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


+57
Mir
Firebird
Lennox
thegopnik
ALAMO
Broski
Russian_Patriot_
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
61 posters

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Jul 31, 2022 2:49 pm

    Apparently the creation of infrastructure for the production of aircraft carriers is foreseen in the new naval doctrine of the RF, I will post here the wording when I find it in the document...

    "Development of a modern high-tech shipbuilding complex in the Far East, designed for the construction of large-capacity vessels (including for the development of the Arctic, modern aircraft carriers for the Navy),"




    Last edited by LMFS on Mon Aug 01, 2022 1:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB, kvs, GunshipDemocracy, Backman, Kiko and Belisarius like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Mon Aug 01, 2022 7:12 am

    They reportedly have made upgrades to the Kuznetsov including launch assisting equipment they are very vague about... I rather suspect they will want to test the upgrades applied to the old ship before planning for new ones so that any new experience can be applied to their design.

    They had VSTOL carriers and their experience was that they are not as capable as a normal STOBAR fixed wing carrier (short takeoff but arrested recovery... so chocks and a ramp for takeoff and cables to land.), but the smaller VSTOL carriers were very expensive anyway...

    The result was the bigger Carrier design (Kuznetsov) which was about as small a carrier they could make for the Su-33 and MiG-29K to operate safely from, and their experience led to the Ulyanovsk which is even bigger and with catapults and conventional Yak-44 type AWACS.

    The K was the smallest they thought would make sense and is too small for conventional Hawkeye like AWACS planes, while the U is big enough for cats and therefore AWACS and heavier loaded aircraft.

    This upgrade has added something to improve takeoff performance which should increase takeoff weights which will further improve performance of the fighters.

    Any new CVNs will have Redut and S-500 but wont be like the Kiev class mixed carrier cruisers.

    But there is no point building new CVNs till new Destroyers and new Cruisers are in production... and they wont start laying them down for a few years yet.

    New destroyers and new cruisers will likely be nuclear powered and all electric drive so they are going to have to invest in electrical systems and chips and equipment... but then such technology is going in to new cars and trains and trucks and buses and even aircraft so it is well worth investing in.
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Mon Aug 01, 2022 2:08 pm

    What I consider relevant here is that they have confirmed that they don't have the infrastructure needed to build the carriers. Zvezda is busy, as well as Sevmash.

    Maybe developing the right bank of Bolshoi Kamen (Zvezdochka if I am nor wrong) and create there the structure needed to build carriers? They already have experience with nuclear reactors for the subs and the location would allow to use the existing industrial facilities and production environment. I think there is space to build a further dry dock with the required dimensions, but who knows what the plans are, or even if they are already defined to that point.

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Zvezda10

    Backman likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Tue Aug 02, 2022 3:36 am

    What they have confirmed is that the large shipyard they have that we speculated was for building carriers or other very large ships will likely be busy non stop making tankers and large cargo ships and other civilian vessels and they will likely need to expand and upgrade more shipyards able to build not just new carriers but all the new destroyers and cruisers that will be needed to support carrier based operations around the world which would also include long range support ships too.

    They will not be building CVNs any time soon... they will need destroyers and cruisers in serial production and a full test run on the K and its upgrades first... plus they also need to step up civilian ship production... fishing factory ships and also large cargo and tanker and oiler vessels to deliver their products direct to their customers... bypassing western fleets which have proven so damn unreliable and subject to politics.

    Sad for those western companies, but they are not fighting these sanctions so the result will be a new Russian fleet doing the same job they are doing... so not only do they miss out on work and contracts, they also get new rivals doing the same sort of work they do which will cost them money for lost contracts and also market share...
    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Aug 21, 2022 2:24 am

    Old statements from Borisov to ilustrate the doctrinal battle in Russia re. the aircraft carriers and contrasting with the provisions taken in the naval doctrine:

    Borisov believes that the development of high-precision weapons devalues the capabilities of aircraft carriers

    The Deputy Prime Minister noted that Russia adheres to a defensive strategy and for it, unlike the United States, the construction of aircraft carriers is "a very controversial issue"
    MOSCOW, April 19. /tass/. The development of high-precision and hypersonic weapons reduces the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups. The Russian Navy is able to solve tasks for their intended purpose at the expense of ships of the far sea zone. This opinion was expressed by Deputy Prime Minister Yuri Borisov in an interview with RT.

    "In principle, the development of high-precision weapons, hypersonic weapons sometimes devalues all the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups," Borisov said. "It's a target, yes. Although, of course, it is well protected, and it also has certain air and missile defense capabilities."

    Borisov noted that Russia adheres to a defensive strategy and for it, unlike the United States, the construction of aircraft carriers is "a very controversial issue."

    In his opinion, it is possible to achieve the goals that are currently set for the Russian navy by developing cheaper models, including ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/14412887

    It seems to me that the equation "aircraft carrier = imperialist tool" is deeply ingrained in the minds of many Russians, maybe because that was the official line in the times of the USSR? I am not neutral here since I fully support the development of such vessels for the VMF, but IMHO this cannot be further from the truth and is the result of the influence of US propaganda, which managed to create the opinion among the public that a carrier is intended as a means of attacking land forces in remote countries, when that is just a doctrinal abomination and the result of wasteful and illogical approach by the USN. Naval forces should not be used to attack land ones, and carriers should not carry almost 100 strike aircraft and the thousands of tons of bombs needed to sustain their carpet bombing of third world countries.

    VMF on the other hand, thankfully, seems to be aware that the value of aircraft carriers is not determined by ideology, but by its unique capacity to bring air power to the naval domain, and is holding to existing carrier, and air wing, plus making sure the topic remains in the strategic documents. Let us see whether they manage to overcome the possible obstacles among the deciders in order to get design and construction plans started. The time is now, otherwise they may lose their current advantage due to missile technology and be exposed to USN naval airpower superiority in some ten years time.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 21, 2022 10:57 am

    Russian carriers will be air defence carriers and will be purely to support surface and sub surface vessel operations.

    The Russian Army is equipped and fully ready to operate on territory where it does not control the sky, and the Russian Navy should be the same, but it also makes sense to use the Russian Air Force together with the Russian Army to secure the air above the Army so they can do their work more effectively and efficiently.

    Unless the Russian AF expands to bases in over 100 countries around the world then there is little chance of them being able to follow the Russian Navy around the way they follow the Russian Army... the Russian Army can secure local airfields for the Russian Air Force to operate from so they can secure the skies for them.

    The Russian Navy is not going to be able to secure airfields on land near where it is operating all the time so it needs to provide ships for aircraft to operate from.

    And those carriers are not colonial carriers used to bully and threaten and invade... but the Russian Navy needs to help protect a country anywhere on the planet and make that country feel safe despite threats from the west regarding trade with Russia... even sending a couple of frigates or destroyers might be enough sometimes but other times actual aircraft can make all the difference to whether your trading partners ships get boarded and stolen or left alone.

    The west has already sunk to the level of piracy and it will only get worse in the future as they get more desperate for oil and gas supplies...

    Having a couple of aircraft carriers will not eliminate the problem, but having a strong navy able to sail anywhere with strength will lead to western countries having to respect their rights to open international waters.... or else.

    Obviously they are going to build destroyers and cruisers and they are likely to be nuclear powered simply because they will last 50 years plus and fossil fuels might be hard to source in 50 years time, and while expensive to build they should be cheap to operate with likely no refuelling needed for their operational lives, and their unlimited endurance means getting somewhere quickly should be a capability they have, but of course when they get there it might be a week or so before the support ships arrive so having a decent weapon load will be important, making cruisers useful too.

    Having air power where ever they go will just improve their capabilities and make decision making easier by providing more accurate and precise information about the airspace around them.

    flamming_python and LMFS like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4020
    Points : 4018
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Aug 24, 2022 3:38 pm

    New trimaran design showcased at Army-2022

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 21-10910

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 21-10911

    George1 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10222
    Points : 10208
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Aug 24, 2022 4:10 pm

    They really need to stop with their fantasy designs every year. That's mike tge 10th. We all know if they make a carrier it will be a kouz copy or an Ulyanovsk.

    flamming_python and owais.usmani like this post

    Backman dislikes this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 12652
    Points : 12710
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  PapaDragon Wed Aug 24, 2022 6:41 pm


    I'm pretty sure that even they realized that not a single person takes them seriously anymore and they just decided to keep trolling people with all this nonsense for shits and giggles and have as much fun as they can while they still can

    flamming_python, GunshipDemocracy and Broski like this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 10222
    Points : 10208
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Isos Wed Aug 24, 2022 7:06 pm

    The didn't even paint the island tower on it, just put some white plastic. I think the shipbuilders are trolling the navy which for a decade now say will order a 100kt carrier. Dumb expectations, dumb proposals.

    flamming_python likes this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4020
    Points : 4018
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Wed Aug 24, 2022 11:49 pm

    Isos wrote:They really need to stop with their fantasy designs every year. That's mike tge 10th. We all know if they make a carrier it will be a kouz copy or an Ulyanovsk.

    Give it a rest.  Russians are sledged by Western clowns and accused of having no capacity for "innovation" yet when new concepts are show-cased they are similarly ridiculed for vapour-ware projects... Suspect

    You seem to be suggesting that unless a project can be realised in the bending of metal then it isn't worth proposing or studying? IMHO its unhinged that some think that Russia shouldn't think outside the box and develop revolutionary weapon concepts simply because they currently lack the available resources (or be unwilling to allocate them to military needs) to make them a reality in the short term.

    Russia has been engaging in developing paper designs/concepts for cutting edge innovative military technologies since the breakup in 1991, and even in the dark days of the 90s they have kept funds flowing to future plans and tech development. Cutting edge systems "with no analogs in the West' Laughing haven't simply appeared from nowhere, ie Sarmat heavy ICBM, Avangard HGV, Poseidon UUV, Burevestnik nuclear-powered LACM, Peresvet mobile laser, Zircon & Khinzhal hypersonic AShM/LACM, Armata, Su-57, S-75, PAK DP, PAK DA, Tu-160M2.

    Russia will (re)develop a blue-water navy, and some form of carrier will be a core component of the new force structure.  Maybe they will go for a massive US-style fleet carrier such as Shtorm, or maybe a mid-size design like Lamantin, or maybe a larger number of smaller escort carriers...  who knows, but pushing the envelope of design concepts and considering innovative soutions is an integral part of an effective MIC that looks to support the nations future defense needs.

    GarryB, kvs, GunshipDemocracy, Sprut-B, LMFS, Hole, Backman and like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Thu Aug 25, 2022 6:32 am

    The design is interesting with three landing strips... would suggest that at different times in combat different strips would be used for different things... if you look at a conventional angled deck carrier the angled deck means you can land planes while other aircraft on the front of the carrier can take off, so you can launch more planes while planes are landing.

    With three air strips when launching planes you could line up perhaps six planes... two rows of three, with deck mounted fold down barriers to prevent the engine exhaust interfering with the aircraft behind, so they can get prepared for takeoff quickly and once the front three are gone the shields can be dropped and the rear three can be launched straight away... but in terms of landing I really don't think landing three aircraft at a time would be safe and equally having planes take off at the same time planes are landing probably would not be safe either... a brake can fail and an aircraft veer out of line into the path of a landing aircraft... the other problem of course is that planes take off and land into the wind... so both would be going in the same direction... but one one need cables to stop them and the other would not want cables to slow it down.

    Most multi hull carrier designs I have seen usually widely separate two runways and use one for take off and one for landing but have a huge deck and a correspondingly huge hangar underneath because if planes only land on one side then you need to transfer planes to the other side of the ship for takeoff after they are refuelled and rearmed of course.

    And I have to agree with big gazza.... ohh noo... they have committed the cardinal sin of designing something the west believes it has perfected, and it does not look like any in service western systems... it must be bullshit...

    Don't think for yourself... everything has already been invented that is worth inventing... stop thinking outside the box...

    Which is probably why HATO does not know what to do about the Ukraine because they know they live in a house of cards with no glue and the windows are open...

    Big_Gazza, kvs, GunshipDemocracy and 4channer like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:46 am

    Created electromagnetic catapults for aircraft carriers will be tested at a ground test site

    Practical retraining of naval aviation flight and engineering personnel for new aviation equipment will also be conducted, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said.
    MOSCOW, September 2. /tass/. Promising electromagnetic catapults can be tested at the ground-based training ground of naval aviation, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Friday during a conference call.

    "This test site is intended for testing ship-based aircraft, ship-based aircraft equipment, aerial finishers and advanced electromagnetic catapults," he said.

    According to Shoigu, during the current meeting, issues of performing development work on the creation of a landfill will be considered.

    "In addition, it will be used to conduct practical retraining of flight and engineering personnel of naval aviation for new aviation equipment. Today we will discuss the implementation of this project, " the head of the Defense Ministry said.

    At the moment, there are two ground - based NITKA test training complexes (aviation) in Russia-in Saki and Yeisk.

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/15629727

    Vague statements indeed, but they hint in the right direction...

    GarryB, kvs, Sprut-B, Hole, Broski, Belisarius and Podlodka77 like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko


    Posts : 1541
    Points : 1565
    Join date : 2020-11-11
    Age : 73
    Location : Brasilia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Kiko Fri Sep 02, 2022 11:50 pm

    Further details:

    Expert: Russia plans to build an aircraft carrier with an electromagnetic catapult, by Andrey Rezchikov for VZGLYAD. 09.02.2022.

    “If Russia is going to test electromagnetic catapults to launch aircraft, then we are going to build a full-fledged aircraft carrier with a displacement of 90,000 tons,” military expert Konstantin Sivkov told the VZGLYAD newspaper. Earlier, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced the creation of a ground complex for naval aviation, which will test electromagnetic catapults.

    Now only the United States has operating electromagnetic catapults for taking off aircraft - on the latest Gerald Ford-class aircraft carriers, says Konstantin Sivkov, doctor of military sciences, captain of the 1st rank of the reserve.

    “The previous generation of US Navy aircraft carriers, like the French Charles de Gaulle, use steam catapults. India is building a multi-purpose aircraft carrier Vikrant, which will also be without an electromagnetic catapult. Only two countries own the technology for their manufacture - Russia and the United States. The Americans have problems with this catapult, but it works. China tried to get technology from Russia, but we refused. Therefore, the Chinese aircraft carriers Liaoning and Shandong are still without an electromagnetic catapult,” the expert said.

    The electromagnetic catapults mentioned by Shoigu may also be intended for the Shtorm-KM multi-purpose aircraft carrier, the model of which was first presented at the Army-2018 forum, Sivkov suggested. This ship is designed for 46 aircraft. The approximate composition of the air wing is 12-14 heavy Su-33 fighters, 12-14 light MiG-29K, four long-range radar patrol aircraft and 12-14 Ka-27 multi-purpose helicopters. In the future, he will be able to take on board the latest drones.

    Recall, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Friday that Russia is developing a new ground complex for naval aviation, which will test not only shipborne aircraft and technical equipment, but also electromagnetic catapults.

    Igor Kurdin, Chairman of the St. Petersburg Submariners' Club, recalled that Russia is developing a preliminary design for an aircraft carrier equipped with electromagnetic catapults. “A certain infrastructure should be sharpened for this aircraft carrier, first of all, it is necessary to build a training airfield of the Nitki type, which is located in the Crimea, to train carrier-based aviation pilots. An aircraft carrier is not just a large ship carrying aircraft, it is also a basing and ship repair system,” said Kurdin.

    https://vz.ru/news/2022/9/2/1175623.html

    GarryB, flamming_python, kvs, Rodion_Romanovic, zardof, Sprut-B and LMFS like this post

    Big_Gazza
    Big_Gazza


    Posts : 4020
    Points : 4018
    Join date : 2014-08-25
    Location : Melbourne, Australia

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Big_Gazza Sat Sep 03, 2022 3:00 am

    Strange that the article doesn't mention that the PLAN carrier Fuijan (Type 003) also has electromagnetic catapults. Kinda pokes a hole in the claim that China wanted to buy the tech from Russia but was refused. I'd find it hard to belive that Russia already has a mature EM-based catapult, as without any candidate carrier on the horizon, why pre-invest and develop the tech now? dunno

    flamming_python and kvs like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sat Sep 03, 2022 6:54 am

    The Ulyanovsk was supposed to have steam cats but EM cats were later decided on and have been under development during all this time.

    The K was considered too small for cats, the U was designed for cats and the heavier aircraft cats would allow.

    I would think the Chinese probably would prefer to buy the technology rather than have to work it out for themselves, but I suspect they were not prepared to pay a reasonable price for the technology, and of course with Russia having not deployed it anywhere yet who is to say there are no problems with it...

    The technology involved in EM cats will be useful across a wide range of applications including maglev trains and electric motors and electromagnets and super conductors and capacitors and batteries etc etc.

    For electric powered ships and cars and trucks and buses and trains and ships and aircraft such technology will be valuable.

    Even in terms of weapons a device that can accelerate a 20 ton aircraft from stationary to 250km/h in the space of 20m could be used to accelerate much smaller objects to much higher speeds... we have already heard about a drone catapult launcher they are testing... imagine one half the length of a ship that can accelerate a 1,500kg guided bomb to enormous speeds? Or a 100kg bomb for that matter as long as it is guided... that is the equivalent of a 203mm artillery shell.

    When the power comes from the ships reactor and the "payload" is a warhead and a guidance system and steering fins it is a very efficient way of carrying ordinance for shelling landing zones or large numbers of small enemy boats trying to swarm you...

    The enormous advantage of EM cats is that they can adjust and adapt... with a steam cat you set the pressure for the aircraft type, the fuel and weapon weight, and any specific ordinance it carries... get it wrong and the plane ends up with its nose on the deck (front wheel ripped off), or in the water.

    You set it and it goes. With an EM cat it can detect the acceleration of the plane and increase or decrease power to suit so it gets airborne before it runs out of space.

    The same could be used to vary the initial velocity of a bomb being launched, though the capacity to change the angle would be useful, being able to change the speed should allow the payload to be delivered to a suitable speed... direction by turning the ship.
    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5616
    Points : 5644
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Sun Sep 04, 2022 1:43 am

    LMFS wrote:Old statements from Borisov to ilustrate the doctrinal battle in Russia re. the aircraft carriers and contrasting with the provisions taken in the naval doctrine:

    Borisov believes that the development of high-precision weapons devalues the capabilities of aircraft carriers

    VMF on the other hand, thankfully, seems to be aware that the value of aircraft carriers is not determined by ideology, but by its unique capacity to bring air power to the naval domain, and is holding to existing carrier, and air wing, plus making sure the topic remains in the strategic documents. Let us see whether they manage to overcome the possible obstacles among the deciders in order to get design and construction plans started. The time is now, otherwise they may lose their current advantage due to missile technology and be exposed to USN naval airpower superiority in some ten years time.

    Meh it's not about ideology but common sense and money. Russia doesn't need ACs for other needs than fleet protection. No foreign lands bombing foreseen in strategy. For the full interview with Borisov pls check the link below:

    Tass for some reason didn't quite the whole source RT interview. Borisov, though he is not a big fan of ACs, but he didn't say this is irrelevant weapon for Russian Navy.


    in short he said :
    - Russia doesn't have need to build as big and expensive carrier groups - different tasks and money that can be spent on this purpose.

    - Carriers will be included in Russian Navy but possibly smaller and cheaper.


    Speculating: CSG can be dealt with hypersonic weapons true, so why Russian Navy needs carriers? to me fighters for fleet protection and drones to carry ant ship missiles + awacs. How large lets see how military and budget keepers negotiate.

    Let's see whether STOL/VSTOL fighter will materialize in coming years?



    Borisov said to RT: wrote:As for aircraft carriers, these issues are constantly raised at Sochi meetings (with the president. - RT ). In principle, the development of high-precision weapons, hypersonic weapons sometimes devalues ​​all the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups.
    The Americans need to have a deployed air group, because they are distant from us by the oceans and they somehow need to get to the main theaters of military operations. We preach a defensive strategy, therefore (for Russia, the construction of aircraft carriers. - RT ) is a very controversial issue. Of course, this type of marine technology cannot be abandoned, you need to constantly think about it, but this is an expensive undertaking.

    It is possible to achieve the goals that we set for the navy by developing cheaper models, the same ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect. Therefore, the military must ultimately decide what they need in this regard. I, even when I was in the Ministry of Defense, never allowed myself to teach professionals what kind of weapons they should fight with.

    https://www.russiadefence.net/post?p=392667&mode=quote





    LMFS and Broski like this post

    LMFS
    LMFS


    Posts : 4995
    Points : 4995
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  LMFS Sun Sep 04, 2022 3:33 am

    GunshipDemocracy wrote:Meh it's not about ideology but common sense and money.

    I notice it distinctly, how often Russians seem to be emotional about the topic. It is not a normal discussion about another weapons system, but something else, frequently perceived as "the" tool of imperial ambitions they openly despise.


    in short he said :
    - Russia doesn't have need to build as big and expensive carrier groups - different tasks and money that can be spent on this purpose.

    - Carriers will be included in Russian Navy but possibly smaller and cheaper.

    Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions. But he misses that you cannot rely always in having a significant advantage in AD and AShM technology, and that you cannot simply cancel the contribution of air power in a warfare domain, that is simply nuts, similar to fighting the SMO without the participation of the VKS. Specially, when you experience an absurd numerical disadvantage vs the USN. He is smart enough, though, not to collide with the VMF decision power, but it is clear IMHO, that his opinion is contrary to carriers.

    Speculating: CSG can be dealt with hypersonic weapons true, so why Russian Navy needs carriers? to me fighters for fleet protection and drones to carry ant ship missiles + awacs. How large lets see how military and budget keepers negotiate.

    ANY surface vessel can be dealt with by means of hypersonic missiles TODAY, does it mean surface fleets are to be cancelled? Outright illogical argument that we keep hearing. Besides, the first ships that will be able to defend from such weapons by means either of DEW or high performance SAMs will necessarily be capital ships with high energy generation and conversion capabilities and spacious hulls to carry the equipment needed, included missiles of the size of S-500. Are corvettes going to be able to carry such missiles, but CVNs or nuclear cruisers not? Russia claims to have already the AD to counter potential US hypersonic weapons, but they at the same time declare their fleet to be defenceless against them, now and in the future? The whole argument makes no sense whatsoever.

    Let's see whether  STOL/VSTOL fighter will materialize  in coming years?

    VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

    Borisov said to RT: wrote:As for aircraft carriers, these issues are constantly raised at Sochi meetings (with the president. - RT ). In principle, the development of high-precision weapons, hypersonic weapons sometimes devalues ​​all the capabilities of aircraft carrier groups.

    > Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

    The Americans need to have a deployed air group, because they are distant from us by the oceans and they somehow need to get to the main theaters of military operations.

    He should read the naval strategy. Russia claims global reach and global interests, therefore they need to reach equally distant potential theaters of military operations

    We preach a defensive strategy, therefore (for Russia, the construction of aircraft carriers. - RT ) is a very controversial issue.

    1) Controversial issue in Russia, as stated above.
    2) The defensive strategy has ultimately nothing to do with the carriers, because Russia does not want them to attack remote countries, but to defend their relationships with them and in general any legitimate interests of the RF in the world ocean

    Of course, this type of marine technology cannot be abandoned, you need to constantly think about it, but this is an expensive undertaking.

    Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor

    It is possible to achieve the goals that we set for the navy by developing cheaper models, the same ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect. Therefore, the military must ultimately decide what they need in this regard. I, even when I was in the Ministry of Defense, never allowed myself to teach professionals what kind of weapons they should fight with.

    There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.

    GunshipDemocracy likes this post

    thegopnik
    thegopnik


    Posts : 1190
    Points : 1196
    Join date : 2017-09-20

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  thegopnik Sun Sep 04, 2022 6:45 am

    Russia has SONAR arrays that have 100s of kms in range(could be more because arctur is stated in 100s to 1000km range) and can be placed anywhere out at sea being powered by nuclear reactors instead of cables from the shore which at times would need repairs and the SONARs are only close to the coast line and cant be placed in the middle of the sea like the HARMONY project. low frequency communcation can be used thus they can even use satellites to pick up where ships are at based on where SONAR picked their locations up. GEO satellites offer a huge footprint and SAR resolution has gotten good enough that it can spot carriers and if it does it would relay that information to LEO satellites to offer better tracking. Their submarines have the longest range torpedoes called Futlyar and can use alot of underwater drones with their own SONAR to expand their detection range besides using the HARMONY network SONAR arrays in detecting underwater targets. Technology for satellites increased their resolution capabilities in identifying ships along with the process of creating nuclear reactor powered SONAR arrays to be placed anywhere in the world that it seems logical that they can use Zircon which can be fired from underwater to hit ships 1000s of kilometers away or use Zmeevik from their coasts to attack ships at further distances than zircon which both have ABM shield penetration capabiilities or even the option of using fast long range torpedoes such as Poseidon. You can pretty much say this changes how warfare is fought drastically out at sea. It will be hard to find HARMONY SONAR arrays which can use passive SONAR detection instead of active SONAR detection which I guess will only be used if there is a war going to happen. million dollar torpedoes or missiles are cheaper than billion dollar ships.

    Chinese may have more satellites and their own anti-ship ballistic missile developement but they are suffering an electronics component shortage like Russia but Russia is addressing that issue and I think the Zmeevik will be functional before China's DF-21D missile project. For some reason I think combining SONAR detection to be placed anywhere at sea with the combination of using that info to cue satellites to cue their missiles in hitting targets work better than the Chinese for just having more satellites, thus I am still curious at what range the Zmeevik can fly from their coast but I am betting it will have a far enough range to hit the U.S. coast such as if the US sent 100 carriers 100 zmeeviks will be launched at them from getting to Ukraine. Submarines and hypersonic interceptors things that change the battlefield make more sense than starting carrier projects or stealth bombers that are easy targets and wasteful spending. But of course we all have high hopes they are smart spenders.

    Russia maybe saying that they have developed HARMONY specifically just for the arctic but there is no rules yet that they cant place SONAR arrays between the US or europe or between Asia and the U.S. I am 110% sure they would like the big US navy to all be targets for their missiles if things were to escalate to conventional warfare(just hitting ships) before pushing to nuclear warfare (hitting the country). Even if you somehow have submarines that have better SONAR detection or better stealth than the Yasen class which isnt proven yet, their long reaching torpedoes will still hit you by them using the HARMONY network for detection and guidance. Once all the subs are easily taken care of they can go start a massacre with volleys of zircons from their HARMONY or satellite network. Russian subs are nearly unstoppable, what can carriers do or why is it even needed for their navy? I think there is already an agreement that subs will be their primary funding before carriers.

    Hole likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Sep 04, 2022 9:28 am

    I notice it distinctly, how often Russians seem to be emotional about the topic. It is not a normal discussion about another weapons system, but something else, frequently perceived as "the" tool of imperial ambitions they openly despise.

    Western use has made it so, but reality is that air power cannot be ignored... the Russian Army have the air defence capacity to operate without their air force, yet they used air power in Syria because it just made sense.

    Lifting radar into the air just makes sense too, and fighter aircraft can roam around the air space intercepting threats in peace time and war to identify threats and targets but also friendlies as well... imagine a cat launched S-70 that could be launched and fly 2,500km out to a potential threat at 950km/h at medium to high altitudes with optical and radar targeting pods on board as well as missiles... without risking any people... the enemy can't ignore it... when they respond you know there are hostiles there.... but you know when they are over 1,000km away... without any air platforms you see a radar blip and wonder what it is...

    Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions.

    I suspect he means they wont be competing with the US to make the biggest and heaviest and most expensive aircraft carriers... so they wont be 100K tons... I personally think they might come up with a clever design that maximises hangar size and aircraft space with minimal ship weight... but I still think the French are right with their estimates of 70-80K tons, nuke powered, EM cats...

    He is smart enough, though, not to collide with the VMF decision power, but it is clear IMHO, that his opinion is contrary to carriers.

    I don't think he appreciates that Russia is on its own now and needs to bypass the west and trade with the rest of the world directly instead of via western intermediaries who screw it and take profit from their trade, and limit their trade in other ways.

    Russia claims to have already the AD to counter potential US hypersonic weapons, but they at the same time declare their fleet to be defenceless against them, now and in the future? The whole argument makes no sense whatsoever.

    They are talking about aircraft carriers but I think they are mentioning that they need to be careful because they are not invulnerable. Ironically in Russian service they will be primarily air defence carriers, so their primary purpose will be to boost the air defence capacity of ships they operate with, but that is not what western carriers are for. Western carriers rely on air defence optimised cruisers and destroyers to defend them while they penetrate into enemy air defences... either land based or sea based to destroy ground or surface ship forces of the enemy.

    VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.

    Just like on land they need two aircraft types... one for long range air superiority, for which the Su-27 was their best plane in the 1980s and their Su-57 is their best plane now, so it needs to be their big plane.

    For their lighter plane the range and speed requirements are not so important, but I still think a STOL fighter makes the most sense... that twin engined MiG model would be my first choice obviously... especially if a land based version could also be used too so numbers make it cheaper.

    A VSTOL fighter would be more expensive to develop and more limited in its performance and its primary advantage of being able to land or take off vertically will almost never be used in combat because of the performance limitations it imposes and the greater risk it entails.

    The New MiG looks to me to be a better 5th gen Rafale...

    > Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons

    Makes air defence even more critical which actually makes air defence carriers more important, not less important... more necessary.

    We preach a defensive strategy, therefore (for Russia, the construction of aircraft carriers. - RT ) is a very controversial issue

    Even from a pride and ego perspective... Venezuela would feel safer choosing Russia and China as allies over the US if Russian and Chinese carriers could come and visit and train and exercise in their waters whenever the US starts to threaten...

    Not having carriers would make rest of the world countries hesitate to establish trade relations against the west... if you can back up your words then your words mean nothing. Ask Serbia over Russian verbal support all these years, or ask Georgia over US verbal support all these years...

    That is not to say an aircraft carrier would have made any difference in Serbia and US carriers were impotent in Georgia too... it is no perfect system that fixes everything... the US spends over three quarters of a trillion dollars a year on defence and how often does it get its way without extra bribes and the use of the CIA and NSA.

    Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor

    Trying to emulate the US Navy would be stupid and I also think trying to get VSTOL fighters to a practical level is also a dead end until you have electric engines that blow air that has not been super heated and has not had the oxygen consumed from its exhaust... one day something practical might be developed but I have not seen anything that comes close to a more conventional design like a MiG-29K.

    There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.

    They went down the mini carriers with the Kiev class together with the British, and they went for a middle sized carrier with the Kuznetsov and their direct real world experience is that it is much better than a Kiev class ship, but still not big enough... they know they don't want a full sized American strike carrier like a 100K ton Nimitz or Ford class CVN, but they need a decent amount of space on their ship which is going to include more and more drone types.

    I would like to see them experiment more with airships.... the core of making carriers big is to allow decent sized AWACS aircraft to operate from them safely... the EM cats are primarily for AWACS platforms to operate with decent levels of fuel... having an airship based AWACS platform which could have an enormous antenna array and even perhaps an onboard nuclear reactor to give unlimited electrical power which could be used to transition water to hydrogen and back and also power the radar and computing power needed... with powerful electric motors it should be able to keep up with and operate with any group of ships... perhaps with EMP weapons and directed energy weapons to protect itself (ie beams to disrupt electronics rather than blow things out of the sky.

    You could design it so it can land on the sea surface with some sort of catamaran type hull with lots of optics and ports looking downwards that could allow it to be tethered in battlefields for observation at 20km altitude or higher with high power optics and radar to scan the ground and the airspace for targets.

    The enormous internal volume of an airship would allow enormous radar antenna to be fitted... and the heat they generate when used will help make the airship remain buoyant. Hydrogen fuel cells and electrical current would allow the transition of water to hydrogen and back as needed for balance and lifting force respectively.

    Modern strong lightweight materials that are fire proof and are not highly flammable like the paint and materials used in old airships would make it much safer.

    The entire internal envelope could be purged with nitrogen so fires cannot even start where the hydrogen is stored.

    GunshipDemocracy and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34846
    Points : 35364
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GarryB Sun Sep 04, 2022 9:41 am

    Russian subs are nearly unstoppable, what can carriers do or why is it even needed for their navy? I think there is already an agreement that subs will be their primary funding before carriers.

    Russian submarines are impressive and very necessary, but in terms of protecting friendly shipping how are they going to deal with potential threats... pirates for instance.

    When you start sending ships to hunt for pirates then what stops those ships from being overwhelmed by enemy ships or enemy aircraft?

    A Russian fleet that only has submarines and corvettes and frigates is thin and weak and fragile and could never be considered a blue water navy even if those corvettes are better armed than most western destroyers.

    Look at the Falklands war... the money they saved not having a full deck fixed wing carrier they lost in ships and risky hair brained V bomber attacks on airfields.

    With their previous carriers they could have smoked the airfields on the Falklands Islands using ship based Buccaneers with F-4 Phantoms providing CAP... those Phantoms could have attacked the airfields themselves if they wanted and gotten the job done.

    A proper carrier with proper AWACS platforms could have removed the island as a radar black spot and those brave Argentine fighters that flew in low and attacked those British ships near the islands using iron bombs would not have been able to make those attacks... AWACS would have spotted them in plenty of time and Phantoms could have intercepted them well away from their targets.

    Not every enemy is going to be the US and most of the time an armed vessel will be enough for the enemy to stand down and let you through, but having the right ship in the right place can make all the difference.

    When the Israelis attacked that US spy ship... the USS Liberty, it was armed with two 50 cal HMGs... they would not have attacked it if it had decent armament... and they stopped attacking it when they intercepted the radio call saying the nearby carrier group had received their mayday and Tomcats were inbound...



    Podlodka77
    Podlodka77


    Posts : 1624
    Points : 1628
    Join date : 2022-01-06
    Location : Z

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Podlodka77 Sun Sep 04, 2022 10:07 am

    I am dissatisfied with the the pace of construction of the Russian Navy. I am not a supporter of the construction of aircraft carriers and I will write that again. I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly.
    No ships and no submarines were delivered on time, with the exception of project 636.3 submarines. The construction of submarines of project 885M has slowed down again because "Novosibirsk" was launched after 6.5 years of construction, while "Arkhangelsk" has been under construction for 7.5 years and has not yet been launched.
    * SEVMASH; I think that this is not the problem of the Sevmash shipyard, but the problem is either weaker financing or unclear priorities (often the case with Russian military planners) during construction. Sevmash needs to complete the project 955A strategic submarines and to FULLY commit to the construction of attack multipurpose nuclear submarines to replace the project 971 and 945A Kondor submarines.
    * ZVEZDA; If we already see that Zvezda is working on the modernization of the Irkutsk and Chelyabinsk submarines, as well as the Nerpa submarine, then it is clear that nuclear-powered ships and submarines could also be built here. The catastrophic mistake is that many years ago the construction of nuclear submarines was entrusted only to Sevmash, because that way the shipyard was overloaded, and the Amur Shipyard and Krasnoye Sormovo were excluded.
    * BALTIC SHIPYARD; After the construction of the project 22220 nuclear icebreakers, it should be expected that this shipyard will FINALLY be dedicated to the construction of warships. It is clear that this shipyard has extensive experience in building nuclear powered ships; heavy nuclear missile cruisers of project 1144 and nuclear ice breakers.
    * SEVERNAYA WERF; I'm sick of even writing about this shipyard. Let's hope the pace of ship building improves and the gas turbines for the 22350 frigates are reliable. There is no reason for optimism because "Golovko" has not started sea trials yet. A new slipway is being built in this shipyard, where the keel for the first frigate of project 22350M should be laid.
    * YANTAR; Several years have passed since the keels were laid for the two transport ships of project 11711, and I am surprised that the construction of additional ships has not started in the meantime. It is possible that it will also come after the completion of the construction of the frigate for India.
    * ZALIV; Two large landing ships of project 23900.
    * ADMIRALITY ; primarily the construction of non-nuclear submarines..
    * AMUR; I expect a lot from this shipyard and I hope that the planned construction of frigates 22350 will be entrusted to this shipyard.
    * ZELENODOLSK; This shipyard will very likely start building enlarged rocket ships, larger than project 21631.
    * MORE ; small missile ships.

    zardof, owais.usmani and limb like this post

    lancelot
    lancelot


    Posts : 1554
    Points : 1556
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  lancelot Mon Sep 05, 2022 12:29 am

    Big_Gazza wrote:Strange that the article doesn't mention that the PLAN carrier Fuijan (Type 003) also has electromagnetic catapults.  Kinda pokes a hole in the claim that China wanted to buy the tech from Russia but was refused. I'd find it hard to belive that Russia already has a mature EM-based catapult, as without any candidate carrier on the horizon, why pre-invest and develop the tech now?

    Sounds like typical Russian "ultra-nationalist" analyst bollocks to me. The truth is Russia supplied China with the arrestor gear for Type 002. If the Chinese needed catapults, and Russia made them, I doubt they would not have been sold as well. China made their own EM catapults for Type 003. And who knows, they might be the first to perfect them, since even the US hasn't gotten the bugs out of EM cats yet as can be seen by the activity (or lack of) on the Ford carrier.

    I have little doubt Russia won't be able to do their own system since they have always had an edge in high power physics but this is just typical China bashing you sometimes see in Russian media.

    GunshipDemocracy and Kiko like this post

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5616
    Points : 5644
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:05 am

    LMFS wrote:

    in short he said :
    - Russia doesn't have need to build as big and expensive carrier groups - different tasks and money that can be spent on this purpose.

    - Carriers will be included in Russian Navy but possibly smaller and cheaper.

    Thanks for the full quote. I don't understand that he refers to cheaper carriers, he mentions other ocean going vessels as capable of doing the same functions.

    to me cheaper aviation carriers, whatever their looks will be. Just my speculation.



    LMFS wrote:
    Let's see whether  STOL/VSTOL fighter will materialize  in coming years?

    VMF better get the Su-57 into their carriers as soon, in as big numbers and with the smallest performance loss due to navalization as they can.


    Depending on carrier's size which is connected to cost of course. This info about STOL or VSTOL fighter for RN wasn't to me pulled out of thin air. And military must have requested a new naval fighter, unless Putin wakes up in the morning and then thinks what weapon to order...
    Especially that Su-75 was designed more less in the same time. Strikingly similar to Yak-201. What if can me modular a bit on F-35, yes without US ventilator but light small engines (on yak 14 their weight was 700kg) in the front it doesn't have to be bulky like a pregnant penguin. F-35.


    Yak-201
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Yak-201-image01


    and Su-75
    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Rbm3huvssdc71




    > Devaluates any surface fleet without the means to deal with such weapons
    Same to dealing with aricrafts



    LMFS wrote:
    The Americans need to have a deployed air group, because they are distant from us by the oceans and they somehow need to get to the main theaters of military operations.

    He should read the naval strategy. Russia claims global reach and global interests, therefore they need to reach equally distant potential theaters of military operations


    like Desert Storm? or Libya unlikely





    LMFS wrote:
    Of course, this type of marine technology cannot be abandoned, you need to constantly think about it, but this is an expensive undertaking.

    Expensive yes. In what measure, depends on what you references are. If you want to emulate the nonsensical USN approach, yes, it will be a bloody expensive and ultimately failed endeavor


    but here we do agree, that's why imho small number of smaller airraft carriers with Su-75 shall do the trick.




    It is possible to achieve the goals that we set for the navy by developing cheaper models, the same ships of the far sea zone, and get a similar effect. Therefore, the military must ultimately decide what they need in this regard. I, even when I was in the Ministry of Defense, never allowed myself to teach professionals what kind of weapons they should fight with.

    There you have the reference to ocean going vessels as substitutes for carriers. It is a totally flawed analysis, no matter that it comes from a guy as competent as Borisov. And certainly VMF specialists have made it clear, once and one million times, that they need and want carriers, period.[/quote]


    sure they might want to have whatever they want but need to focus not to live beyond their means. That's why Sthorm was shelved.

    LMFS likes this post

    GunshipDemocracy
    GunshipDemocracy


    Posts : 5616
    Points : 5644
    Join date : 2015-05-17
    Location : fishin on Stalin´s Strait between Mexico and Canada

    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  GunshipDemocracy Mon Sep 05, 2022 4:08 am

    Podlodka77 wrote:I am dissatisfied with the the pace of construction of the Russian Navy. I am not a supporter of the construction of aircraft carriers and I will write that again. I'm afraid that many things have to change in order for the construction of surface warships of significantly smaller displacement (frigates and destroyers) to be effective. Russian military shipbuilding is not efficient, it should be written clearly. .

    There's no magical independence of warship building industry (all thousands of subcontractors) and state of economic development + efficiency of fantail flow. Those mentioned above were just resurected after 25years gap...

    GarryB likes this post


    Sponsored content


    Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2 - Page 37 Empty Re: Future Russian Aircraft Carriers and Deck Aviation. #2

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Dec 02, 2022 10:19 am