the way they use the two towers vs a single to have an opinion either way...
    avatar
    Firebird


    Posts : 1108
    Points : 1142
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Firebird Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:30 am

    Mir wrote:There is also this unknown monster size carrier that was shown briefly on Combat Approved!

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Cvcapt10

    Wow that thing is GIGANTIC!
    It must be nearly 2000 feet long!
    What would land on it? The An-225 and Tu-160? hahah

    Surely thats Russia trolling its enemies.

    I sometimes wonder if in the modern (hypersonic missile) environment that the classic aircraft carrier falls between 2 stools.
    Its not concentrated net worth ie small and very expensive and stealth enough to hide.
    But its not so large that it can be a genuine airfield with mega defences.
    Nor is it "non concentrated value" ie big but very cheap for its size.

    WW2 had ideas for cheap airfields that were made from some very cheap materials that would float.
    And Japan had submarine type carriers that were very expensive but of course could hide away.

    So I wonder if ultra cheap floating barges could be built? Perhaps choppy seas are the concern?

    Additionally I think that an aircraft carrier is largely useless for most of its lifetime. Unless you are a belligerent country always blowing up little countries like Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Central America and about 100 other places since 1900.

    I suppose another idea would be huge oil tankers that get revenue in peacetime. But could rapidly be converted to "naval airfields" during conflict? Might make sense for Russia, given that it doesn't consider itself to be a a "naval empire".
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:26 pm

    @Firebird. The interview took place in the office of the Deputy Minister of Defense who makes the final decision on future procurement for the Russian Armed Forces. The rest of several models displayed in the office seems to be of known types. This carrier's model is certainly new and should have at least been one of several carrier concepts under evaluation. But who knows maybe they were just trolling? Smile
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:54 pm

    @Gary.
    Not being able to see aircraft from every direction is not critical

    Well you obviously missed my post 763 above! 360 eyeball vision is considered critical - even for the US Navy with unparalleled aircraft carrier experience.
    Having tunnel vision is not a good thing in any situation Laughing  

    Btw - The last real carrier the British built was the HMS Hermes - back in 1944!
    I think they lost a bit of touch since then  Laughing
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31566
    Points : 32096
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:57 am

    Now I am a little biased here but which one of these queens would you prefer if you were forced to make a choice?

    Not relevant to this thread...

    I sometimes wonder if in the modern (hypersonic missile) environment that the classic aircraft carrier falls between 2 stools.

    The best way to deal with hypersonic missiles will probably end up being directed energy weapons or S-500 related missiles... both the sort of thing that requires very large ships to carry energy supplies and large numbers of very heavy missiles... so if you need big cruisers then you need big carriers to carry aircraft to protect them.

    Hypersonic missiles don't render large ships obsolete... they render them critical... most solo smaller ships simply wont survive an attack... numbers of bigger ships have a better chance of survival.

    But nothing is invincible.

    And Japan had submarine type carriers that were very expensive but of course could hide away.

    An aircraft carrier is only useful when planes are in the air... a submarine carrier is a contradiction in terms... it is only safe when totally worthless.

    So I wonder if ultra cheap floating barges could be built? Perhaps choppy seas are the concern?

    When Russian aircraft carriers are being hunted and sunk then price does not come in to it...

    Cruise missiles with cluster muniton payloads could easily deal with very large barges.


    Additionally I think that an aircraft carrier is largely useless for most of its lifetime. Unless you are a belligerent country always blowing up little countries like Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon, Somalia, Central America and about 100 other places since 1900.

    The Russian territory is very well protected by ground and air and space based systems... do you think it would be safer without air power... air fields are expensive and vulnerable too... more so than carriers because they are fixed. Do you think retiring Su-35s and Su-57s and Su-30s and MiG-31s and MiG-29s and MiG-35s would make Russian air defence better or worse?

    Even just being able to send aircraft out to meet a closing contact is valuable... without carrier aircraft the surface action group commander just has to guess what it is... it would take hours to send a helicopter... minutes to send fighter aircraft... they could quickly identify the target and report back... deal with it if necessary.

    An aircraft carrier adds visiblity... perhaps including new photonic radar AWACS by 2030 which might see targets out to 1,000s of kms in exceptional detail, and carrying aircraft like a naval Su-57 that can fly 1,000km to inspect a dot on a radar screen to see what it is is a very valuable resource for that commander.

    Situational awareness is key in everything to do with the military and carriers add SA.

    They convert a surface action group into something that can operate with reasonable safety anywhere on the world oceans... and moving forward Russia is going to need to exert force anywhere on the planet... not everywhere at once... but in certain places they need to show the flag and force other naval powers to abide by the international rules... even when they don't want to.

    It is not about invading countries or bombing countries, but it might be about stopping other countries bombing your allies for being your allies.

    If a country decides to improve relations with Russia and the US objects because they source a lot of important materials from that country, the US might stage a coup or some sort of economic blockade on some trumped up charges of human rights violations or some such crap and blockade that country till they return to selling that stuff to the US and cut ties with Russia.

    How long is Russia going to last if all foreign countries are afraid to trade with them?

    The fear of colour revolution is real and proven.

    I suppose another idea would be huge oil tankers that get revenue in peacetime. But could rapidly be converted to "naval airfields" during conflict? Might make sense for Russia, given that it doesn't consider itself to be a a "naval empire".

    No need for empire.

    Their might be alternative options to get various capabilities, but for all the talk of civilian ships being used as arsenal ships or makeshift aircraft carriers... it generally doesn't work because converted normal ships are horribly vulnerable to even pretty basic stuff a real carrier can defend itself from.

    This carrier's model is certainly new and should have at least been one of several carrier concepts under evaluation. But who knows maybe they were just trolling?

    Maybe he liked the model... models are easier and cheaper to make than the real thing.

    Well you obviously missed my post 763 above! 360 eyeball vision is considered critical - even for the US Navy with unparalleled aircraft carrier experience.
    Having tunnel vision is not a good thing in any situation

    I think you are confusing 360 degree views around the ship for protection and self preservation, with the ability to land aircraft... which does not require 360 degree views.

    Btw - The last real carrier the British built was the HMS Hermes - back in 1944!
    I think they lost a bit of touch since then

    The rest of their navy is fake, why should their carriers be any different?

    The core of their problems are financial and political in nature... but this is hardly a thread to discuss their problems.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Wed Oct 27, 2021 7:21 am

    I think you are confusing 360 degree views around the ship for protection and self preservation, with the ability to land aircraft... which does not require 360 degree views."

    Here you can read on "How Stuff Works" about the aircraft carrier's island structure and how stuff works >> Smile
    https://science.howstuffworks.com/aircraft-carrier5.htm

    Quite an interesting read actually - they also mention the "Ouija Board".


    The rest of their navy is fake, why should their carriers be any different?

    The core of their problems are financial and political in nature... but this is hardly a thread to discuss their problems.

    My post actually refers to your earlier post (761) referring to British expertise regarding carrier design.

    Not relevant to this thread...

    You are welcome to delete my post (764) but it was in reference to our discussion on the ONE or TWO island structure.

    avatar
    Firebird


    Posts : 1108
    Points : 1142
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Firebird Thu Oct 28, 2021 12:23 pm

    @Garry, Mir and others

    1)I'm not saying big a/carriers are a bad thing.
    I can see how Russia can have a big use for them, necessity.

    But what puzzles me is that its happily going by with virtually none.
    OK perhaps it wants the full rnge of support ships modernised first.
    Perhaps it wanted its nuclear and non nuclear missile arsenal sorted first.

    2)America has what 13 carriers and many more heli carriers/amphibious ships.
    Its fine when someone else is funding your navy... unless they ask for their money back!
    Russia currently has to fund its own navy.

    So if America isn't doing 2000 ft carriers.. why would Russia?
    Given that Russia is a master of asymetrical ie non arms race tactics.

    3)Just to build a first megacarrier u are prob looking 4 to 7 billion dollars - at Russian rates!
    I'm not sure how much further ships in the series would cost... plus the maintenance, crewing etc.
    Personally I think the solution is a ship that is useful in peacetime AND wartime. Maybe not a brilliant peacetime ship, but something that gives revenue nonetheless.

    4)A 2000 ft carrier is just perplexing. Its not long enough for big planes.. perhaps it could use a regular range of planes tho.

    I noticed that the biggest ships in the World, megatankers are 1500 ft long and upto 500k deadweight tons. But instead of costing multi-billions they are around a few hundred million USD to build.
    They aren't fast, they don't have fancy catapults, or crew space for thousands, and fancy radar, or nuclear propulsion, and the ability to turn full circle in short distances, but they are really big.

    Of course radar, missiles and the like are essential. But I wonder if a "superbarge" type arrangement could work?
    It would certainly rewrite some naval combat strategies.... if it could be effective.

    5)"Superbarges" could be used in peacetime for revenue. Perhaps for bulk carrying, even for satellite launches nr the equator. They could use non carrier aircraft in wartime due to their longer runways.
    They would be far cheaper than full blown carriers and could be positioned in a network over wide distances. Maybe connect 2 up to produce an "temporary island". The loss of one wouldn't be as catastrophic as the loss of a Shtorm supercarrier.
    Despatch time would be slow, but you would probably position one in the general vicinity of a hotspot long before conflict began.
    Personally I think the possibilities could be intriguing.
    Mir
    Mir


    Posts : 1105
    Points : 1109
    Join date : 2021-06-10

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Mir Thu Oct 28, 2021 1:52 pm

    @Firebird

    I personally don't think Russia would ever build a mega carrier like the one in my picture. They don't need anything like it and trying to "outsize" the US would be ridiculous and a very costly project indeed. Besides they don't have the shipyards to produce anything like it atm. Something like the Lamantin seems like a good size carrier to have and it is also a natural evolution from the Kuznetsov-Ulyanovsk design.

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 31566
    Points : 32096
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:06 am

    There are not too many models or designs coming from Russia with two islands, though I am sure they will be looking at British experience and taking that into account with their new designs, so while I wont delete the post, I have not much more to say about it that I have not already said.

    1)I'm not saying big a/carriers are a bad thing.
    I can see how Russia can have a big use for them, necessity.

    They have no urgent use for them now...

    For now their focus is building up their civilian and naval fleets, which as they expand will venture further and further from Russian controlled territory... it is when they are beyond land based Russian air defence that the need for an aircraft carrier, but also just as critically, an air defence cruiser or two become relevant and important.

    But that is going to take time and money... on 50 50 calls on international laws the US and UK and HATO are not going to do Russia any favours at all... they already sail through Russian waters illegally in the Black Sea and in the Pacific and I am expecting them to want to do the same with the north sea route which they will want to claim is for everyone and anyone... despite passing though Russian waters.

    The shit fuckery might be less common, but then it might get worse, and if Russian surface ships find themselves in trouble having large powerful cruisers and large aircraft carriers means those ships are much more likely to survive any incident and any losses at all should be small and the country or countries that inflicted such damage would pay vastly more with a carrier group than any other assembly of Russian ships or subs... aircraft provide awareness and long arms against a variety of targets but with the IADS to defend those planes which makes the entire force a very tough nut to crack when they work together which they will.

    But what puzzles me is that its happily going by with virtually none.
    OK perhaps it wants the full rnge of support ships modernised first.
    Perhaps it wanted its nuclear and non nuclear missile arsenal sorted first.

    On the surface you might think they don't need a carrier... they are not using one now after all... but if they don't need a carrier then what is the point of buying brand new MiG-29KR fighters.... what is the point of the current upgrade and overhaul of the ship... what is the point of keeping two training centres going for training carrier aircraft pilots.... what is the point of a helicopter carrier if more powerful and more potent air defence carriers are too vulnerable and too expensive...

    You can argue that an 80K ton fixed wing carrier is tying up an enormous amount of money that could be spent on smaller ships... in chess terms that is saying you can have 16 pieces with 8 pawns and 8 more useful pieces but I just want pawns.

    Modern corvettes and frigates are powerful and capable but enemy airforces have moved on too.... you can load impressive missiles and weapons in a corvette and a frigate... but the core of the problem is that they can't carry that many weapons... they are essentially able to defend themselves.... working in groups that defence can actually be rather good, but they are not much use for defending other ships.... you might use 2-4 missiles against a Corvette but you will likely be using 40-50 missiles against a helicopter carrier... because it is worth it...
    Destroyers can protect themselves and other ships, but you want cruiser sized vessels for combat persistence and real long range missile capability.

    2)America has what 13 carriers and many more heli carriers/amphibious ships.
    Its fine when someone else is funding your navy... unless they ask for their money back!
    Russia currently has to fund its own navy.

    Very true but American uses those carriers to keep the international sea lanes of communication and trade open for itself to use and to bully others to get its own way in many situations... cuba, north korea, venezuela, Iran, etc etc have all felt naval blockades and naval enforced sanctions imposed on them.

    A decent carrier should last for 40 plus years and over that period it wont be cheap... even a Russian one, but that money is spent on Russian shipyards and Russian companies and Russian workers and the result will make the other ships and the countries that dare to cooperate with Russia much safer.

    If Russia has a navy of corvettes and frigates why on earth would any country choose to trade with them over the US... if you were the leader of Venezuela it would be much easier for you to fold and do as the US tells you than try to make things better for Venezuelans and develop the economy.

    America wants a world full of countries who sell them cheap raw materials which they can process and sell back to countries that don't make anything themselves.

    The US wanted Russia to shrivel up and die and just import cheap food from the EU so the EU makes money... earns their oil and gas money back, and the US will want titanium and other materials as well and Russia can buy it all from the west using the money the west spent buying Russian gas and oil...

    Great for the US but not so great for the other countries as with both Russia and Venezuela when the price of oil dropped then they are a country that doesn't make anything and the oil money they used to buy everything does not buy much any more.

    Obviously Venezuela was hit much harder than Russia... even at 40 dollars a barrel Russia was still making money... but tehy were also using that oil and gas money to build up their economy. They used western trade sanctions to block food from the EU... a stroke of genius... and a serious kick in the nuts... but it has paid off because now Russia is a food exporter which they should have been all along... against the advice of the Clintons in the 1990s...

    Well now Russia makes most of its own stuff and is getting to the point where the engines it didn't have are now getting ready for serial production, which means ship and aircraft and vehicle production can improve and they can go into markets with sanction proof stuff because the engines or thermals are no longer French, or the avionics of the aircraft are not American...

    As they grow their international trade they need to bypass the EU as the middle man that takes their cut for doing nothing except being in the middle of the transaction, or the US previously taking a cut because previously the purchase was made in US dollars... but now things are changing... and for the better.

    Russia is going to expand to be a global commercial power... not like China, but something like that... on a smaller scale... which is plenty to improve living standards and quality of life in Russia.

    So if America isn't doing 2000 ft carriers.. why would Russia?
    Given that Russia is a master of asymetrical ie non arms race tactics.

    The US uses its navy to control and dominate and police the world... Russia does not need anything like that... I would say four CVNs would be the most they would want and for a long time it will likely be one or two carriers... the Kuznetsov and a new CVN which they will test the heck out of.

    BTW if they can get the performance of an 80K ton carrier from a 40K ton design with a double hull or some such clever tricks then even better... it is the performance that is important not the actual physical size.

    3)Just to build a first megacarrier u are prob looking 4 to 7 billion dollars - at Russian rates!
    I'm not sure how much further ships in the series would cost... plus the maintenance, crewing etc.
    Personally I think the solution is a ship that is useful in peacetime AND wartime. Maybe not a brilliant peacetime ship, but something that gives revenue nonetheless.

    Without air support they are not going to be as safe or as effective away from Russian shores... saving 4 billion dollars by not having a decent carrier may cost you ships and crews against an enemy that would not consider attacking a Russian carrier group but would have a go at some ships operating together.

    BTW they probably spent 10 billion or more on Su-57 stealth fighters... is that a waste too?

    The Checkmate shows money spent can be used for other things too... the CVN hulls could be used for new space launch ships, or heavy cruiser designs or cheaper simpler arsenal ships that are military grade defence and protection rather than converted container ships that will be sitting ducks.

    They might have a combination dooms day cruiser with Poseidons and Thunderbirds that spends most of its time in the southern atlantic and southern pacific with dooms day weapons tying up western assets wanting to keep tabs on them...

    4)A 2000 ft carrier is just perplexing. Its not long enough for big planes.. perhaps it could use a regular range of planes tho.

    That might just be taking the piss.... but new 5th gen fighters have enormously powerful engines and internal weapons and are smaller than current 4th gen designs.

    The Su-57 is similar size to a MiG-35, the Checkmate will likely be smaller and will use parts made for the Su-57 to reduce costs.

    MiG-29s and Su-27s can already operate from short strips on land and with enlarged wings and control surfaces to improve handling at low flight speeds the naval versions don't need cats for normal ops on a Kuznetsov sized carrier which is about the minimum size you would want for a carrier... the French have a 40K ton CdG and they want their new carrier to be about 75K tons which is in the ballpark of the 80-90K ton ship the Russians are talking about.

    Unless there is something astounding that makes it necessary they wont be competing with the USN with 100K ships.

    I noticed that the biggest ships in the World, megatankers are 1500 ft long and upto 500k deadweight tons. But instead of costing multi-billions they are around a few hundred million USD to build.

    Big is normally good but going too far is bad. It is a bit like tanks... the Americans have a 70 ton tank whose armour seems to be comparable to the 25 ton lighter T-90... The difference of course is that the American carriers are strike carriers so they attack and invade countries and their navies with aircraft, with ships in support and landing forces too... though sometimes the Marines are a diversion too...

    Being a very big ship allowed the Kirov class to have a formidable number of very big anti ship and anti aircraft missiles on board, but at the time I don't think having a ship twice the size would have made any sense at all.

    This carrier seems a projection of what they could do rather than what they will... people have pointed out the models on the desks of various power people in Russia so maybe this was a chance to take the piss for them.


    Of course radar, missiles and the like are essential. But I wonder if a "superbarge" type arrangement could work?
    It would certainly rewrite some naval combat strategies.... if it could be effective.

    I think if it was practical the British would already be doing it... every time they go to war it seems the politicians think they have too much money and cut it after the conflict.

    In the Falklands Islands campaign a lot of missiles fired at military ships ended up hitting converted civilian ships because they didn't have the self defence equipment the military ships had, and being made to civilian standards they tended to burn and sink, though the military ships did too.

    Submariners have a saying that a torpedo lets water in the bottom of a ship while an anti ship missile lets air in the top.

    Of course an anti ship missile lets fire in which is vastly more deadly, which is not to downplay the danger of torpedoes.

    5)"Superbarges" could be used in peacetime for revenue. Perhaps for bulk carrying, even for satellite launches nr the equator. They could use non carrier aircraft in wartime due to their longer runways.

    That would be in the sales pitch... but what if your enemy is smart waits till your "carriers" are all half way through jobs... they can't just dump containers over the side and rush away like a volunteer fire fighter. Equally if it is working transporting stuff how do you get a trained effective crew who knows what they are doing?

    A barge is not exactly like an aircraft carrier there are lots of difference... for a start most bulk carriers don't have accommodation for 4 thousand ship and aircraft crew, or the cooking facilities and food storage facilities to support them. Having dozens of high performance aircraft with fuel and ammunition stored on board would be complex and need training and work to get to a point where it is efficient, plus they would need operational training.... and its very low speed would be a problem getting from place to place... and if it sinks with say 50 enormously expensive 5th gen super fighters not to mention half a dozen AWACS type aircraft that probably cost even more than the fighters in the Russian Navy are on board... how much are you actually saving?

    And what is the cost?

    The space required for EMAL cats would be wasted space for any transport vessel... as well as food storage and accommodations etc etc. and of course munitions and fuel would need special fire walled storage areas for handling and storage too...

    Some good reasons why it hasn't been done.

    On the other hand when cruise missiles are loaded into shipping containers then some sort of arsenal ship that either launches directly from the container ship or loads them onto frigates and Corvettes able to carry and launch missiles from shipping crates could be used to launch a lot of missiles in theatre with containers being shifted around... launch the top ones first and then stack those empty crates at one end and then work your way down the ship launching more missiles... the firing rate would be excellent.... but the cost in missiles would be enormous... you would want that ship to be protected... and the best protection would be a fixed wing carrier group and subs.

    They would be far cheaper than full blown carriers and could be positioned in a network over wide distances.

    Would they? You can't preposition them because that would require the air component and crew and ships crew... hundreds of aircraft and their spare parts and equipment to be flown from Russia to where the container ship is... the container ship would have to offload all the crates so they can be taken by another ship... not good for business.... and how would you get all the stores and equipment and 4,000 people to where that container ship currently is to start loading aircraft as well as spare parts and munitions and aviation fuel etc etc... would be a nightmare.

    And it wont be more effective than a real carrier.

    How would you install an EMALS system.... or does it remain on board all the time taking up space and weight.

    Maybe connect 2 up to produce an "temporary island". The loss of one wouldn't be as catastrophic as the loss of a Shtorm supercarrier.

    Two connected would effectively be immobile and an easy target.... and no reason to believe would be effective as an aircraft carrier either.

    The likelyhood of Russia losing an aircraft carrier in peace time or proxy war is tiny, and in WWIII... who cares... who will even notice?

    I personally don't think Russia would ever build a mega carrier like the one in my picture. They don't need anything like it and trying to "outsize" the US would be ridiculous and a very costly project indeed. Besides they don't have the shipyards to produce anything like it atm. Something like the Lamantin seems like a good size carrier to have and it is also a natural evolution from the Kuznetsov-Ulyanovsk design.

    They have a lot of experience and work in the past to know what they want... they have said it many times.... they want something with a capacity slightly bigger than the Kuznetsov... which is what the Ulyanovsk was... they could probably improve the design but that is what they want.

    Now a double hull ship with bigger capacity than Kuznetsov but weighs 40K tons ... that would be fine... the bigger a carrier is the more it costs to buy and to operate but if you can get the actual performance of a 70-80K ton carrier in a 40K ton design then that would be amazing.

    Tiny carriers with VSTOL fighters has been tried and proven to be a failure... everyone acknowledges that... except the US Marines who want landing ships and not fixed wing carriers so their experience is not relevant in this case.

    Note the Russian Naval Infantry are going for a 40K ton helicopter carrier but it is interesting that the "fighter" they have chosen is the Ka-52K and not a VSTOL jet... because they know the serious limits and design flaws and problems VSTOL fighters introduce for a trick that is not very useful anyway...

    And before you say it vertical takeoff is never used operationally because it limits takeoff weight to be fuel or weapons but not both.

    Firebird likes this post

    avatar
    mnztr


    Posts : 1269
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2018-01-21

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  mnztr Sun Nov 14, 2021 5:45 am

    Mir wrote:
    Arrow wrote:
    What kind of dry dock near Murmansk?   Belokamenka ?

    https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/05/murmansk-gets-russias-biggest-dry-dock

    There are also plans underway to lift the sunken PD-50 in Kola Bay but I don't know if they will be able to do so and f they plan to put the dock back in service?

    Not the best place to put your largest drydock It really should have been built in a place that has much better weather then Murmansk. As it stands they have to wait months for suitable weather to put the Kuz into drydock even after the dock is completed. There are some defensive reasons to put a dock up there, but really the largest docks should be in the Black Sea for the best year round climate and proximity to supply chain. Perhaps that is the longer term vision but the Crimean shipyards still need to be developed further.
    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 525
    Points : 527
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:09 am

    mnztr wrote:Not the best place to put your largest drydock It really should have been built in a place that has much better weather then Murmansk. As it stands they have to wait months for suitable weather to put the Kuz into drydock even after the dock is completed. There are some defensive reasons to put a dock up there, but really the largest docks should be in the Black Sea for the best year round climate and proximity to supply chain. Perhaps that is the longer term vision but the Crimean shipyards still need to be developed further.

    Murmansk is closest to the naval yards where the mechanics and machinists with the experience in building nuclear vessels are.
    I think the best other alternative would be St. Petersburg where they build the icebreakers but there are limitations of space and land cost.

    kvs likes this post


    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 31 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:06 am